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 }}
French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou speaks during a news conference to present a major public finance recovery plan in Paris, France, July 15, 2025.
Hard Numbers: French prime minister on the ropes, Hong Kong dissidents appeal convictions, Lesotho MP accuses his king, & More
€40 billion: French Prime Minister François Bayrou is set to present a 2026 budget Tuesday that aims to cut the size of the country’s 2026 annual deficit by €40 billion ($46.7 billion). However, all opposition parties are expected to reject the proposal – and that could spell the end for Bayrou’s minority government.
12: Hong Kong’s pro-democracy dissidents aren’t going to go gentle into that good night. Twelve of them have appealed their recent subversion convictions in a move that shines a fresh light on Beijing’s anti-democracy crackdown in the city. The case, which challenges China’s draconian 2021 national security law, is drawing international attention: foreign diplomats from over six countries were present at the trial. The appeals are expected to take 10 days.
59: Lesotho won independence from the United Kingdom 59 years ago, but one member of the tiny southern African nation’s parliament has accused its king of signing parts of the country away again – to its neighbor South Africa. The accusation stems from a decades-old border dispute, but the MP who leveled the charge now faces criminal charges for doing so. Lesotho gained notoriety in March when US President Donald Trump said “nobody has ever heard of” the country.
6: Six members of United Torah Judaism – an ultra-Orthodox political party – have quit Israel’s ruling coalition again over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to guarantee military exemptions for yeshiva students. While Netanyahu has survived this once before, their departure leaves him with yet another slim majority in parliament.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.
Was it legal for Trump to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles?
In this clip from a larger interview for the latest episode of GZERO World, New York Times Magazine staff writer and Yale Law School fellow Emily Bazelon sits down with Ian Bremmer to unpack President Trump’s unprecedented decision to send National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles without the governor’s consent. She argues the administration may have intentionally provoked the unrest through targeted immigration raids in the Latino neighborhoods of a densely populated city.
As California Governor Gavin Newsom sues the federal government, Bazelon makes clear that legal recourse may be limited. Even if Newsom wins, she says, Trump could comply with consultation requirements after the fact and proceed as planned. “The judges cannot save the country from an authoritarian president... by themselves,” Bazelon warns.
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 (🔔).
A tank on display at a park in Washington, D.C., on June 12, 2025, two days ahead of a military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday.
What We’re Watching: Trump’s parade prompts protests, Kenya protests turn deadly, Mongolia picks new leader
Trump’s military parade sparks backlash
The official reason for this weekend’s military parade in Washington DC is to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the US Army – but the occasion also just happens to fall on President Donald Trump’s 79th birthday. That coincidence has raised alarm among Trump critics worried about his perceived authoritarian inklings. Hundreds of “No Kings” protests are planned across the country for the same day. Meanwhile, the courts are still trying to decide whether Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles was legal. The decision will set an important precedent for Trump’s handling of protests going forward.
Protests erupts in Kenya after blogger dies in custody
Protests erupted in Nairobi, Kenya, this week over the death of a 31-year-old political blogger in police custody. Albert Ojwang was arrested last week on charges of criticizing the country’s deputy police chief. While police originally claimed that his death was caused by self-inflicted injuries – authorities said he hit “his head against a cell wall” – doctors later determined that it was more likely the result of an assault. Ojwang’s death has only added to the population’s long-held anger at Kenya’s security services.
Mongolia gets a new prime minister
After protests toppled his predecessor ten days ago, Zandanshatar Gombojav became Mongolia’s new prime minister on Thursday in a near-unanimous parliamentary vote. The former head of Mongolia’s largest bank takes power amid political unrest over the belief that the country's rich mineral wealth has only lined the pockets of the elite. He says his first priority is to increase taxes on luxury consumption, but also to decrease government spending. Let’s see if he can get the protesters onside.8 thoughts on Trump’s Los Angeles crackdown
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump activated 2,000 members of the California National Guard to quell protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s deportation efforts in Los Angeles, after small but highly visible demonstrations had popped up across the city in the days prior – with some instances of violence, opportunistic looting, and property damage. California Governor Gavin Newsom disputed that federal intervention was necessary and condemned Trump’s deployment decision as illegal and inflammatory, blaming it for stoking the protests.
