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 }}
FILE PHOTO: Parts of a ghost gun kit are on display at an event held by U.S. President Joe Biden to announce measures to fight ghost gun crime, at the White House in Washington U.S., April 11, 2022.
The Supreme Court takes aim at “ghost guns”
The US Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to crack down on untraceable “ghost guns.”
What are “ghost guns”? Basically, privately manufactured kits that give customers all the individual parts they need to build a firearm themselves, like a deadly version of IKEA.
Before the Biden administration’s new regulations, customers did not need to pass background checks to buy these kits, and law enforcement struggled to trace the guns when they were used in crimes. Unsurprisingly, a lot of criminals bought these kits. In 2020, law enforcement agencies recovered 19,344 ghost guns from crime scenes, up from just 1,758 in 2016.
What’s the argument? The White House’s regulations don’t ban the sale of gun kits but require manufacturers to put serial numbers on components and conduct background checks. Manufacturers and Second Amendment activists say the government is overstepping its powers in regulating the kits like actual firearms.
What’s the outlook? The court has a 6-3 conservative majority that generally favors expansive Second Amendment rights. That said, two conservatives – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett – joined the liberals to let the White House allow the regulations to take effect temporarily last August. Their votes will be key, with a decision expected after the November election.FILE PHOTO: O.J. Simpson, wearing the blood stained gloves found by Los Angeles Police and entered into evidence in Simpson's murder trial, displays his hands to the jury at the request of prosecutor Christopher Darden in this file photograph from June 15, 1995 as his attorney Johnnie Cochran, Jr. (R.) looks on.
OJ Simpson had the “Trial of the Century.” Our Century.
“White Bronco.” “Lance Ito.” “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” “Kato Caelin.” “Johnny Cochran.” Each of these names and moments associated with the 1995 murder trial of ex-football star OJ Simpson, who died of cancer on Wednesday at 76, is a time warp for anyone in America who was even remotely conscious in the mid-1990s.
Simpson, to recall, was accused of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. And while the proceedings were nearly 30 years ago, there are many ways in which the “trial of the century” lives on today.
For one thing, it helped get America hooked on 24/7 media. These days, when every utterance of every politician, celebrity, conspiracy theorist, or cat is instantly seen and shared by tens of millions on social media, it’s hard to fully grasp just how revolutionary the coverage of the Simpson trial was.
Even before Judge Lance Ito decided to allow cameras in the courtroom, a third of Americans had already tuned in to watch live helicopter-cam footage of the most famous car chase in American history: Simpson’s white Ford Bronco gliding slowly through LA traffic, pursued gingerly by several police cars.
Then, in a first, CNN and Court TV covered nearly every minute of the trial, which lasted eight months. In today’s terms, it was the first livestream. And it certainly produced what we would come to see as “viral moments” – the Bronco chase, OJ trying on the glove, Cochran rhyming to the jury: “If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.”
An America that was just getting used to cable TV quickly became hooked on a televised scandal that had it all: race, class, celebrity, and murder. TV amped the drama, and the drama amped TV, pumping it directly into America’s wide-open eyeballs for over a year. Even President Bill Clinton was reported to have stepped out of a meeting to watch the final verdict.
Racial tensions created parallel realities. Simpson went on trial at a moment of high racial tension in America. Just three years earlier, a mostly white jury acquitted four LA police officers caught on camera beating Rodney King, a Black motorist. The verdict enraged much of Black America and sparked some of the worst race riots the country had seen in years.
And three years later, there was Simpson, a wealthy Black athlete accused of murdering his white ex-wife. Views of the evidence – which, again, the entire country could see alongside the jury – split dramatically along racial lines. Most whites thought he was guilty, most Blacks thought he was framed.
As it happened, Simpson’s all-star lawyers ran laps around the hapless prosecution, and the majority-Black jury acquitted Simpson.
But that settled nothing in the court of public opinion. A poll at the time showed that three-quarters of Black Americans believed that Simpson was innocent, while fewer than half of white Americans thought the jury had reached the right verdict.
It was not until 20 years later – after Simpson, convicted of liability for the murders in a separate civil case, wrote a quasi-confessional book titled, amazingly, “If I Did It” – that a majority of Black America would come to believe that Simpson was guilty. Even then, there was still a 25-point difference between white and Black views.
But class was also part of the drama. A huge majority of Americans believed that Simpson’s immense wealth had helped him beat the rap.
