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 }}
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.
House launches bipartisan AI task force
The task force will not write legislation, but it will produce a report outlining guiding principles and making broad policy recommendations. Two Californian representatives, Democrat Ted Lieu and Republican Jay Obernolte, will lead the committee. Both men are keenly interested in the subject: Obernolte holds a graduate degree in artificial intelligence, and Lieu spearheaded last year’s stalled efforts to regulate the industry.
The cross-party cooperation stands in notable contrast to the dysfunction the House of Representatives has faced in recent months, with top priorities like border security and aid to allies mired in partisan rancor. It also comes just months after Biden’s executive order, which focused on reducing AI-related risks.
We’re watching for whether the findings produce a more viable legislative path, given the apparent enthusiasm from both parties to end Congressional inaction on artificial intelligence.
White House: Money for Ukraine is running low
The Biden administration on Monday warned Congress that it’s on the verge of running out of money to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, imploring lawmakers to act before the end of the year. In a letter to congressional leaders, Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young emphasized that if US aid stopped flowing it would “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield” and increase the “likelihood of Russian military victories.”
So far, Congress has allocated $111 billion to assist Ukraine. But Young said that by mid-November the Defense Department had used up 97% of the $62.3 billion it had received, while the State Department had already utilized 100% of the $4.7 billion in military assistance it received.
Republican opposition: President Joe Biden has pushed for Congress to pass a $106 billion aid package that includes $61 billion for Ukraine, but he’s faced stiff opposition from Republicans. With the 2024 election on the horizon and polling showing voters growing wary of continued US aid to Ukraine, many GOP lawmakers have taken a strong stance against signing off on more funding for Kyiv.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has tied the issue to immigration, signaling that the GOP won’t green-light additional aid to Ukraine unless Biden agrees to changes in border security policy.
The bottom line: The war in Ukraine is largely deadlocked, but if US support dries up it could spell serious trouble for Kyiv in the days ahead.
Enter the chip wars
The Biden administration is desperately trying to halt the outflow of US-made semiconductors, aka chips, to China.
Chips have always been key to each country’s economy — a still-nagging chip shortage has led to manufacturing holdups for new cars, video game consoles, and home appliances since early 2020. But higher-powered chips are also necessary in the race toward superior artificial intelligence capability. It’s a situation that could lead to major ramifications for both consumer tools and military technology. The United States still maintains an edge over China, but the stakes feel higher than ever.
Last year, the US Commerce Department under President Joe Biden issued new rules restricting exports of certain “advanced computing chips” and manufacturing equipment to China. Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration Thea D. Rozman Kendler warned that China’s investment in powerful chips was proof that it aims to become a “world leader in artificial intelligence by 2030,” thereby boosting its surveillance and military capabilities. “Our actions will protect US national security and foreign policy interests while also sending a clear message that US technological leadership is about values as well as innovation,” she said.
A clear imperative: Restrict China’s access to good quality chips and contain their military capabilities.
US chipmakers continued, however, to find ways to get their products into China. NVIDIA, the de facto leader in US chipmaking known for its powerful graphics processors, became a trillion-dollar company in May. Chinese firms had placed $5 billion worth of orders for lower-powered NVIDIA chips still allowable under the old rules, but it appears many of those orders were canceled after the US issued an update to plug this loophole.
Last month, the US Commerce Department expanded its list of banned chips and manufacturing equipment to thwart these US-to-China sales. Under the new rules, only lower-capacity chips can be sold to Chinese firms. It also prohibited sales of chips to a new roster of countries it claims serve as pass-throughs for Chinese companies. Given 30 days to halt its shipments, NVIDIA reportedly stopped before the deadline.
But according to new reporting by the Financial Times, NVIDIA is developing three new chips with moderated performance levels specifically to comply with the new regulations and sell to China. It’s the clearest sign yet that Biden is engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with US semiconductor companies, comfortable with razor-thin compliance standards in a lucrative industry.
China’s market will always attract US chipmakers, says Jim Lewis, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a foreign policy think tank. “The only way to stop the sales is to embargo any chip export to China instead of fussing around with export thresholds,” he says. “NVIDIA is playing hardball, and the administration is stuck. If they play hardball back, it could harm the US chip lead, but if they don't, NVIDIA and others will keep looking for loopholes.”
