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 }}
Does Trump's campus crackdown violate the First Amendment?
The Trump administration says it's defending free speech by confronting liberal bias on college campuses—but is it doing the opposite? On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters explains how the administration’s focus on elite universities has led to sweeping actions that may ultimately restrict speech, especially for foreign-born students. “These are not students who smashed windows or assaulted security guards,” Peters says. “It’s pretty hard to see how the administration can make the case that these people are national security threats.”
And the impact is already being felt. Peters points to advice from university officials telling students to avoid posting on social media out of fear that political expression might jeopardize their legal status. In Trump’s America, he argues, the First Amendment is being selectively applied—and for some communities, the price of speaking out may be higher than ever.
Watch full episode: The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
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.
Trump’s ‘less is more’ message is un-American
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: I wanted to spend a few moments talking about a quote I heard from Trump this weekend. Did an interview where he said, "I don't think a beautiful baby girl that's 11 years old needs to have 30 dolls. I think she can have three dolls or four dolls. They don't need to have 250 pencils, they can have five." And my immediate thought was, this is one of the most anti-American things I have ever heard a US president say. I was very surprised by it, honestly. I heard back from a lot of folks and they said, "Well, how about when Trump in the same interview said that he wasn't sure about upholding the constitution? Isn't that worse?" And I'm like, well, yeah, maybe it's worse, but it's not more anti-American. I mean, not knowing how the constitution works or claiming you don't know how the constitution works, that may be bad, but it's not anti-American. But saying we shouldn't be able to buy and have all the stuff we want, that's anti-American.
We Americans want maximum stuff. I remember growing up with George Carlin, you needed places to put your stuff. When you ran out of places to put your stuff, you had a garage so that you could put your stuff there so that you could go out and buy more stuff. This isn't new. We've had this for a very long time, and this is Trump's in, right? He puts his name on planes and buildings. It's not about less but better high quality stuff. That's other countries. Japan does less amount of stuff, but very, very high quality. Takes decades to make that kind of stuff. Artisans spend their entire lives sort of on one carving or one piece of chocolate. No, we don't do that. We are a country of 250 breakfast cereals in the cereal aisle, and that's separate from granola. I'm just talking about cereal.
This is Trump's id. This is the guy that has turned the Oval Office into Versailles because there wasn't enough gold plating, gold gilding. Nobody reflects the supremacy of American consumption better than Donald Trump. Trump steaks. Trump watches. Trump gold sneakers. Trump coin. More stuff. And look, when he said beautiful baby girls have dolls, that's on brand, right? No question. Not boys. Boys can't have dolls. Boys have action figures which are basically dolls, but they sound tougher, and they should ideally have guns or pencils. Boys can have pencils. For me, Tonka truck, right? Maybe he didn't have time to think of a Tonka truck. It was a live interview, but a Tonka yellow dump truck. That was my favorite toy without question as a beautiful baby boy of 11 years old growing up. But either way, the point is not that an 11-year-old beautiful baby girl needs 11 or 20 or 30 dolls, but what if they want 30 dolls?
And God forbid that dad before 'Liberation Day' couldn't afford 30 dolls, but could only afford three dolls. What do you do then? Now, that girl only gets a third of a doll, right? Which part of the doll then? Just the head. I guess just the head. Because then at least you can keep an imaginary conversation going on with the doll. You don't want just the feet. And by the way, Zuckerberg I think can help with that since he's all about AI so that Americans who don't have as many friends as the average American wants to have can have that many friends. Now, that's super dystopian, but it's not anti-American. That's American. If we can't have as many friends as we want, we should be able to buy those friends, even if they're not real people. That's American. So look, Trump isn't actually saying we can't have 30 dolls, but Trump is saying it's going to take time with all the tariffs that we have to be patient.