After all, his lawyers, known as the “Dream Team,” included some of the most prominent (and expensive) attorneys in America – not only Cochran, but towering figures like Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, and Robert Shapiro. A dream like that isn’t purchased for a song.
So alongside the racial dimension of the verdict, many Americans saw it as evidence that the wealthy get a different – and more lenient – justice system than the rest of us. Three-quarters of Americans polled said that Simpson would’ve been found guilty if he weren’t rich.
What does it all look like three decades later? A merciless media cycle, a public engrossed in a drama of race, class, and justice, parallel views of the same facts -- in the end, wherever you were when you saw OJ Simpson fleeing the police, trying on those gloves, or swearing that he “would not, could not, and did not kill anyone,” we are all, in a sense, still living in the world that OJ left us.
Trump's NYC hush-money trial: What to watch for
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
This is what we are watching in US Politics this week: Trump's trials.
Former President Trump faces or faced six civil or criminal actions against him in 2024, an election year. Two of which, civil finds that he was already found liable for. He's had to pay significant sums of money. Two of which, a case in Georgia and one in Florida, are very unlikely to start in this year, and one of which could start later this summer, this federal trial against Trump for election interference in Washington, DC. The final trial is set to begin next week. A trial in Manhattan for business records frauds related to hush money payments he made to a woman he was having an affair with before the 2016 election.
The key witness in this trial is Michael Cohen, Trump's former attorney, who Trump's going to try to discredit the testimony of by saying, “He's a liar, he's out for publicity. But the evidence against Trump is pretty damning here. There's almost no, it sure looks like he committed this crime. However, the allegations will have to be proven in court. Trump could win this case and the jury could decide to throw out the corroborating evidence. There's a lot of ways this could still go in Trump's favor. And if it does, that will be a significant win for Trump, because a significant portion of the electorate is telling pollsters today that if Trump is found guilty of a crime before the election, they would be less likely to vote for him.
Trump support drops by about ten percentage points in a New York Times poll from earlier in the year, based on whether or not he's found guilty. And these are really high stakes, drama for Trump. One of the key political inoculates Trump has is that the trial could be over quickly. He also is going to make the case that this is a politically motivated witch hunt and that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, is out to get him and stop him and undermine him because he's a Democrat. That message is certainly resonating with Republicans. The key question for Trump's election campaign is, “Does that message resonate with independents, or do they continue to see the criminal charges against Trump as being disqualifying?”
The trial starts next week. We'll find out what happens.
What Florida's abortion rulings mean for the 2024 US election
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
This is what we are watching in US Politics this week: Abortion.
Abortion is the big story in US politics this week with the Florida state Supreme Court ruling that a ballot initiative that would protect access to abortion up until fetal viability will be on the ballot in abortion in Florida this year. Democrats are excited about this ruling because it was starting to look like Florida was increasingly out of reach for them.
Republicans now out register Democratic voters in the state by over 800,000 registered voters, which is a flip from a decade ago when Democrats outnumbered Republicans by about 500,000 registered voters. Florida is looking like more and more of a red state with a massive 20 point victory for Republican Governor Ron DeSantis in the 2022 midterm elections. That's what was making Democrats feel like it wouldn't be a very competitive state in this presidential cycle.
However, with abortion on the ballot, they now see an opportunity for outside groups to come in and spend a bunch of money who otherwise wouldn't have sent money there, forcing Republicans to respond by potentially wasting money there. The state is probably a little bit too red for it to truly be competitive for President Biden in this election cycle.
But this abortion referendum story is going to play out across the country. Democratic activists have the opportunity to get abortion on the ballot in two critical swing states of Nevada and Arizona. But it's unlikely they would show up in the other swing states of Wisconsin or Michigan, because Wisconsin had a recent state Supreme Court decision about it. And Michigan had an abortion referendum in 2022. That doesn't mean they can't find other ways to make this election about access to abortion, which has been a very positive issue for Democrats.
There have been seven state referendums since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. And in each of those, the electorate shifted significantly to the left from what they did in the 2020 results, even in deep red states like Kansas and Kentucky. So this is going to be an important issue to keep watching throughout the election. And could be one of the wild cards that helps Joe Biden overcome the bad polls that he's been experiencing in recent weeks.
In divided America, anything goes in the name of “protecting democracy"
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your Monday morning. Let's talk for a moment about the state of US politics, US democracy. It's the one thing that almost all Americans today can agree on, and that is that their political opponents at home are fundamentally opposed to democracy.
