Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Graphic Truth: Federal employment already dropping
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to proceed with widespread cuts to the federal workforce, pending a full trial, overruling a San Francisco judge’s order in May that temporarily blocked layoffs at 22 agencies. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, thousands of government employees had been preparing for mass layoffs, with many notified of their pending terminations but awaiting official confirmation.
Here’s a look at the changing size of the federal workforce, which includes the US military, since Trump first took power in 2017.
Elon Musk in an America Party hat.
Elon Musk is about to discover that politics is harder than rocket science
“Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom,” he announced a day after President Donald Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the deficit-busting tax-and-spend package that Musk had blasted as a “disgusting abomination.” The megabill that broke the bromance will add an estimated $3-4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade thanks to large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, increased spending (especially for defense and homeland security), and higher debt interest payments, making what’s already an unsustainable fiscal situation much worse. If some of the law’s now-temporary provisions are eventually made permanent, as this bill did for the 2017 “temporary” tax cuts, the total cost could be as much as $6 trillion. “When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,” Elon wrote on X.
What exactly does the America Party stand for? Details are scarce, but Musk says his goal is to disrupt the uniparty’s hold over American politics and reduce federal deficits (oh, and uncover the real Jeffrey Epstein story) – for real this time. Elon went all-in on support for Trump in 2024, who in return installed him to lead the Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts to slash government spending. Himself a disruptor of the uniparty, President Trump has broken with bipartisan consensus on immigration and foreign policy, tightening border enforcement and actually trying to end foreign wars (even if not very effectively). But Trump has governed like a card-carrying uniparty member when it comes to expanding the size and cost of government.
This grievance is the core driver behind Musk’s creation of the America Party. He was right to ask ‘what the heck was the point of DOGE’ once the OBBBA’s debt blowout was codified – although in fairness to Trump, DOGE did deliver less than $175 billion in “savings,” a rounding error in the overall federal budget and far short of the $2 trillion in “waste, fraud, and abuse” Musk had promised to cut initially. Even before the ink dried, the bill was polling deep underwater with the American people. But most voters hate the OBBBA not because it increases the deficit and debt, but despite it. By revealed preference, voters support politicians who spend on them and punish those who threaten their benefits or raise their taxes. It’s no wonder that the biggest wealth transfer from the working class to the top 1% in modern US history, which kicks more than 10 million Americans off Medicaid to make the rich richer, is so deeply unpopular. But fiscal discipline? That has had no real constituency in our spend-happy nation – and, accordingly, no home in either major party – for a very long time.
The America Party faces a product-market-fit problem that everyone but Elon seems to recognize. Most voters claim to be deficit hawks in the abstract – it sounds so serious and responsible! – but few support the broad-based tax increases and spending cuts on everything from entitlements and healthcare to defense, education, and border security that balancing the budget entails in real life.
If Elon wanted to create a party that represents the interests of “the 80%” of Americans “in the middle” and not just a fringe of too-online libertarians, its platform would have to consist of higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, cheaper healthcare, childcare, energy, and housing, congressional term limits and lobbying reform, common-sense gun regulations, comprehensive immigration reform, and other such policies supported by bipartisan majorities. Some positions may be accommodated by one or the other major party, whether now or in the future. It’s even possible that there may exist a majority for an economically populist, socially moderate third party today. But there’s definitely no popular appetite for the kind of America Party that Elon has in mind.
So, does that mean that Elon is going to fail? Not necessarily ... but probably.
On the one hand, unlimited funds plus razor‑thin congressional majorities equal mischief potential. We’re talking about the wealthiest dude in the world perhaps being willing to throw a blank checkbook at America’s coin-operated political system. Musk poured nearly $300 million into GOP campaigns in 2024 and happily spent over $20 million on a single Wisconsin Supreme Court race earlier this year. And while he’s highly unlikely to be able to get America Party candidates elected to Congress, he may not need to. Musk could plausibly influence primaries, spoil close races, and force Republicans to tack (slightly) toward fiscal discipline. His stated goal of controlling “2 or 3 Senate seats and 8-10 House districts” by 2026 sounds modest until you remember that four Senate races and 11 House contests were decided by under two points in 2024. In a 50‑50 nation, margins that slim turn even a 2% spoiler vote into real leverage. And if he’s willing to burn, say, $250 million coaxing ten safe‑seat incumbent Republicans to switch jerseys, he could build himself a small blocking coalition in the House with veto power over key legislation before voters ever see the America Party on a ballot.