And look, patience is anti-American. You don't elect Trump if you're patient. You elect Trump because you want stuff now. What, is Trump now going to say that America's going to embrace the slow food movement? That's not American. Trump's the guy that won the election after serving at McDonald's, right? And by the way, not serving at the counter, but serving at the drive-thru because it's not enough to have fast food, but you have to fast food even faster than you would normally have fast food by going into the restaurant. Trump is the guy that made RFK Jr. eat McDonald's on the Trump plane. Trump's the guy that brought hundreds of thousands of calories of McDonald's for that football team when they visited the White House, when we may have some of the world's highest levels of obesity. But if you just give us a minute, we will also have the world's highest consumption of Ozempic. Mr. President, make America great again. Thank you.
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.
Why the US-Ukraine minerals deal is a win-win
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm, Sweden.
What is the importance of the so-called minerals deals, which have now been concluded between Ukraine and the United States?
Well, I think it's primarily of political significance, and I think the Kyiv team has done good work and so has the US team in getting a somewhat more realistic agreement. It sets up a reconstruction fund, joint efforts to finance different reconstruction things, so I don't think it's going to have any immediate substantial impact in material terms. But I do think that it takes away an irritant in the Trump-Ukraine relationship, and that is important itself. It might make it somewhat more difficult for the Trump team to just dump Ukraine in the way that some of them might have been inclined to do.
What is the importance of the visit by the Danish King Frederik to Greenland?
Well, I don't think it should be seen primarily in the context of the relationship with Trump and his bizarre ambitions to take over Greenland. It's a new king in Denmark. He's the sovereign. He has a very strong personal relationship with Greenland. It is a new government, a new parliament in Greenland after the elections there in March. And it is to some extent, of course, a new geopolitical situation. So I think it was very natural for the sovereign, the King, to come and spend some days together with the new leadership in Greenland and pave the way also for the new discussions on defense relationships and the overall relationships that are going to come now between the Copenhagen and the Nuuk authorities. But certainly, it sends some sort of signal to Washington as well.
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz walks to board Marine One at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on April 3, 2025.
Michael Waltz runs out of time in Washington, headed for UN post
Waltz out of step. Though the former congressman wasn’t the one who shared war plans on the chat – US Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth holds that honor – he ultimately took responsibility. President Donald Trump initially seemed willing to give Waltz a second chance, but it turned out that the national security adviser had created several other Signal chats to discuss foreign policy.
The original Signal faux-pas also raised questions over the exact nature of Waltz’s relationship with The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg. Neither Waltz nor Goldberg would comment on it.
History repeats itself. Trump fired former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn just 22 days into his first term. The president reportedly regretted this decision, so was reluctant to remove Waltz this time, and instead landed on a reshuffle.
Hegseth gets away with it – for now. The former Fox News host seems to have escaped punishment, even though it emerged that he also shared war plans with his wife, brother, and lawyer in a separate Signal chat. A former Pentagon spokesperson also said the Department of Defense has been in “total chaos” under his leadership. Trump has thus far backed Hegseth, although he hedged on whether he had full confidence in him during an ABC News interview that aired on Tuesday.
A full plate for Rubio. The former Florida senator entered the administration as the secretary of state, but he now counts USAID administrator and the acting National Security role in his portfolio. Whether he lasts in this trio of roles for long is another matter — the Miami native has long had presidential ambitions, which he could pursue in 2028.An image of Prime Minister Mark Carney positioned near the Canadian parliament.
Now comes the hard part for Carney
Mark Carney, who has never sat in Parliament and has only been a politician for four months, faces a lot of political puzzles after leading his Liberal Party to victory in Canada on Monday, and one huge challenge south of the border.
The former central banker was widely expected to win a majority but ended up coming short, with 169 seats in the House, just three short of a majority. That means that the path ahead is twistier than it would otherwise have been.
Opposition parties plagued by infighting and weakness
Still, there is no danger of Carney’s government falling any time soon. The New Democratic Party was all but annihilated on Monday, left with only seven leaderless MPs after Jagmeet Singh came third in his British Columbia riding and stepped down as party leader. The last thing they will want is to go to an election anytime soon.
And Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet, who has just 22 MPs, down from 32, said Monday that he recognizes that voters want stability. The leader of the provincial separatist party is attacking him, which suggests they have issues they need to sort out.
