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 }}
Smooth sailing for LNG amid Biden’s pause, Trudeau’s hesitation, and Johnson’s political gamble?
If you thought America’s liquefied natural gas policy had nothing to do with Russia’s war in Ukraine, think again. LNG is all over the news right now, thanks to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) cooking up a plan to link the issues.
Meanwhile, north of the border, Canada is having its own LNG squabbles as the future of the multibillion-dollar industry is being debated. Tensions between the federal government, which is increasingly weary of fossil fuel mega-projects, and provincial governments keen on resource revenue, are shaping the debate.
And so are considerations about what’s happening down south. In January, the Biden administration suspended pending approvals of LNG exports to countries with which it doesn’t have a free trade agreement. It’s waiting on the Department of Energy to sort out what these exports mean in terms of costs to US consumers and climate impact. The pause came in no small part thanks to the efforts of climate change activists.
Observers suspect Trudeau can’t get too far from Biden on the issue, and cross-border climate activists used Biden’s more aggressive climate policies to try to box in Trudeau. In January, Biden’s LNG pause put Canada’s LNG export policy in the spotlight, pressuring the country to enact its own moratorium (which it hasn’t done) – especially if it hopes to meet its 2030 climate goals. Also, the LNG market is only so big and may be headed for a glut, so US projects or exports – or a lack thereof – shape Canadian calculations.
When the US suspended new LNG approvals in January, President Joe Biden was quick to point out that the pause wouldn’t affect existing exports to US allies in the “near term.” But in the long-term? A lot depends on the global market, geopolitical considerations, and domestic politics, including climate activist pressure on Biden – who faces a reelection battle in November.
Biden was nonetheless keen in January to make everyone aware the US remains the top LNG exporter and that the energy source wasn’t going to stop flowing overnight. In fact, the administration expects export capacity to more thandouble by 2028, and last year the country’s LNG project approvals were record-setting.
The trade authorization review is important because it calls into question how viable LNG projects and exports will be long term in a world in which climate policies are moving away from fossil fuels, which are facing increasing competition from renewables. But it may also be up for negotiation.
Biden wants desperately to get an aid bill through Congress to fund Ukraine’s defense efforts against Russia. The Senate has passed a bill, but it’s stalled in the House, where Johnson has held it up.
Facing pressure from his own party, who oppose the Ukraine aid package, Johnson – who is also fighting to retain his gavel – has dreamed up a trade that involves putting the aid bill to a vote and backing it in exchange for Biden reopening the LNG taps. Trouble is, that may not be enough for GOP hardliners, or at least not enough of them to get the thing passed, which would compromise not only the Ukraine aid deal but Johnson’s speakership and political career.
The plan wasn’t initially warmly embraced, particularly among the right-wing GOPers more focused on border policy than LNG. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats weren’t super enthusiastic about it either, and climate change activists and politicians are pressuring Biden to reject the deal. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that White House sources said the administration was open to the deal, pending a look at the full plan, but a White House spokesperson said the report was untrue and that President Joe Biden stands behind the pause. All of this back-and-forth and crossed wires suggests Johnson’s deal might be more of an opening bid than a final one.
Noah Daponte-Smith, a US analyst at Eurasia Group, says this is merely “the negotiating stage,” noting that whether the Ukraine package gets through Congress is another matter. Johnson is trapped between his own party and Democrats, both of whom he needs if the Ukraine bill has any chance of passing.
The Democrats want a clean bill – with no extra measures – which means they aren’t interested in LNG additions. Even Johnson isn’t “enormously committed” to LNG, according to Daponte-Smith, but the speaker is running out of options.
“I think he wants to hold on to the gavel and this is something convenient he can put forward to the Republican caucus,” he says.
The border deal is a non-starter for the Ukraine package, Daponte-Smithe says, given that former President Donald Trump has declared it dead.
And it’s not just the US squabbling over LNG.