On the other hand, not even Musk’s eyewatering fortune is likely to be able to override the laws of political physics that have humbled every third‑party crusader before him. America’s deep-rooted two-party presidential system is designed to strangle third parties in their crib: first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections herd voters into two big tents, and state ballot-access and federal campaign-finance laws pose formidable entry barriers even for someone with Musk’s resources. Worse still, there are fewer true independent voters than polls suggest: most Americans who dislike both major parties (and there are many of us) tend to hold their noses and often vote for one of them, fearing “wasting” their ballot. The few voters out there who actually affiliate with neither party and are open to voting for a third party don’t agree on much with one another – certainly not on an uncompromising commitment to austerity. Musk may soon discover that building a successful third-party bid in America, especially one centered around Making Fiscal Responsibility Great Again, is not rocket science … it’s harder.
Then there’s Elon himself – a wellspring of liabilities matched only by the depth of his pockets. There’s no denying that he’s a generationally talented entrepreneur and an incredibly hard worker, but the mercurial billionaire’s popularity trails even Trump’s, his attention span is legendarily short for ventures that aren’t core to making him money, and he has a history of not following through on his most outlandish and overconfident promises. Leading a political party will cost him a fortune, distract from his business activities and humanity-saving mission, end in failure and frustration, and otherwise make his life more difficult than it needs to be.
This is especially true if President Trump reacts as viciously against Musk’s betrayal as I expect him to. Should he decide that Musk’s America Party threatens not just MAGA’s political agenda but his personal spotlight, there’s no telling how far he’ll be willing to go to punish him – and to what extent he will be constrained by the rule of law in doing so. Based solely on what Trump has gotten away with doing to other people who have harmed him far less grievously, Musk’s federal contracts, tax subsidies, even his security clearance and US citizenship could be on the chopping block. That risk alone may deter Elon from sticking with this effort for very long, and would-be recruits (many already skeptical about Elon’s long-term commitment to the bit) from joining it.
Musk may yet scare a few vulnerable incumbents or win over the handful of principled libertarians like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), but the structural logic of US politics still points to a binary choice in 2026 and 2028. If the history of US third parties is any guide, his latest moonshot will flame out faster than a Tesla battery. Even in the strongest-case scenario, the America Party is likely to end up looking more like a successful pressure group – something closer to the Tea Party, the Club for Growth, or the Sierra Club – than an electable third party.
Of course, the man who builds reusable rockets and is landing them on barges in the middle of the ocean thrives on low-probability bets. So keep an eye on the launchpad and enjoy the show. After all, even if the party fizzles, Musk is always sure to deliver the one thing Americans consistently reward: entertainment value.
Graphic Truth: The BRICS+ in a "G-Zero" world
The BRICS, a loose grouping of ten “emerging market” economies led by Brazil, Russia, India and China, held their 17th annual summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, this weekend. While the official readout from the summit emphasized their commitment to multilateralism, the guestlist begged to differ. Five of the 10 leaders were no-shows, including Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
While the group’s declaration took aim at tariffs increases and recent attacks against Iran, it stopped short of mentioning the US or naming President Donald Trump directly. For more, here’s GZERO writer Willis Sparks’ explainer on why the BRICS are a bad bet.U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson walks back to office, as Republican lawmakers struggle to pass U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 3, 2025.
What We're Watching: House folds on Trump bill, Beijing lashes out at US-Vietnam deal, Nigerian opposition unites
House holdouts bluff then fold on Trump’s budget bill
The US House is set to pass President Donald Trump’s epic tax-and-spending bill any minute now. Some eleventh hour House Republicans holdouts had signaled that they would oppose the broadly unpopular bill because it boosts the national debt by trillions while threatening to leave millions without health insurance, but they quickly fell in line after under direct pressure from Trump. The imminent final passage of the bill will fulfil Trump’s wish to have the landmark legislation on his desk by the Fourth of July holiday.
US-Vietnam trade deal angers Beijing
The US and Vietnam struck a preliminary trade deal to lower their bilateral tariffs yesterday, and China is not happy about it. Why? Because as part of the deal the US will heavily tariff any goods that pass through Vietnam from another country en-route to the US. That’s a direct swipe at Beijing, which does this frequently to skirt high US tariffs. China’s commerce ministry said it “firmly opposes any party striking a deal at the expense of Chinese interests” and threatened “countermeasures.”
Nigeria sees huge political shakeup as opposition leaders join forces
In one of the biggest shake ups since the end of military rule in 1999, Nigeria’s two main opposition leaders – Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi – have joined forces to try to oust President Bola Tinubu in the 2027 election. In the 2023 election, they won a combined 54% of the vote compared to Tinubu’s 37%, meaning a common front could win. The big question: Which of these two political heavyweights will agree to play second fiddle to the other when it comes time to pick a presidential candidate?U.S. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) speaks to reporters between votes at the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, U.S., January 23, 2024.
