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 }}
3 themes to watch as US election season begins
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
With the Iowa caucuses coming up, what are the big themes to watch in American politics this year?
Monday of next week is the first day the official kickoff of the US presidential campaign season, even though it feels like it's already been going on for six years. It really only starts on next Monday with the Iowa caucuses begin. Donald Trump has a big lead in the Republican primary. Nobody's challenging President Biden on the Democratic side. And so here are three themes to watch throughout this election year.
The first is, can anyone beat Trump in the Republican primary? Right now, it's down to basically Trump, the top of a field of contenders. And then you have a distant second, former South Carolina governor and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. And in third place, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, with some also rans like Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy, who don't really have a chance. Of that bunch, Haley is probably best positioned to make a deep run into the primaries because of her ability to consolidate the fundraising apparatus behind her in the last several months. DeSantis could still come on strong with a strong showing in Iowa, but it's really going to take a lot of money to last through the March Super Tuesday caucuses. And right now, Haley looks like the best bet. But to get there, she's going to need to win a state. Right now, she's behind in Iowa. She's close, but still behind in New Hampshire. And she’s still behind in her home state of South Carolina. So the thing to watch for is field consolidation in late January, maybe early February, And if Haley can actually get some momentum to beat Trump.
The second thing to pay attention to are Trump's criminal trials. And a major question for 2024 is how much do these things hurt him on the campaign trail? Certainly being prosecuted by the Democratic prosecutor in Manhattan and Biden's DOJ has helped Trump consolidate his position on top of the Republican field. But it seems like the conventional wisdom is that it probably hurts Trump in the general election. Now, this may or may not be true. Voters already have been accustomed to the fact that Trump's been accused of various crimes. Trump himself is running on delegitimizing the system that's put him on trial, and that's going to be a continued theme throughout 2024. And the question for the general election is right now, Trump is beating Biden in head to head polling matchups, which are not very reliable this far out. Does that advantage start to erode as Trump's criminal trial stay in the news throughout the summer? And what happens if he's eventually convicted of a crime? And the one to watch is probably the DC election interference case that the federal government has brought in the District of Columbia.
Final thing to watch for in 2024, what happens to the state of the economy? Biden's approval ratings are relatively low for an incumbent seeking reelection in the high thirties. That's a pretty bad sign. The economy's been fairly resilient so far with low unemployment and decent wage growth. But Americans are still saying they're very unhappy about the state of things. Inflation has been a huge part of that. High grocery prices, expensive services are all things that Americans are dealing with on a day to day basis. Does the economy flatline or tank in the first half of 2024, which would be a real disaster for the incumbent President Biden? Or does it continue to muddle along and potentially improve as inflation fades in the rearview mirror, which would be a tailwind for the incumbent? And you'd expect to see that in rising approval ratings throughout the spring and summer.
Thanks for watching. This has been US Politics in (a little over) 60 Seconds.
The U.S. Capitol.
The US government is heading toward a shutdown. What does that mean?
The US government looks set to shut down this Sunday after House Republicans indicated that they would not support a bipartisan Senate bill that would fund the federal government past this weekend’s deadline.
Absent a last-minute agreement, many federal agencies could soon shut down, while millions of federal workers could be placed on furlough without pay due to a lapse in funding from Congress, which controls the purse strings.
What led to the current stalemate and what does it mean?
You might recall that, back in June, House Republicans agreed at the eleventh hour to raise the federal debt limit to avoid the government defaulting on its loans for the first time in history. As part of that agreement, Republicans and the White House agreed to spending caps on funding bills for the next two years that aimed to avoid this sort of impasse until after the next presidential election.
But that is now up in the air as a number of “tear-it-all-down” Republicans are refusing to fund the government – an annual procedural measure – and are calling for deeper spending cuts. Crucially, they also oppose ongoing funding to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, overseeing one of the slimmest congressional majorities in decades, is hesitant to pass a funding bill with the backing of House Dems that these vocal members of his own caucus oppose, fearing they would call a vote seeking his ouster. What’s more, to appease the right flank of his party, McCarthy gave his caucus the go-ahead to start an impeachment inquiry into President Biden (the hearing will kick off Friday), but that doesn't seem to have gotten the hardliners to back off.
Indeed, this whole dance makes for very bad politics for the GOP considering that 77% of US voters don’t want the government to close.