Now, that is actually something I think that unites Americans in kind of a weird way. If you are a Biden supporter, you believe that Trump and MAGA supporters are fundamentally opposed to democracy. If you are a MAGA supporter, you believe that Biden and the establishment Democrats are fundamentally opposed to American democracy. It is incredibly dysfunctional. It is no way to operate a government.
It is no way to build a nation. And that means, you know, when you believe that your political opponents are opposed to democracy, you take away their value as people, you think that their political views are wrong and they need to be erased. They don't need to be engaged with sensibly. You also believe that anything that you might do to ensure that your opponents don't take power is justified because you're fighting over something very essential. And so it's kind of Machiavellian. It's the ends justify the means. Any means are justified if your opponents are fundamentally opposed to your system. And I mean, I certainly have political views of who I think is and is not appropriate. And I've said that historically, and I will continue to with this election. But this piece is not about this.
This piece is about the need not to jump into “the ends justify the means” in American politics, not believing that every slight or perceived slight is an 11 on a ten point scale. I think that Trump has committed real crimes, in my view. I look at his unwillingness, for example, to respond to the FBI and efforts to obscure, actively obscure where his classified documents were and weren’t and get his people to move them and lie about it. It's never the crime itself. It's the cover up of the crime that really gets you in trouble. That does, I think, make a real difference in the way that the classified documents case plays out for Trump as it did for Biden, who should not have had documents in many places but was completely forthcoming in responding to government requests.
I also think that for Trump, the Georgia case, in attempting to overturn to find votes in an election, a state election that was administered by, run by members of his own Republican Party, that's a serious issue. I think it would be impeachable. But impeachment no longer functions as a check on the executive in the United States. That part of the US political system is broken, has become politicized. It should be tried in a court of law, is being tried in a court of law. But there will be no conviction, in my view, certainly not before the election is over. And it's been mishandled by the prosecutor for her own ethical lapses. Now, that case does not make me feel that all cases against Trump are legitimate or should be pursued.
Some of them, in my view, are ridiculous. The fact that a bond was set for almost half a billion dollars and then a New York court said, no, actually 175 million implies that the original setting of that bond was politicized against Trump. A felony charge in New York would have been misdemeanor for any other citizen, politicized by a district attorney that was looking to make a name for himself politically in a state that is overwhelmingly anti-Trump. Take Trump off the ballot in Colorado or other states too. Ridiculous. Not in accordance with rule of law. And thankfully, a divided Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that that should not proceed. Nonetheless, there were lots of intelligent people in several states, in the United States in positions of authority that believed that they should take Trump off the ballot.
Because if someone is trying to destroy democracy, anything you do against that person is acceptable. We see these kinds of things being promoted in the political hit jobs that are being done across the board by cable news and in social media. The headlines you would think you were in two different countries. The people you follow, you'd think that they reflect two different worlds, never mind world views.
This happened yet again. This Easter weekend. Here I was minding my own business, candlepin bowling with the family on Easter Sunday, and turns out that it is proclaimed by Biden that Easter is the Transgender Day of Visibility. Easter Sunday. Can you believe that? What he or she is risen? Is that what we've come to as America? I mean, you can just imagine that the anti-Biden folks were apoplectic that he could do that. And of course, it turns out a little bit of research. That's not what happened at all. Actually turns out that the Transgender Day of Visibility is not new. It's been going on for over a decade. It's always on March 31st, which is only Easter Sunday. Every seven years, give or take a leap year. And there are literally hundreds and hundreds of days all throughout the year that get proclaimed as various days. And nobody really cares or pays attention except that we're in stupid season right now in a country where the most important thing politically is that you are able to score a point and take a piece off of your political opponent.
And the more we do that, the less we can talk to our fellow citizens. And it's not the country that any of us actually want to live in. It is being driven by political entrepreneurs that use that violent political sensibility to stay in power, to achieve power, to make money. It's being driven by media organizations that are having a hard time raising money to continue to feed their shareholders.
And so as a consequence, they are much more willing to drive anything, any headline for clicks. And of course, it's being driven by algorithms and social media that only give you the things that you agree with or that are going to make you very angry and to drive more and more engagement. And every one is very easily shaped by that.
Even if you spend only a little bit of time on politics. But that time is always being pushed in favor of you and your political tribe and opposed to the tribe that you want to defeat, then there is no common ground. There's no sensibility. Anything they say is wrong and should be used against them. Anything you and your team say is correct. And if you believe that and if you're following people who only engage in support in one side of the partisan divide, then you are part of a propaganda bubble. You are being misled politically, you're being spun up, you're being taken advantage of, you're being used. And increasingly that is the dominant theme in this very long, very expensive US election.