Last week, Canadian Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkison said the Liberal government wasn’t interested in funding future LNG projects. Beyond what’s already in the works, no more LNG projects will open in Canada unless the private sector is willing to go it alone. As of December, there were eight LNG projects in development worth over CA$100 billion, which includes the LNG Canada project, which Ottawa sank CA$275 million of public money into back in 2019, calling the project an investment “up to $40 billion” that “will lead to 10,000 middle-class jobs.” How times have changed.
Ottawa is turning its back despite Greece recently expressing interest in buying LNG from Canada – as have Japan and Germany. A few years ago, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wasn’t convinced of the upsides to shipping LNG to Europe, and Wilkinson’s latest comments suggest the PM hasn’t changed his mind. Of course, just because there’s demand for Canadian LNG today doesn’t mean there will be tomorrow, and the IEA expects slower demand growth in the years to come.
LNG opponents suggest the future for the energy source is dim and are calling for Canada not to see any US slowdown on LNG as an opportunity to fill the gap. Since nuclear starts and restarts are on the rise in Asia, and renewables projects are soaring globally, the world faces a potential oversupply of gas.
Neither the US nor Canada are going to fully halt export and development anytime soon. But the fact that the Biden administration and Trudeau government are even the slightest bit weary of LNG projects is a major development in energy and climate policy.
“Everything is political” is personal: the NYC migrant crisis
“Do you know,”
Jhon asked me, shivering slightly in the lengthening afternoon shadows of New York’s Penn Station, “do you know if we can stay here – in America?”
Jhon is a wiry 42-year-old construction worker who fled Ecuador a month ago with his wife and four children. The recent surge of narco-violence there had gotten so bad, he said, that the local school switched to virtual classes for the safety of the students and their parents.
Now, after a trying journey by foot, boat, bus, and train, he was standing in the middle of New York City, bewildered but hopeful.
“I just want to work,” he told me. “I don’t want anyone to take care of me or to rely on anyone else. I just want to be able to work.”
But in those early moments, Jhon and his family did need help – to find their way to New York’s intake center for migrants seeking shelter, to learn to navigate the city’s byzantine health and legal systems, to stay on track with their asylum applications.
In that way, he is like many of the more than 170,000 undocumented migrants who have arrived in New York City over the past two years, most of them on buses from Texas.
The city government says it’s struggling to deal with the influx. Mayor Eric Adams has warned that providing services to the migrants will “destroy this city” and cost more than $12 billion. But a small group of grassroots non-profits has stepped up to welcome, orient, and support the new arrivals.
I met Jhon while shadowing Power Malu, an Afro-Puerto Rican activist from New York’s Lower East Side, whose Artists Athletes Activists organization is one of the subjects of a new report I’ve been working on for our TV show “GZERO World with Ian Bremmer.”
Nearly every day and night for almost two years, Power’s been at Gotham’s various bus and train stations, welcoming migrants like Jhon, giving a guiding hand to people who arrive in a city of millions after a journey of months and simply don’t know whom to trust or where to go.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve spent many hours with Power and other activists in New York – like Adama Bah, a formerly undocumented migrant from Guinea who has built the largest Black-oriented migrant services network in the city (a big deal given that migrants from Haiti or West Africa are chronically underserved by systems geared mainly towards Latinos), and Ilze Thielmann, who started a free “store” that gives clothing, strollers, and toiletries to recent migrants.
Along the way, we met people like Igor, a refugee from violence in Burundi who left behind a cushy job as an IT manager and traveled through Mexico on foot with his pregnant wife to get to the US. He finally got asylum several weeks ago.
Or Brandon, from Venezuela, who braved the treacherous Darién Gap and the constant gauntlets of extortion, kidnapping, and violence in Mexico on his journey to New York, and who now works with Power to welcome others who followed the same route.
Why did my producer Molly Rubin and I pick this subject? Migration is now the top political issue in America. A recent poll showed close to three in 10 voters say border policy is their primary concern, topping the list for the first time since 2019, and outstripping other perennial contenders like “the economy,” “inflation,” or the always exciting “crime.”