What happens if the government shuts down? While some government departments – like the military – will continue to function, hundreds of thousands of workers (out of 4 million government employees) will be told to stay home without pay. The last time the government shut down in 2018 for 35 days, it cost the US economy a whopping $11 billion.
Plus: We asked Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, to share his view on how long the shutdown may last. Hear what he had to say here.
Hunter Biden steps off Marine One at Ft. McNair, after spending the night at Camp David, in Washington, U.S., June 25, 2023.
Hunter Biden catches a gun case
Federal prosecutors indicted U.S. President Joe Biden’s son Hunter on three federal gun-related charges on Thursday. The indictments come after a plea deal the younger Biden believed he had struck with federal prosecutors dramatically fell apart at the last minute in July. Hunter now faces up to 25 years in prison for allegedly lying about his drug use on a federal form that was required to purchase a handgun in Delaware in 2018.
President Biden is at no legal risk from his son's indictment. But the charges are politically inconvenient to say the least. They come just days after the House GOP began an impeachment inquiry that centers on so-far-unsubstantiated allegations that President Biden used his political position to profit from his son’s business dealings.
On top of that, the trial – which will likely get under way next year – will now serve as counter-programming to the multiple trials in federal and state court of former President Donald Trump which are slated to start in the spring. That’s right, America: as the 2024 campaigns hit the homestretch, the DOJ will simultaneously be prosecuting President Biden’s son as well as his likely election opponent, Donald Trump. What could be better for a bitterly divided nation?
Is the US covering up UFOs?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:
Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and we're talking about aliens, a Quick Take. Very exciting, of course.
A Congressional testimony by a whistleblower, a former Air Force intelligence officer. His name is David Grusch, Major David Grusch, who says that the US government has been covering up UFOs.
David Grusch: “I like to use the term non-human, I don't like to denote origin, it keeps the aperture open.”
They come from other galaxies. We have no idea, but it's a coverup, and the fact that it's covered up is clearly evidence of an even deeper state than we had been aware of before. It's one thing when the deep state can fake your elections. It's another when they can actually cover up extraterrestrial species. And we know that, because if you look at all of the sightings of aliens that have happened over the past decades, they've mostly come over the United States, not just continental, Alaska too, a little Hawaii. But still, we should be the ones that find the real ones and then cover up the real ones if that's where the sightings are.
They're blurry. They're usually pretty blurry. And it is true that all the technologies around sensors are improving, and that's why we have great photos of Chinese surveillance balloons when they come over the United States. The UFOs are still blurry, but that's not necessarily because they don't exist. It could be because the alien technology at evading improved surveillance technology in the United States is also improving. It's not like the aliens are just going to stay still while our technology improves.
In all seriousness, I don't believe that he is telling us the truth, even though he is under oath, about the cover-up and the aliens. And Major Grusch, if it turns out that you're actually telling the truth, and this is all a big conspiratorial cover up, the lack of evidence of which is only more proof that the cover-up exists, I will apologize, in person if you like, or certainly on video, but for now I think you're full of crap.
It's good. My mother used to buy the National Enquirer at the Stop & Shop every week, and it was 15 cents, and I enjoyed reading it. It was the articles. It wasn't just the two-headed baby and the she-wolf and all of that stuff. And I learned how to BS people for money from the Enquirer. I stopped. I did not decide to take that on as a profession. You apparently have. I wish you wouldn't do that.
I do believe in aliens. I don't think we're the only intelligent life in the universe. I think it's quite likely we may be the only observable intelligent life in the universe right now, because we only have existed as intelligent life for a cosmological eye-blink. And I might not have said this 30 years ago, but when I look at the acceleration of technology and just how fast we are moving in terms of especially artificial intelligence, this does not seem sustainable. It seems very, very unlikely to me that we are around as an identifiable species in, say, a hundred years. And given that, if you assume that intelligent life is able to develop technologies anywhere in the universe, it's around, it explodes, and then it either becomes something really cool that we don't understand, or it blows itself up. And so, I suspect that the aliens that are around are in the future or in the past, or they're us, but they're not the ones that Grusch is lying about.