Though the protests had largely petered out by then, on Tuesday the president dispatched an additional 2,000-plus National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to the area. Downtown LA had a quiet night on the back of a curfew, but anti-ICE (and, more broadly, anti-Trump) demonstrations have started to spread to other major cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, and Atlanta, with more planned in Las Vegas, Minneapolis, San Antonio, and Seattle. Texas Governor Greg Abbot has already called in the National Guard ahead of any potential unrest in his state.
Here are my eight key takeaways:
- Trump’s decision to send federal troops into Los Angeles was extreme. It marked the first time in 60 years that the National Guard had been deployed to a US state without the consent of its governor. The last such instance was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama Guard in defiance of Governor George Wallace, one of the nation’s leading segregationists, to protect civil rights demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr. from violence. Needless to say, federal supremacy over states’ rights is being asserted in a very different context, by a very different president, and in service of a very different goal today.
- It’s legal – for now. Trump’s deployment pushes the envelope politically, but as long as the troops limit their role to protecting federal personnel and facilities while refraining from taking law-enforcement actions (as they reportedly have thus far), it will stay within the bounds of presidential authority. That’s a key legal distinction, as the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act bars active-duty forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless the president invokes the 1807 Insurrection Act. That’s a step Trump hasn’t taken (yet at least), suggesting that he still sees as high a bar for it as he did during the George Floyd protests in 2020.
- The door is open to a more radical use of emergency powers. The counterpoint is that Trump referred to the LA protesters as a “violent insurrectionist mob” (he does know a little something about those) and on Tuesday refused to take the invocation of the Insurrection Act off the table. He also warned that any protesters at this weekend’s military parade in Washington, DC – peaceful or not – “will be met with very big force,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hinted at a desire to use military forces on domestic soil more extensively going forward. This pattern suggests that Trump’s threshold for activating emergency powers or using troops against Americans is lower than last time around, when he was repeatedly talked out of extreme steps by institutionalist advisors. I wouldn’t be shocked if the administration invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (aka IEEPA, the same law it used to levy reciprocal tariffs on Liberation Day) to freeze the assets of individual American citizens and organizations it accused of aiding and abetting “foreign invaders” (aka undocumented aliens). Or if it used the Communications Act to pressure internet platforms into throttling protest-related content. These scenarios may sound far-fetched, but so did the unilateral deployment of the National Guard and Marine Corps to Los Angeles less than 200 days into the first year of the Trump presidency. In his second term, Trump has proven willing to push the legal and political limits of executive power, against precedent and despite long odds of success.
- Trump’s LA deployment was designed to score political points, not restore peace. The City of Los Angeles was unaffected by the protests, which were confined to a handful of downtown city blocks. The Los Angeles Police Department had things under control (at least until Trump escalated the situation), and local officials saw no reason to request federal help. In fact, they warned that adding federal troops to the mix would risk heightening tensions and endanger public safety. But Trump wasn’t trying to solve a security problem – he was playing politics.
- Trump is eager to pick public fights over immigration. This is the one issue area where the president has had consistently positive approval ratings, save for a brief dip underwater caused by the administration’s mishandling of the Abrego Garcia case. For Trump, the political upside of doubling down on the migrant crackdown is twofold. First, it shifts attention toward his biggest strength and away from headlines that are more problematic for the administration, such as his failure to secure trade deals, his inability to end the Russia-Ukraine war, and his messy breakup with Elon Musk. Second, it forces Democrats into defending politically unsympathetic targets and positions, much like they did with Abrego Garcia (before the White House overplayed its hand) and Harvard University.
- The optics of the LA protests play straight into Trump’s hands. Images of burning Waymos and protestors flying Mexican flags lend credence to the White House’s false claim that undocumented immigrants are dangerous foreign invaders and their defenders are radical anti-American traitors, allowing the president to discredit opponents of mass deportations as threats to public order and safety. That only a small number of troublemakers were illegal aliens doesn’t matter; Trump is betting (correctly, in my view) those visuals will drive public opinion away from the demonstrators and toward more aggressive deportation policies.