But when it comes to the crisis at the southern border and its impact on Northern cities, the gigantic numbers can dull your sense of what is actually happening here: A story about “millions” of migrants crossing the border, or the “billions” of dollars it will cost, is still a story about individual human beings, with names, who have lived stories of tremendous suffering, perseverance, and dedication.
“Everything is political,” we often say at GZERO. And that’s true. But everything political is ultimately personal too. If it’s not, why would it matter at all?
This is one story that Molly and I hope will drive that home. You can check it out here, and let us know what you think.
Learn more about the organizations mentioned in this report:
Biden and Trudeau face headwinds … from Gaza
Last Thursday, after Joe Biden promised during his State of the Union to build a pier to deliver aid to Gaza, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet shook the president’s hand, congratulated him on the speech, and urged him to push Israel to do more on “humanitarian stuff.”
Biden, caught on a hot mic, nodded in agreement and said he was pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I told him, Bibi, don’t repeat this, but we are going to have a come-to-Jesus meeting.”
The next day, in the multicultural Toronto suburb of Mississauga, Justin Trudeau's International Development Minister Ahmed Hussenannounced that Canada would resume funding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. Israel has alleged that 12 employees were involved in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, leading most Western countries to withdraw aid.
Unhappy progressives
Both Biden and Trudeau are responding to pressure to shift their positions on the war in Gaza, which has rattled their electoral coalitions, posing serious challenges for them as they head toward elections in November in the United States and 2025 in Canada.
The White House is aware of the problem. Biden’s aides have had to take steps to avoid pro-Palestinian protests, booking him into smaller venues and holding back event details until the last minute to keep protesters from being able to disrupt him. That is making it hard for him to get his message about student loan relief out on university campuses.
The horrible death toll in Gaza, where thousands of civilians have been killed since October, has led to despair and anger among progressives, not just among people with roots in the Middle East, but among young people and people of color.
There has been a significant generational shift in public opinion. A December New York Times poll found 46% of 18-to-19-year-olds are more sympathetic to Palestinians, compared to 27% who are sympathetic to Israel.
“I tell people all the time, 50 years ago when we had a demonstration from the White House it would be 50 people, all of whom had an Arabic accent, and today it’s tens of thousands of people, and it's a group as diverse as America that's showing up,” says James J. Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute.
Michigan in the balance
In February’s Democratic presidential primary in Michigan, 13% of voters chose “uncommitted,” sparking similar protest movements in other states, a way for progressives to signal their unhappiness with Biden’s support for Israel in the Gaza war. But unlike the other states, Michigan, home to about 500,000 Arab Americans, is vital if Biden hopes to stay in the White House.
“Michigan had a huge impact because it is difficult to come up with a map where Democrats win the White House without Michigan in the mix, and the percentage of Arab voters in Michigan is high enough to make the difference,” says Zogby.
While the fear isn’t that these voters would flip sides for Donald Trump, the threat is real, says Clayton Allen, US director for the Eurasia Group. “Michigan is a great example where if you see the decline in Arab-American support hold through the election, that would be enough votes — if they would not show up to vote … — that would be enough to erase what had been his margin of victory in 2020.”
Nobody on Trudeau’s side
The situation in Canada is similar. Progressives are so frustrated with the Trudeau government’s position on the war that urban areas once considered safe for the Liberals may now be out of reach for the party.
Trudeau’s fence-sitting on the Gaza war has not endeared him to pro-Israel voters either.
“The Liberal Party has lost, largely, both communities, because they’ve tried to have it both ways,” says pollster Quito Maggi, of Mainstreet Research.
“For electoral purposes, it’s not really great to have nobody on your side,” says one Liberal organizer.
The Liberals have been behind in the polls for so long that some would like to replace Trudeau before the election, but a leadership race while the war continues could be dominated by arguments over Gaza, potentially damaging the party.
