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 }}
US House Speaker Mike Johnson talks with reporters in the US Capitol on May 8, 2025.
GOP retreats on Medicaid cuts
US House Speaker Mike Johnson is walking a tightrope on Medicaid — and wobbling.
After intense pushback from moderate Republicans, Johnson abandoned some of the GOP’s most aggressive proposals to cut federal funding for Medicaid, including a plan that would cap the federal government’s per capita grants to states for the program.
The background: A budget framework passed earlier this year commits Congress to slashing some $1.5 trillion in spending in order to fund the extension of President Donald Trump’s first term tax cuts without further ballooning the deficit.
Why the climbdown?The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 5.5 million Americans would lose coverage under the mooted cost cuts. More than 70 million Americans are currently enrolled in Medicaid, a program that is viewed positively by nearly 80% of the country, according to recent polls.
What’s the president’s position? Trump has said he will not touch entitlements, including social security and Medicaid, which further narrows the GOP’s realistic options.
The president has imposed a deadline of Memorial Day for a “big beautiful” budget bill. We’re watching to see how the Republicans close the gap, without turning off the tap.
The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
In the United States, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro argues that institutions once devoted to open inquiry are increasingly undermining that mission. “Universities have forgotten their basic responsibilities,” he says, citing unequal rule enforcement and what he calls an “illiberalism” that predates Trump but has intensified with political polarization. Shapiro supports the Trump administration’s aggressive scrutiny of elite universities but warns that some immigration-related free speech crackdowns risk overreach: “I'd prefer the administration go after clear immigration violations, not rely on vague designations like ‘harmful to foreign policy.’”
Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters warns that the Trump administration’s tactics may do more harm than good. “Rather than executing clean policies that defend free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” Peters points to a growing “chilling effect,” especially among international students, who are now being advised to self-censor for fear of legal consequences. Both guests agree that university culture has played a role in the current crisis, but they differ sharply on whether the government’s response is upholding or threatening the First Amendment.
In America’s culture wars, free speech is no longer just a right—it’s a weapon, and both sides are wielding it.
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Free speech in Trump's America with NYT journalist Jeremy Peters and conservative scholar Ilya Shapiro
Listen: Free speech has become one of the most contentious issues in American politics, but what does it actually mean today? On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute and New York Times free speech reporter Jeremy Peters. They discuss how free expression is being defined—and challenged—on university campuses and by the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to national immigration policy. “The dynamic of ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ is prevalent,” Shapiro warns, pointing to inconsistent enforcement of campus speech rules and a broader “illiberalism” taking hold in higher education.
The conversation turns to the Trump administration’s aggressive response to Israel/Gaza protests, including efforts to penalize non-citizen students for their political speech. Peters cautions that this approach may violate the very rights the administration claims to defend. “Rather than execute a clean policy to support free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” The potential legal battles ahead could determine how far the government can go in defining speech as a national security issue, especially for non-citizens.
Both guests acknowledge that antisemitism on campus has become a flashpoint, but differ on how it’s being addressed. Shapiro argues that while not all anti-Israel sentiment is antisemitic, many protesters are crossing that line: “It’s possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic, but it’s very rare in my experience.” Peters agrees the issue is complex and evolving, noting that universities “seem much more focused on preventing antisemitism than they were just a year ago.” Together, the guests raise urgent questions about the balance between expression, identity, and institutional responsibility in a sharply divided political landscape.
How did 'free speech' become a partisan weapon in America?
In the United States today, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Republicans have embraced free speech as a culture war rallying cry, using it to combat what they see as liberal censorship on college campuses and social media. Donald Trump even signed an executive order on his first day back in office aimed at curbing government interference in free speech. But Democrats argue that the same administration is now weaponizing federal power, targeting foreign students, threatening university funding, and punishing dissenting voices in ways that undermine the very freedoms it claims to defend.
Both parties claim to be protecting free speech, just not the same kind.
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Elise Stefanik speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 22, 2025.
New York governor race bursts into life
The New York governor’s election might be over a year away, but the Republican primary race is already heating up as one ambitious, ex-moderate, pro-Trump New Yorker faces another.
Split the difference. In today’s GOP, even the moderates in the party are staunchly behind President Donald Trump. Both Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), two top candidates weighing a New York governor run, were moderates when they were elected to the US House – former President Joe Biden even tacitly endorsed Lawler in 2023. The tables have since turned.
Speaking of the United Nations. Trump had picked Stefanik to be the US ambassador to the United Nations, a position that Nikki Haley had during the president’s first term. The Adirondacks congresswoman had even begun her farewell tour, but the president pulled her nomination amid concerns about losing seats in special House elections. Trump has now plucked National Security Adviser Michael Waltz to hold the role.