- More deportations are coming. Trump has made measurable progress in curbing illegal border crossings, but so far, deportations have fallen far short of his campaign pledge (and even of deportations during Joe Biden’s last year in office). That’s not surprising; large-scale interior removals are much more politically, economically, and logistically fraught than border enforcement. But according to the Wall Street Journal, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller recently ordered ICE to step up its game, demanding that they stop targeting migrants with criminal records, asylum requests, and court petitions and instead “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens” at their jobs and schools. In other words, snag anyone who looks illegal, no probable cause (let alone warrant) needed. That approach was reportedly what sparked the LA protests last week. The backlash was instrumental to Miller’s goals: by signaling that Trump is making good on his deportation promise, standoffs with law enforcement can make deportations more popular and give Trump the political capital to ramp up more visible and disruptive workplace and neighborhood raids, particularly in Democratic-run cities. These operations will trigger more protests, which will in turn be met with more repression and stepped-up enforcement, and so on.
- On immigration, don’t bet on TACO. Trump faces fewer internal constraints in implementing his policy agenda on immigration than in any other area. Unless and until it starts dragging on his approval ratings, he is likely to double down: more aggressive raids, more confrontations with Democratic governors and mayors, more troop deployments to quell public protests. Mass deportations will disrupt local life in places like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Backlash to aggressive enforcement tactics, family separations, and mistaken detentions will be the primary source of domestic unrest in the coming months, but Trump won’t back down. This is a fight the White House is happy to fight.
Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles was less about taking control of the streets and more about taking control of the narrative. The strategy is confrontational by design, with immigrants and Democrats as foils and civil unrest as a feature, not a bug. This playbook may work politically. But in the long term, the result will be more conflict: between cities and Washington, between red and blue, between civilians and the military, and between competing visions of American identity. The most politically divided and dysfunctional industrialized nation will only become more so.
Members of the California National Guard stand in a line, blocking an entrance to the Federal Building, as demonstrators gather nearby, during protests against immigration sweeps, in Los Angeles, California, USA, on June 9, 2025.
Trump deploys Marines to LA as political battle escalates
Overnight, hundreds of US Marines began arriving in the city of Los Angeles, where protests, some of them violent, against the Trump Administration’s immigration enforcement have been ongoing since Saturday.
The move marked an escalation by the White House beyond its initial deployment of National Guard troops on Saturday, and it came just hours after California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom sued the Trump administration over that decision, calling it an “unprecedented usurpation of state authority,” and accusing the White House of provoking the protests.
Why are the Marines there? The troops are officially acting on orders to protect federal property rather than to restore order more widely, though US President Donald Trump has suggested they are there to suppress protesters he has labeled “insurrectionists.”
Legal scholars say this rhetoric suggests Trump may be leaving the door open to invoke the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the direct use of the military against US citizens to suppress rebellion.
“The Insurrection Act is still sitting there on the shelf and gives the president enormous power,” Yale Legal Expert Emily Bazelon told Ian Bremmer on the upcoming episode of GZERO World.
It allows the military to go beyond protecting federal property, to potentially breaking up and policing the protests themselves. In an eerie historical echo, the last time a president did this was in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush deployed Marines to quell racially charged riots in Los Angeles that were touched off by the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist.
Trump has already tested the legal bounds in LA. When he deployed the National Guard over the objections of Governor Newsom – the first time a president has defied a governor in this way since the 1960s, he invoked Title 10 of the US Code. That’s a law which permits the White House to “federalize” state-based National Guard units if necessary to “execute the laws of the United States,” – in this case immigration enforcement.
California’s lawsuit says that the White House overstepped its authority and that local law enforcement is capable of managing the protests alone.
In the White House vs California standoff there are risks for both sides. On the one hand, Trump has public approval for stricter immigration policy, with a slight majority of Americans, and a robust majority of Republicans, in favor of his policies, according to polls taken before the weekend upheaval.
And with polls showing that only a third of Americans support the LA protests, Trump, who has long styled himself as a “law and order” leader, may also relish the notion of Democrats associating themselves with images of unpopular chaos and disorder on American streets.