That leaves the Conservatives, with 144 seats, up 25 from the last election. They can be expected to vote against the Liberal government, but there are not enough of them to stop anything, and they seem to have some internal battles they will want to finish before they are ready to fight anyone outside their movement.
During the campaign, Conservative Ontario Premier Doug Ford repeatedly cast shade on Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre. Ford’s campaign manager, Kory Teneycke, made headlines last month when he denounced Poilievre as incompetent: “This campaign is going to be studied for decades as the biggest f**king disaster in terms of having lost a massive lead.”
On election night, an MP close to Poilievre, Jamil Jivani, angrily denounced Ford as “a hype man for the Liberal Party,” which suggests the feud is not finished.
Poilievre, who gave Ford’s people a cold shoulder for two years while he was 20 points ahead in the polls, is vulnerable after losing an election that he seemed to have in the bag. The last two leaders of his party were forced out after losing to Trudeau, but they did not face the kind of open disdain that Poilievre does, and on Monday night, he lost his own seat, which means he will not be in the House until he convinces an MP to resign to let him run.
The Liberals, who will not miss his devastating critiques in the House, have six months to call a byelection to let him win a seat. They probably will not be petty and make him wait, but he will still not be there until the fall.
How Liberals can govern without a majority
If Carney wants to, he could likely manage to lure a few MPs across the floor to join his party, which would give him a majority. It would look cynical but would allow the Liberals to control committees where the government can be embarrassed and legislation bogged down.
Either way, Carney can govern as if he has a majority until the other parties get organized, and he has things he wants to do. He won a mandate to use deficit financing to build the economy, which is already on the brink of a recession thanks to a trade war with the Americans.
“We will need to do things previously thought impossible at speeds we haven’t seen in generations,” he said in his victory speech Monday night.
He has promised to jumpstart the economy and tackle the housing crisis with a pre-fabricated housing program, build new energy corridors, remove interprovincial trade barriers, and renegotiate the trade relationship with the United States.
Politics should not get in his way, says Gerald Butts, vice chairman of Eurasia Group, who advised Carney during the election campaign.
“I don’t think he’s going to peel back on his major promises, whether it’s the housing, building the housing agency, free trade in Canada, all the stuff that he kept saying,” Butts said. “His view is very direct on this, that ‘I asked for a mandate to do big things, I got a mandate to do big things, and now I'm going to do those things,’ and that he has the responsibility to do them.”
The Conservatives can be expected to oppose his agenda, but he doesn’t need them to get his stuff through the House, says Fred DeLorey, who was campaign manager for Poilievre’s predecessor, Erin O’Toole.
“He likely has a bit of wiggle room, depending on what it is he brings in and how aggressive it is and how palatable it is to the Bloc and NDP,” DeLorey said. “If he brings in something that really is against their values, you're gonna have a problem.”
Will Carney and Trump get along?
Carney won by promising to stand up to Donald Trump, his tariffs, and his annexation threats. The two men spoke the day after the election and agreed to meet in person soon. In a news release, Carney’s office said they "agreed on the importance of Canada and the United States working together – as independent, sovereign nations – for their mutual betterment."
Trump, of course, is insisting that Canada should become the 51st state, something Canadians rejected in Monday’s election.
In his concession speech, Poilievre promised to “put Canada first as we stare down tariffs and other irresponsible threats from President Trump.”
Trump has been remarkably consistent about his annexation plans, and Carney won the election by promising to resist those plans, so it is hard to know how the relationship will work.
“I think that on the one hand, Mark can be caricatured by the right in the United States and abroad as a globalist elite,” said Butts. “On the other, he’s the kind of person who Trump would respect. So I don’t know how it’s gonna go, to be honest. It’s gonna be a hard restart of the personal diplomatic relationship between the two countries at the highest levels.”
So far, so good. On Wednesday, Trump had kind words for the new prime minister and said Carney would be traveling to the White House within a week. Carney has been successful at everything he has done in his professional life, so it would be foolish to bet against him, but everything now depends on how he manages Canada’s southern neighbor.