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 }}
Trump's VP pick: The short list
Jon Lieber, Eurasia Group's head of research and managing director for the firm's coverage of United States political and policy developments, shares his perspective on US politics from Washington, DC.
What we're watching in US Politics this month. Who Trump picks as his VP.
The big story in US politics this month is going to be the debates which are going to be one of the key moments of the campaign, given the enormous downside risk they present for President Biden due to his age. But the other big event of the summer, other than the conventions, is going to be who Trump picks for his vice presidential candidate. And there's been a number of names floated by the campaign, some more conventional than others. And they each have their own set of strengths.
Some of the more surprising names would be JD Vance, who Trump's family is allegedly pushing for him to pick. Vance is a senator from Ohio and one of the leading lights in the populous Republican movement. Never mind his Yale and venture capital background, he is somebody that claims he's out there fighting for the working class, which could help Trump.
Tim Scott, an African-American senator from South Carolina would help bring diversity to the ticket. Perhaps match up well against Kamala Harris in the debates, and is a pretty telegenic defender of Trump who has been outspoken in his praise for the former president since he was defeated in the primary.
Another potential candidate is Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota, a smaller state. But he's a rich man, a successful business guy who's been a very effective Trump surrogate. And he's emerged as a potential pick in the last few months.
You also have a handful of other senators, like Marco Rubio from Florida, who would put a Hispanic on the ticket, or Tom Cotton, who's been a harsh Trump critic in the past, but would bring a lot of national security credibility to President Trump. There's a couple of House members that are on the short list, unclear if they have the experience or TV presence to be what Trump is looking for.
Typically candidates will choose a vice president based on some political liability that they think they have, whether it's the balance of the ticket in terms of age or gender or racial identity or maybe it's a regional thing. Mike Pence was chosen because he was strong with evangelical voters and Trump was not. It isn't exactly clear what Trump's going for with his VP pick. Probably it's somebody who he thinks is loyal to him, somebody that can defend him well on TV, and probably someone that's not going to show him up too much as an actual vice president. Really any one of the names on this list could achieve those goals, now but what they probably won't do is give Trump a big boost in this campaign, which is going to be about the two headliners, Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Lessons from the COVID lab-leak fiasco
The US Department of Energy made unlikely headlines over the weekend when The Wall Street Journal reported that new evidence had led the agency to conclude with “low confidence” that the COVID-19 virus probably escaped from a Chinese lab. The DOE’s findings match up with the FBI’s, which point to an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology with “moderate confidence.”
This follows investigations by four other agencies plus the National Intelligence Council that concluded with low confidence that the virus spread naturally from animals to humans, possibly in a wet market in Wuhan. Other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, remain undecided, much like DOE was until recently.
The bottom line is we still don’t know how the pandemic got started. Both origin stories – natural transmission and laboratory leak – are scientifically plausible. The DOE’s report should lead us to update our beliefs slightly toward the lab-leak theory, but the score in the intelligence community is still 5-2 in favor of zoonotic transfer, and all but the FBI’s conclusions were reached with low confidence.
One thing we do know – and all agencies agree on this – is that the virus was not deliberately engineered and released by China as a bioweapon. We also know that Beijing systematically lied to the international community, the World Health Organization, and its own citizens about the virus, making the outbreak worse than it had to be. (Yes, those two thoughts are compatible: The Chinese government’s sketchiness can be easily explained by many reasons other than bioterror.)
But we will likely never get to the bottom of COVID’s true origins, precisely because China refuses to allow a proper investigation.
So … what more is there to say about this?
Well, I think there is an important lesson here about the politicization of science in the United States. Coming out as a believer in the lab-leak hypothesis would have gotten you banned from social media just two years ago. Today, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies consider it reasonable if not likely. What gives?
Uncertainty reigned supreme in the early days of the pandemic. Nobody knew how deadly the disease was, how easily it could spread, who was vulnerable to it, or how to protect themselves from it. Back then, the dominant narrative about the virus’s origins was that it had jumped from a bat to a human at Wuhan’s live-animal market.
But in February 2020, Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton went on Fox News and raised the possibility that coronavirus may not have emerged naturally while accusing Beijing of a lack of transparency.
“We don’t know where it originated, but we do know we have to get to the bottom of that,” the senator said. “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level-4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases. We don’t have evidence that this disease originated there,” he clarified, “but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says, and China right now is not giving evidence on that question at all.”
Cotton’s message found a receptive audience in right-wing conspiracy theorists. Almost immediately, what had started as a perfectly legitimate question got spun into an unfounded story that the virus was a bioweapon deliberately engineered by the Chinese Communist Party for nefarious purposes. Some even went so far as to claim Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the face of the U.S. pandemic response, funded China’s biowarfare program.
Mind you, Cotton himself never said he thought COVID was an act of biological warfare. In fact, he called that possibility “very unlikely.” All he said was it was an open scientific question that called for further investigation, requiring access to evidence Beijing was refusing to provide.
And he was 100% right. COVID’s origins were (and still are) very much an open scientific question. And this question was especially hard to answer given the Chinese government’s (ongoing) obstruction.
But, inured to former President Donald Trump’s racist antics and the American right’s penchant for amplifying misinformation, Twitter scientists, pundits, and journalists in the mainstream media rushed to shout Cotton down, lumping his views in with those of the cranks.