What We’re Watching: Senate vote on Trump’s big bill, Thai PM in hot water, Japan's name-change game
Trump’s tax-and-spending bill faces razor-thin Senate vote
The US Senate will vote today on President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill”. The legislation would make many of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent and would boost spending on the military and immigration enforcement, but its proposed cuts could also leave nearly 12 million people without health insurance by 2034. That, and a projected $3.3 trillion national debt increase over the next decade, has stoked opposition even within the Republican party. GOP Senators Rand Paul and Thom Tillis – who announced he won’t seek reelection – are already opposed, meaning Trump can afford only two more defections. Expect today to be a marathon of votes and revisions to the legislation.
Thailand’s PM in hot water over cross-border phone call
Thousands of protestors gathered in Bangkok yesterday, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra over a leaked phone call in which she was heard obsequiously flattering Cambodia’s still-influential former leader Hun Sen. The call played poorly in the light of a recent border spat between the two countries. Paetongtarn defended the call as a negotiation tactic, but the streets say she’s compromising Thailand’s sovereignty. Thailand’s Constitutional Court will rule this week on a petition calling for her removal.
Japan’s name change game
A campaign is afoot in Japan to relax a law that effectively requires women to take their husband’s last names. Proponents of the change, which is supported by most Japanese, say it will increase gender equality, boost Japan’s alarmingly low birthrate, and avoid a situation in which, over time, everyone ends up with the most common last name: “Sato.” But the governing LDP’s hard-right wing is opposed, and with an upper house election in July, the party wants no trouble. For now, “Satos all the way down” looks like Japan’s destiny after all.
President Trump has launched a revolution. Will it succeed?
President Donald Trump calls himself a revolutionary—and I actually agree with him. His second term has ushered in sweeping attempts to expand executive power and defang oversight institutions. Congress has rolled over. The DOJ? Under pressure. The only remaining institutional check appears to be the courts—especially the lower ones. So far, federal judges across the country, including some Trump appointees, have pushed back on illegal overreach. As has the Supreme Court on some high profile immigration and trade cases. But what happens when Trump gets tired of losing in court?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Shipping containers from China are seen at the Port of Los Angeles, in San Pedro, California, U.S., May 1, 2025.
Trump says he might back off on China tariffs – but Beijing holds firm
With US-China trade grinding to a halt, President Donald Trump told ABC News on Sunday that he would lower the 145% tariff imposed on China “at some point,” explaining that “otherwise you could never do business with them.” Beijing has expressed willingness to start talks if Washington is “prepared to … cancel its unilateral tariffs.” So China is playing a game of chicken, and Trump hasn’t quite swerved out of the way.
“There’s no clarity around what Trump wants from China,” says Eurasia Group’s Lauren Gloudeman. “It’s been a huge source of frustration for the Chinese side because since November they have been seeking to get that question answered.”
Beijing isn’t playing ball like Canada or Mexico, which made superficial concessions to Trump to postpone tariffs. China retaliated with 125% tariffs of its own and then moved to protect vulnerable parts of its economy by quietly issuing a series of exemptions on important US imports like aircraft engines, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals.
“China’s leadership cannot be seen as being coerced into giving in to Trump’s tactics,” says Gloudeman, explaining that Beijing is already facing the worst-case scenario for bilateral trade. “It’s quite insulting and humiliating, and the broader strategy for China is counting on Trump to back down first.”
U.S. President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shake hands as they attend a joint press conference at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 13, 2025.
A winner from Trump tariff wars? Maybe India
Modi has been around long enough to have navigated trade frictions during Trump’s first term, and he was one of the first world leaders to approach Trump earlier this year with a conciliatory approach to growing trade tensions. Now, according to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the first phase of a new US-India trade deal might be “one of the first trade deals we would sign." Following a visit to Washington last week, Rajesh Agrawal, India’s lead trade negotiator, highlighted hopes for a “mutually beneficial, multi-sector bilateral trade agreement by fall of 2025, including through opportunities for early mutual wins.” Creating more market openings for US exports will come at a cost in a country long known for trade protectionism, but Modi has also made moves in recent years to open trade talks with the EU, the UK, and others.
This also follows news that, to avoid the Trump administration’s surging tariff rates on China, Apple has unveiled plans to move production of most of the 60 million iPhones it sells in the US each year from China to India by the end of 2026 – though the transition may take longer.