The war is not causing similar problems for conservatives in either country, because their coalitions don’t include progressives who are angered by the bombing. They can sit back and watch as their progressive opponents struggle to keep their coalitions together.
Both Biden and Trudeau appear to be in no-win positions. They are angering their progressive bases but would anger other constituencies if they move too far the other way.
“Outside of that young progressive block, most US voters, in total, support US military backing of Israel,” says Allen. “So Biden does bear a risk if he skews too hard to the left. Everyone else can attack him for abandoning Israel. I think that's been one of the limiting factors. It's why we see Biden try to walk this tightrope.”
Both leaders would benefit from bringing the temperature down, which will only happen after the bombs stop falling on Gaza. Few outside Canada have much reason to be greatly concerned about Trudeau’s position, but the United States provides $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel every year, which gives Biden leverage over Netanyahu.
He may need to use it soon to give himself time to win back the progressives whose votes he needs to keep Trump out of the White House.
Gaza caught in the crossfire as Hamas, Israel, and the US near an impasse
The war in Gaza continues, and there are reasons to believe it’s going to persist for a long time still.
There had been a lot of hope that Israel and Hamas would have made a breakthrough deal by now trading an extended (albeit temporary) cease-fire lasting some six weeks for the release of a significant number of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Just a week ago, it seemed likely that such an agreement would be reached before the start of Ramadan after Israel reportedly accepted the terms put forward by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt.
But with Ramadan now underway, the much-vaunted deal continues to be just out of reach. And there’s plenty of blame to go around.
Above all, Hamas now refuses to accept anything short of a permanent cease-fire and complete withdrawal of Israeli troops. The group has been emboldened by President Joe Biden’s warning to Israel that a ground incursion into Rafah absent a credible plan to protect civilians would cross a “red line” – the clearest reflection yet of the growing divide between Biden and the Israeli government.
Hamas is exploiting this rift, essentially daring the Israelis to storm a city where 1.5 million Palestinians are presently sheltering under dire humanitarian conditions with nowhere to go, just so it can weaponize civilian casualties and international outrage against them. By choosing continued fighting over a temporary cease-fire, it is putting Palestinian lives at maximum risk – as it has all the way through – to further delegitimize Israel, drive a wedge between it and the United States, and bolster its own political standing. Consider me shocked (not).
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is doing what he knows best: trying to stay in power. What that means is not only that he has little interest in ending the (extremely popular) war – as he has all the way through – but also that he is more than willing to openly ignore, and even defy, Israel’s closest ally when politically expedient. Case in point: Netanyahu responded to Biden’s red line by declaring that Israel’s own red line is Hamas’ continued existence and promising to go into Rafah despite Biden’s opposition.
This was a rare instance in the war, however, when Netanyahu actually spoke for the entire Israeli war cabinet and the majority of the Israeli population rather than his private interests. Polls show that whether or not they like Bibi, and most of them don’t, the vast majority of Israelis do support the complete destruction of Hamas (whatever that means) and don’t want their military to stop short of achieving it (unrealistic as it may be). If that requires ground warfare in Rafah to take out all the organization’s remaining military capabilities, tunnels, and senior leaders, so be it. And if that comes at great loss of civilian life, creates tension with the US, and costs Israel more support on the international stage, well … that’s a price they’re willing to pay.
Accordingly, the expectation is that Israel will move forward with offensive operations in Rafah sooner or later. (Hamas no doubt is aware of that, which is partly why they continue to hold large numbers of hostages; after all, if they let them all go, what would be left to stop the Israelis from taking out their entire leadership?)
When the ground invasion happens, Biden will have no choice but to act on his red line, issued in response to mounting pressure from within his own party (not to mention blowback on the international stage) to distance himself from the Israeli government. But there’s only so much the president can credibly do given the bipartisan consensus – and his own personal support – for continued military aid to Israel no matter what … which, in turn, helps explain why the Israelis will go ahead with the Rafah incursion in the first place.