They called any suggestion that the virus did not emerge naturally a “debunked conspiracy theory” motivated by an anti-China and anti-science agenda, even though the lab-leak hypothesis was neither a conspiracy theory nor had it been debunked. They dismissed the message not because it was wrong but because they disagreed with the messenger’s worldview and disliked some of his political bedfellows.
As it turned out, the fact that Cotton’s doubts may have been colored by his anti-China bias, or that others took his hypothesis too far, was irrelevant to the question at hand. And the media’s uber-confident proclamation of a fake consensus when the science was nowhere near settled did real harm, delegitimizing public health authorities and further eroding trust in science.
Why did otherwise smart, judicious, and well-intentioned journalists and scientists react so virulently – and, indeed, unscientifically – to the lab-leak hypothesis? Two words: politics brain.
The political environment was exceptionally charged back then. Partisan polarization had divided Americans into tribes bitterly pitted against each other. Citizens were constantly bombarded with conflicting information, and whether something was accepted as true or false depended as much or more on who it came from than whether it was actually true.
So when a vocal China hawk representing a political party hostile to science and comfortable with conspiracy theories raised questions about the prevailing narrative, the natural instinct of many in mainstream media was to push back. Because many of those who publicly raised questions about the virus’s origins were bad actors, the act of raising questions itself became an act of bad faith. That’s what politics brain does to us: It clouds our judgment and supercharges cognitive biases like groupthink, mood affiliation, and motivated reasoning.
There’s another lesson here. Yes, parts of the media and the scientific community were biased. Bias is human. Bias is inevitable. I can live with bias. But the bigger problem was the misplaced confidence.
One thing that annoyed me about Dr. Fauci – who I’ve gotten to know a bit and consider a dedicated public servant – was how certain he came off in some of his early communications on questions that he obviously wasn’t certain about. Now, people don’t like uncertainty, and science is hard. Sometimes it needs to be simplified for the public to understand. Fauci didn’t want to cede any ground that the anti-science crowd could exploit to sow doubt. I get that.
But all that false certainty ends up doing is delegitimizing science at a time when trust in objective truth and institutions of knowledge is at historic lows. It’s genuinely better to treat people with respect, explain the nuances, say “I don’t know” when you don’t know, and hope they’ll get it. That goes for the pandemic’s origins, vaccine effectiveness, long COVID, climate change, and many other areas of scientific inquiry.
When it comes to science, just … follow the science.
________________________________
🔔 Be sure to subscribe to GZERO Daily to get the world's best global politics newsletter every day on top of my weekly email. Did I mention it's free?
Will the Senate vote to convict Trump?
Watch Jon Lieber, who leads Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, lend perspective to this week's historic impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment. President Trump became the first president ever to be impeached twice this week. And the question on everybody's mind is will he be convicted in the Senate? And I think the answer right now is we just don't know. I'd probably bet against it. There was a really strong Republican vote against impeaching him in the House, with only 10 of the over 100 Republicans breaking with the President and voting to impeach him. And the question now is in the Senate, is there more support for a conviction? Senate Majority Leader McConnell has indicated he's at least open to it and wants to hear some of the facts. And I expect you're going to hear a lot of other Republicans make the same statement, at least until the trial begins.
What are the reasons they wouldn't impeach? Well, Senator Tom Cotton from Arkansas has argued that you can't impeach a president after he's already left office. And the trial would of course start after he leaves office. This probably isn't true because it's a question that would probably be up to the Senate to decide. The Supreme Court is usually loath to weigh in on issues of internal matters for the legislative branch, a co-equal branch of government. So, it's the Senate's decision. If they want to impeach a president after he leaves office, they can. Lindsey Graham from South Carolina has argued that this would be a bad precedent to set and could lead to some absurd examples, like impeaching George Washington years after he died. That's probably a slippery slope that you don't have to worry about too much, but it's an argument Republicans might make.
You're also going to hear some Republicans say that the President did something wrong, deserves to be censured, but shouldn't be impeached. This is something that some Republicans in the House side have said. Hasn't really caught on yet in the Senate but could be something that people turn to short of impeachment. I think you can easily see four to five votes already today being there to impeach the President among Republicans in the Senate, but you need 17. If McConnell goes, he probably brings along some other Republicans and that would get you closer to the threshold that you need. But there's a lot of facts that are still to come out. There will be a trial with fact finding in it. And the President's own behavior could dictate which way this goes. If he continues to indicate support for the riot in the coming weeks, if he continues to make controversial statements or make a problem of himself, he could get convicted.
The implications of him being convicted are that once he's impeached, even out of office, both Houses of Congress can vote with a simple majority to bar him from ever holding political office again, which might be helpful for Republicans looking to the 2024 presidential election. But on the other hand, President Trump isn't really one to follow precedent. He could decide to run anyway and let somebody sue him and then build up his political capital and attract attention and fundraising to himself in the process.
So the trial should start right around the 19th or the 20th. We don't actually know when that's going to happen yet. It may interfere with Senate business, but the Senators should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I would expect them to be able to set up a process to confirm Biden's cabinet nominees at the same time they're running this impeachment trial. This does, however, give the opportunity to some Republican Senators who are opposed to Biden's cabinet to gum up the works. But I think Republicans are generally probably going to want to at least look cooperative in the early days of this administration. So I don't see this being too big of an impediment to Biden's agenda.