Who’s out in front? Stefanik, the House Republican Conference chair, leads Lawler by a country mile in the primary, 44%-7%, per an internal poll from the GOP-aligned firm GrayHouse. Still, it is early, and 44% of those surveyed were undecided. Stefanik, who has served in the House for over a decade, has built a far greater following than the Hudson Valley congressman, who is only starting his third year in office, so it’s no surprise that she has a cavernous head start.
A win-win. Stefanik may be taking a risk by relinquishing her leadership position in the House to run statewide in a liberal-leaning state, but her predecessor showed that she can taste some victory even in defeat. Lee Zeldin, the GOP governor nominee in 2022, lost the race by just six points, and his performance was credited with helping to lift candidates down the ballot. Now, Zeldin is a member of Trump’s Cabinet, leading the Environmental Protection Agency.
Dems seek Hochul’s head. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’sapproval ratings have been in the dumps, which could create a genuine opening for Stefanik to win. Hochul’s first challenge, though, will be getting past the primary: She will likely face challenges from Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado and Rep. Ritchie Torres.
Mark your calendars. Both primaries are likely going to be scheduled for June 23, 2026.
Finding America's most spineless
Who do all these abandoned spines belong to? You tell us... #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning PUPPET REGIME series!
President Donald Trump holds a "Foreign Trade Barriers" document as he delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025.
Trump’s tariffs spark market chaos, risk political backlash
Donald Trump’s much-anticipated “liberation day” tariff announcement on Wednesday is the biggest disruption to global trade in decades, so the political, diplomatic, and economic impacts will take time to become clear.
In a dramatic unveiling in the Rose Garden, Trump set in place tariffs of at least 10% on most US trading partners, which set off a global sell-off of stocks, a rebellion from some Republicans, and angry rebukes from shocked trading partners.
It is hard to game out what will happen next because it has been so long since a shock on this scale hit the global tradition system. “We’re literally going back 100 years for historical precedents, and I’m not sure that there is an economic precedent of a policy-driven change of this magnitude in this direction,” says Eurasia Group senior analyst Graeme Thompson.
Trump’s new policy will make it more expensive for Americans to buy products from most countries, which investors fear will lead to a dramatic global economic slowdown and drive up inflation. Trump’s stated goal for the new policy is to stop foreign countries from taking advantage of the United States and boost American manufacturing, but observers and analysts are almost universally united in skepticism around the “golden age” that he promises they will bring.
Because the results are hitting investors and will soon hit the pocketbooks of consumers, there will be growing pressure on Republicans in the House and Senate to force Trump to change course. Until now, Trump’s popularity with his electoral base has kept them in line, but this new policy may put that under strain. Four senators voted with the Democrats in a (likely only symbolic) vote against Canadian tariffs late Wednesday, an acknowledgment that Republicans could face political blowback in the midterms for these widespread duties.
The political reaction is taking place before other countries have even put in place retaliatory measures, which can be expected to damage American exports. The greatest downside is unpredictability.
“I think what is hitting investors globally at this point is that uncertainty,” says Thompson.
“If you just came in and said, very clearly, ‘This is what’s happening, end of story,’ I think a lot of companies wouldn’t be happy, but they could work with it, but that’s not the story that we’ve got right now.”
It’s hard to see anything positive in the reactions from markets in the short term, and the political and diplomatic reaction in the United States and abroad is likely to test the strength of Trump’s support.
National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the then-nominee for US ambassador to the UN, during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025.
Chain reaction: Why Trump pulled Stefanik’s UN nomination
Rep. Elise Stefanik’s (R-NY) hopes of moving to the Big Apple have been dashed after US President Donald Trump asked her to withdraw her candidacy for ambassador to the United Nations.
“As we advance our America First Agenda, it is essential that we maintain EVERY Republican Seat in Congress,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday, admitting the political nature of his decision. When asked about her withdrawal, Stefanik told Fox News, “I have been proud to be a team player.”
Margin call: With four vacancies in the House, Republicans only have a 218-213 majority in the lower chamber, meaning they can only afford to lose three votes anytime they want to pass legislation. Trump fears that, if Stefanik moved to the UN, Republicans could lose the special election to fill her seat.
Bad signal: It’s not Stefanik’s seat that Trump is worried about right now, but rather Florida’s 6th Congressional District, formerly represented by none other than National Security Adviser and Signal-chat-scandal creatorMichael Waltz. There’s a special election there on Tuesday, and the president’s team is concerned that the well-funded Democratic candidate, Josh Weil, could defeat the underfunded Republican candidate, Randy Fine, even though Trump won the Daytona Beach district by 30 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election.
Eye on the poll: An internal Republican poll from March has Weil leading Fine 44% to 41%, according to a source familiar with the race, with 10% undecided. The poll was conducted by Fabrizio Ward, the same firm that worked for Trump’s campaign, and isn’t yet public. The February iteration of this poll found Weil trailing Fine by 12 points.