But the deployment of federal troops also poses risks – if they are seen harming US citizens there could be a public backlash against an administration that is seen to be overstepping its bounds.
For now, Trump seems keen to push the envelope. “It is 100% true that they’re enforcing immigration laws and that there are lots of people in the country illegally. However, if you were just playing the numbers game, you would go to a poultry factory in the middle of nowhere in the Midwest and pick up a lot of factory workers,” says Bazelon.
“When you choose to go into the heart of a city, onto the streets and publicly snatch people up, you’re kind of asking for a reaction.”
Protesters are blanketed in smoke along Alondra Boulevard during a standoff with law enforcement following multiple detentions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in the Los Angeles County city of Compton, California, U.S., June 7, 2025.
What We're Watching: Trump calls out National Guard, US-China trade talks, Russia-Ukraine violence escalates
Trump deploys National Guard to LA
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell protests against ICE immigration raids. Several hundred demonstrators, some carrying Mexican flags, clashed with police Friday and Saturday in the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Paramount, at times dispersed with batons and tear gas.
How can Trump bring in the National Guard? While VP JD Vance denounced the protestors as "Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags”, the White House did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, Trump used a similar statute to “federalize”, i.e. take control, of state national guard troops, who are expected to arrive in LA by Monday. California Governor Gavin Newsom has condemned the action as “purposefully inflammatory.”
US and China talk trade in London
US‑China trade talks opened in London today, following President Donald Trump’s phone call last Thursday with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The US will be represented by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, while China is sending Vice Premier He Lifeng.
The goal? Salvaging a 90‑day tariff truce struck in May, which lowered levies to 30% and 10% on US and Chinese exports, respectively. The sticking points? US export controls on semiconductors and AI chips, China’s rare‑earth export restrictions, and Washington’s recent revocation of Chinese student visas. The asks? Washington wants Beijing to open up rare-earth supply chains, while China seeks relief from tech sanctions.
Russia-Ukraine war escalates – again
Peace seems further away than ever as the three-year-old war between Russia and Ukraine heats up again. On Sunday the Kremlin announced that Russian forces had reached the Ukrainian region of Dnipropetrovsk. The central area is an important mining and industrial hub, and has not yet been a conflict zone; disruption to its supply chains could seriously impact Ukraine’s economy and military as a whole.
Trading blows. The advance follows Russia’s largest aerial bombardment of the war last Friday, killing at least six people and injuring dozens more, in retaliation to Kyiv’s assault earlier in the week on a fleet of strategic Russian warplanes. Over the weekend, Kyiv then attempted to strike Moscow with ten drones. The weapons were intercepted by Russian forces but caused a brief fire at a nearby chemical plant, raising the spectre of further ripostes.
People protest Ljubljana's Mayor Zoran Jankovic's support of Serbia's President Aleksandar Vucic near the Serbian embassy in Ljubljana, Slovenia, on March 5, 2025.
Time is running out for Serbia’s embattled president
After months of historic protests, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, is now up against something particularly formidable: the clock.
The context: Vučić, a right-wing populist friendly with Serbia’s traditional ally Moscow, has held power since 2012. Last year, the deadly collapse of a canopy at a renovated train station ignited anti-corruption protests that swelled into the country’s largest demonstrations in a generation.
Protesters want a probe and fresh elections. Vučić has dismissed several officials, including his PM, but refused to step down, blaming unnamed foreign governments for the unrest. On Sunday, he tapped a little-known medical professor, Djuro Macut, as PM.
Clock #1: Vučić’s governing SNS party has until April 18 to approve Macut or else face snap elections. SNS has the numbers in the legislature, but approving Macut, whose expertise is in endocrinology rather than governance, would inflame the streets even more. Rejecting him, however, would trigger elections that Vučić wishes to avoid.
Clock #2: Meanwhile, Vučić must also find a buyer for Russia’s stake in Serbia’s oil refinery to avoid crippling US sanctions on his country’s energy industry.
Why it matters: Serbia is a key player in the Balkans, an aspiring EU member, and a pal of Putin’s. The clock is ticking – if the bell rings, it could echo well beyond Belgrade.