If I had to guess, the administration’s response will include a temporary pause in the delivery of some high-profile offensive weapons systems. But defensive systems like the Iron Dome won’t be affected, and the core US-Israel security relationship will remain unchanged. Progressives in Biden’s Democratic base will castigate the response as woefully insufficient … but that won’t stop Trump and most Republicans from seizing on the opportunity to claim Biden is abandoning a US ally American voters actually care about, dwarfing the damage from the botched Afghanistan withdrawal.
The domestic political impact of the pause on Biden will far outweigh its material constraint on Israel’s military capabilities, putting the president in an unenviable position. Everyone knows there is no credible risk to continued US military support for Israel. The fact that the Biden administration is having to airdrop humanitarian aid and deploy the military to circumvent a blockade being imposed by one of its closest allies makes it painfully clear that Washington has very little leverage over Israel’s actions … but no less responsibility for them in the eyes of much of the world – and many Americans at home.
That poses a serious and growing political challenge for the president in an election year … and a risk of wider radicalization worldwide, in an environment where Israel and the United States have lost the global information war and are becoming more isolated, with no easy way to contain the fallout.
Vehicles of Finnish police are seen parked at the re-opened Vaalimaa border checkpoint between Finland and Russia in Virolahti, Finland, on Dec. 14, 2023.
Finland, USA to sign defense cooperation agreement
Early next week, the United States will sign a Defense Cooperation Agreement with Finland, which shares an 830-mile (1,340 km) border with Russia.
But Finland already joined NATO earlier this year, ditching its decades of non-alignment in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So what gives?
The problem is that while NATO is big and powerful, it’s also consensus-driven and slow. Moving its resources around takes time – a luxury that Finland might not have in the event of Russian aggression.
The new deal – which still requires ratification by lawmakers in both countries – would enable the US to move military equipment and troops to Finland much more quickly, something that would be “vital in a crisis," according to Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen.
The US already has a similar agreement in place with Finland’s neighbor Sweden – whose own NATO accession keeps stumbling over Turkish objections – and more than half a dozen other NATO members concerned about the risk of Russian revanchism.
All of which confirms the Russian president as, among other things, Salesman of the Year for NATO membership and bilateral US security pacts. Well done, Vladimir!
Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland.
Will Trudeau’s digital services tax lead to trade dispute?
After all, US Ambassador David Cohen warned in July that if Canada introduces such a tax, his country would have “no choice but to take retaliatory measures in the trade context, potentially in the digital trade context.” Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, no stranger to trade disputes with her American friends, appears determined to proceed.
"It's really a matter of fairness," she said. "There are other countries, our partners, who are today collecting DST. That DST is helping make essential investments in their countries, and it's just not fair for Canadians to be deprived of that revenue."
The Canadian argument is that tech companies collecting billions of dollars of revenue in Canada — like Netflix and Amazon — are able to shelter their profits in low-tax jurisdictions and are not contributing meaningfully to the economy. The Americans, unpersuaded by these arguments, don’t want to see Canada break from an OECD consensus, which is to wait until there is an international tax agreement. Business groups in both countries have asked Canada to hold off to avoid the uncertainty and disruption of a trade dispute.
The new legislation introducing the tax did not include a date, which means the government could implement it when it sees fit. Freeland may be hoping that it gives her leverage in trying to convince her American counterparts to accept the tax without imposing countervailing duties.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-LA., returns to his office in the US Capitol on Monday, Nov. 13, 2023.
Mike Johnson has a plan to avert the shutdown – will it work?
Is it better to kick two cans down the road rather than one? House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is about to find out in the first big test of his speakership. With another government shutdown deadline looming on Friday, the House plans to vote today on Johnson’s plan to keep the US government from plunging over the fiscal cliff – again.