That's it from me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Too many people have US security clearance: former House Intelligence Committee member
The US government has an over-classification problem. Too many documents are marked "secret" that shouldn't be. And according to this week's guest, the over-classification problem has also created an over-clearance problem. Jane Harman, a former nine-term Congresswoman who led high-level intelligence committees, says that the two problems are closely related. "We over-classify, we over-clear. Our clearance problem is very cumbersome" Harman tells Ian. As a result, many people with clearance tend to err on the side of classifying information rather than risking their position by making public the wrong document.
"I argued we needed a tiered classification system where you can clear people only up to a certain amount. In other words, a person who speaks a regional dialect could be given papers to read, but not told the context of the papers, so that person would just translate the language. "
But, Harman says, we're still a long way from solving this problem.
To see the full interview with Jane Harman, watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
US Government information: What's the threshold for "classified"?
There are many reasons for a government to classify information. The US does not want Vladimir Putin getting his hands on our nuclear codes, for example. An estimated 50 million documents are classified every year, though the exact number is unknown—not because it’s classified, but because the government just can’t keep track of it all. But in the words of the former US Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, some “secrets are not worth keeping.”
This week on GZERO World, former Congresswoman Jane Harman argues that America has had for decades an over-classification problem. Harman mentions the findings by the 9/11 Commission, which concluded that a lack of information-sharing between agencies like the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA prevented the US government from foiling the largest terrorist attack ever on American soil. A key reason for that failure: the over-classification of information.
It’s difficult for Americans to understand the actions of their government if much of its work is classified. It also forces journalists to weigh the risks of disclosing information to the public against the possibility of prosecution under the Espionage Act.
Beyond national security concerns, over-classification is also driven by incentives. If you’re a government employee, the risk of classifying something that doesn’t need to be classified is low. But if you un-classify something that you shouldn’t, you're in trouble.
Tune in to “GZERO World with Ian Bremmer” on US public television to watch the full interview. Check local listings.
Why Clarence Thomas has eroded trust in the US Supreme Court
Few Supreme Court Justices have tested the Court's ethical limits like Justice Clarence Thomas, says this week's GZERO World guest, Yale Law School legal expert Emily Bazelon. And that's because, for centuries, Justices have been reluctant to test the boundaries of an ethical system that has few limits. "Federal judges and lower courts are subject to ethical codes," Bazelon explains, "but not the Supreme Court justices themselves."
As a result, the Court has experienced some of its lowest public approval ratings in history, this past year. Some of that discontent, of course, can be traced to the Court's rightward swing under its conservative supermajority. But for a branch of the government that relies heavily on public trust to ensure that its rulings are respected and carried out, the decline in popular support is cause for concern.
"People do not have faith that this is a non-political institution, and that's what courts are supposed to be, at least in theory. They're supposed to be doing something called law, that's separate from politics."
Tune into GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television stations nationwide. Check local listings.
For more on the Supreme Court and what to expect from anticipated rulings this year, watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: "Who polices the Supreme Court?"
Podcast: (Un)packing the Supreme Court with Yale Law's Emily Bazelon
Listen: The Supreme Court, one of the three branches of government that makes up this country's democratic system of checks and balances, doesn't have a military. As a result, when its justices make a ruling, they are counting on a strong sense of public trust to ensure their decisions are carried out. Not all countries on this planet can count on that public trust, and with popular support for the Court plummeting to record lows, some experts fear that the United States may soon be unable to as well.
So as SCOTUS gears up for what is sure to be a blockbuster June of Court rulings, a flurry of ethical questions surrounding the bench--as well as its hard-right turn under a conservative supermajority--have made the prospect of a potential Constitutional crisis more plausible than ever before. And then comes the 2024 election. On the podcast this week, Yale Law legal expert and co-host of Slate's Political Gabfest joins Ian Bremmer to discuss the Court's many headwinds ahead, as well as the specific cases slated to be decided in the coming weeks.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- 3 key Supreme Court decisions expected in June 2023 ›
- What We’re Watching: SCOTUS mulling student debt relief, Blinken visiting Central Asia, Biden's partial TikTok ban, Petro’s post-honeymoon phase ›
- Senators want ethics rules for SCOTUS ›
- Abortion pills likely headed to Supreme Court, says NYT Mag columnist Emily Bazelon ›
- Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next? ›
- Ian Explains: The US Supreme Court's history of political influence - GZERO Media ›