And I am going to continue to do everything I can to refuse to play ball in that easier, since I'm not a member of a political party and I've never been in a political position. Harder in the sense that everyone's going to whack you one time or another if you irritate their sensibilities. But at the end of the day, I'd be unhappy with myself if I did anything else, and that kind of matters, right? So anyway, that's my view for this election. I'm sure I'll come back to this theme again and again. But it seems to have been a lot in the headlines of late, so I thought I would make mention of it.
- US democracy after US midterms: polarized voters & Trump's GOP ›
- Podcast: Not infallible: Russia, China, and US democracy with Tom Nichols & Anne-Marie Slaughter ›
- America vs itself: Political scientist Francis Fukuyama on the state of democracy ›
- Francis Fukuyama: Americans should be very worried about failing democracy ›
- Divided we fall: Democracy at risk in the US ›
How Trump's money problems could affect the 2024 election
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
This is what we are watching in US Politics this week: It is Trump's money.
At the same time this week, his meme stock is going bananas with an IPO of Truth Social. The markets don't know what to do it. With valuation fluctuating wildly throughout its first two trading days. But no matter what, it seems likely to increase Trump's net worth by several billion dollars. Unfortunately, a lot of that money will be locked up in equities in uncertain valuation for some time, which will make it hard for Trump to use the money to shore up his struggling campaign funds.Trump has roughly a third of the cash on hand as President Biden, who's going to pad that total with a cool $25 million from a fundraiser in New York this week. Trump is, of course, the king of earned media and may not need a huge war chest to run his campaign. But if there's one thing we know about American politics is that money does not hurt.
One of the reasons Trump may be struggling to raise funds is because of the massive legal bills that he has to cover, which, according to The New York Times, have amounted to over $100 million since he left office. Some of that has been covered with campaign cash. Some of it has been covered with money from his businesses, which is going to get a lot harder for him going forward based on this decision in New York.
So money could end up being a huge story of the 2024 election. And if it is, it's because Biden has it and Trump doesn’t.
Biden's vigorous SOTU speech aims to prove doubters wrong
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
What's going on with the Biden State of the Union?
So big week in US presidential politics. Super Tuesday basically effectively ended both primaries for the Republicans and the Democrats. We now have two all but official candidates. Joe Biden gave his fourth State of the Union address this week. Big question around Joe Biden, is he up to the task? 75% of Americans say that he is too old to run for a second term, but he is a attempting to prove them wrong like he did last night in Washington with a vigorous speech where he spoke for an hour, which officially kicked off his campaign.
Biden spoke about themes of income inequality, he spoke in favor of aid to Ukraine, and he rolled out a couple of tax increases that Republicans don't like. There's a lot of risk in every public appearance that Biden gives these days because of the fact that Democrats are very concerned that he's going to make a verbal flub or that he's going to look physically frail. That did not happen last night, and I think that's a good sign for Biden for now.
But every time he goes on stage for the rest of the year, there's going to be concern about how old he looks. So the campaign can now begin in earnest. Biden didn't mention Donald Trump by name in the speech, but he did indirectly attack him, talking about how Republicans are the party of the rich and how the threats to democracy represented by this election. At least that's how Joe Biden wants to frame it.
Why Mitch McConnell is stepping down
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
What are the implications of the retirement of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell from his leadership post?
This week Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell announced his intention to step down as leader of the Republicans after serving longer in that post than anybody else in American history. There are really two implications that I can see.
The first is that McConnell was basically acknowledging the inevitable. It was very unlikely that he would be able to stay on as leader after this Congress anyway. If Donald Trump wins the presidential election, then he almost certainly is going to push McConnell out of the job. And if he didn't win the election, there's a whole generation of Republicans in the Senate who are looking for an opportunity to step up. McConnell, at 82 years old, did not represent that new generation. So the time had come to pass on the torch, and McConnell chose this February to announce it.
The second takeaway is that McConnell is really giving the speech the Democrats are hoping Joe Biden would give. McConnell's only eight months older than President Joe Biden, who's running for a second term right now. And lots of questions have come up recently about Biden's fitness for office because of his advanced age. This is going to be an increasing problem for Biden as more and more Democrats start talking about it. But in the absence of any challenger, it looks like Biden's going to be the nominee and his age will just be a liability they all have to learn to live with.