The background: We’ve been here before, recently. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) avoided a shutdown in September only by relying on Democratic support for a bill that kept government spending flat. But he paid for it with his job: Far-right members led by Matt Gaetz (R-FL) had demanded deep spending cuts, and when they didn’t get their way, they ousted the speaker for the first time in US history.
The new approach: Johnson, who comes from the right wing of the GOP himself, isn’t trying McCarthy’s approach. Instead of asking members to vote on a single bill to keep the government running, Johnson has proposed what is known as a “laddered” approach that will fund government spending on military construction, Veterans Affairs, transportation, housing, and the Energy Department — where there is broad consensus on funding levels — through Jan. 19, 2024, while delaying a decision on the rest of the government’s funding until Feb. 2, 2024.
Johnson got the House Rules Committee to approve his unorthodox approach on Monday, but that was the easy bit. He’s now got to shepherd through a proposal that can pass the Democratic-controlled Senate (which will reject spending cuts) without angering the same far-right caucus that unseated his predecessor (which wants deep spending cuts).
“Johnson has more runway than McCarthy, but more runway is not a license to do anything you want,” said Eurasia Group’s US Director Clayton Allen. “Johnson is trying to find a way forward that does not blow up his position with the GOP conference.”
That path may require suspending the normal rules of the House to move the bill through. If he can cobble together a two-thirds majority of Republicans who are ok with no spending cuts right now and Democrats who want to keep the government funded even if they don’t love the two-step structure, far-right GOP members can still vote “no” but can’t offer amendments or otherwise delay the passage of the bill, thereby avoiding a shutdown.
And by separating the few easy spending items from the rest for early next year, Johnson is offering those same members another chance to get their desired cuts a little later, perhaps with some additional leverage to negotiate with the Senate. Will it be enough of a concession to save his bacon? That’s what we’re about to find out.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (left) and South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin hold a joint press conference after their talks in Seoul on Nov. 9, 2023.
Blinken comes home, Biden gears up for Xi
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken wrapped up a tour of Asian nations last week, as the United States worked to shore up support for its positions on issues including Russia’s war in Ukraine, China’s increased belligerence toward Taiwan, and the Israel-Hamas war in the Middle East.
On Thursday, Blinken met with South Korean officials including President Yoon Suk-yeol. The two countries reportedly aligned on their approach in the three arenas of conflict. According to South Korean intelligence reports, the matters are closely related. During a closed-door briefing to lawmakers last week, South Korea’s main spy agency said it believes that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un instructed officials to “comprehensively support” Palestinians and that the North could be considering selling weapons to terrorist organizations in the Middle East.
Then it was off to New Delhi, where Blinken and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin met with their Indian counterparts and engaged on a host of issues including a diplomatic dispute between India and Canada over the alleged assassination by Indian forces of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil, and increased hostilities on the border of India and China.
Blinken’s tête-à-têtes came on the heels of the G7 summit in Tokyo on Nov. 7 and 8, where Japanese and British defense ministers reiterated their preference for a two-state solution in the Middle East. The G7 later issued a joint statement that also condemned “destabilizing activities” by Iran and called on Tehran to de-escalate tensions in the region.
Blinken’s tour comes ahead of the first meeting between US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in over a year, set for this week in San Francisco. While significant, expectations for agreement and action are low. “We’re not talking about a long list of outcomes or deliverables,” a senior administration official told reporters at a press conference last week. “The goals here really are about managing the competition, preventing the downside risk of conflict, and ensuring channels of communication are open.”
The two leaders’ agenda includes military communications, human rights, and the South China Sea. According to Eurasia Group Analyst Anna Ashton, much of the focus will be on Taiwan's presidential election, set for Jan. 13. “The candidate most likely to win based on current polling is Lai Ching-te, a member of the Democratic Progressive Party who draws support from Taiwan's most dedicated independence activists. That brings us to a second watchpoint in May, when Taiwan’s next president will be inaugurated,” says Ashton. And to another potential flashpoint for tensions between China and the US.