Xiaomeng Lu, a director in Eurasia Group’s geo-technology practice, is eager to see how the US government’s relationship with NVIDIA progresses. “The company’s behavior has become very annoying to US government officials who are trying to revise their rules once and twice, but it feels like the company is still interested in sneaking around the rules,” she says. “There will be a tussle between the two, and it’ll be interesting to see the regulatory power versus the commercial champion. Who will win this game?”
Lu is also watching to see if the US bans cloud-based access to graphics processors, which would close another loophole for chipmakers seeking access to restricted foreign markets. While NVIDIA is the largest US chipmaker, and the most eager to adapt to changing regulations, other manufacturers are surely watching and could follow suit.
Meanwhile, China is playing nice on the world stage, signing onto an agreement to avert the catastrophic risks of AI brokered by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak earlier this month. While Sunak earned points for getting China to commit to anything, Beijing merely signed onto “loosely organized slogans” and a nonbinding agreement, Lu says. “Both sides got what they wanted.”
The export restrictions will also push China to look elsewhere. Lewis says that while Biden’s export controls have been successful so far, it’s also inspired the Chinese to “supercharge their chip investments” and shrug off their dependence on the US. Baidu, for example, ordered chips from Huawei this year, a sign that the Chinese tech sector may be becoming less reliant on NVIDIA and US-made chips.
The US should be careful, says Lewis, not to slow its chipmakers’ progress while curbing China’s capabilities. “It’s more important that the US accelerate its own AI development, since China will be hard to stop,” he adds. “The US leads in AI so the main issue is not doing something to mess that up, like creating regulatory hurdles for imaginary risks.”
Will the Middle East war cost Biden politically?
President Joe Biden woke up on Oct. 7 to find himself thrust into the middle of the second major foreign-policy crisis of his term. His response since has been guided by two conflicting imperatives: support Israel and prevent the crisis from escalating into a broader regional war.
Biden’s strong embrace of Israel is principled and non-negotiable. It reflects the longstanding bipartisan consensus in Washington as well as current public opinion across America. Polls show that most Americans side with Israel in the conflict and approve of both Israel’s retaliation against Hamas and US support for it. While Republicans tend to be more supportive of Israel than Democrats, who have become more sympathetic toward Palestinians over the past several years, majorities of both parties are broadly supportive of Israel.
But Biden’s unconditional support for Israel increases the risk of regional escalation. Despite Washington’s (largely private) efforts to convince the Israeli government to limit the scope and scale of its military response to Hamas’s attack and consider a “humanitarian pause,” Israel launched its long-anticipated ground invasion on Oct. 27. This offensive will inevitably inflict large-scale Palestinian casualties (especially since Hamas will continue to put civilians in harm’s way), stoke violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank, fan the flames of radicalism among Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, and lead to a marked escalation in attacks on Israel and US interests across the Middle East that will destabilize the wider region. Through it all, the US will continue to stand with Israel.
As a result, unlike the war in Ukraine, where the US and its NATO allies have worked hard to ensure their support of Kyiv doesn’t risk direct military confrontation between them and Russia, the US will become directly involved in this war. And for better or worse, Biden will own it. As the war expands and the US becomes further involved, the president’s handling of the crisis will grow more politically fraught.
Biden is vulnerable from left and right
While most voters are aligned with Biden’s stance on the war, and foreign policy is rarely a defining issue in US elections, this crisis still poses two political challenges to Biden’s 2024 prospects.
From the right, Biden will be accused of projecting weakness on the global stage. His all-but-certain 2024 rival, former President Donald Trump, is already making the case that the two major wars of Biden’s term happened only because Biden’s weakness emboldened US adversaries. Trump and his supporters argue that the relative global calm during the Trump administration was due to his strategy of “peace through strength,” particularly on Russia and Iran, and claim that neither would have dared test the US had Trump been in office.
This could be compelling for many of the Republican-leaning swing voters who might decide the 2024 presidential election. Never mind that Trump’s own Abraham Accords – which normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan – ignored the Palestinians and helped sow the seeds for the Oct. 7 attack. Or that Trump’s constant threats against NATO would have been a gift to Putin. Or that Trump’s response to the Middle East war would probably be quite similar to Biden’s. Regardless of what happens next, Biden will always be the president on whose watch these two wars – which the US is funding and partially fighting – started.
From the left, Biden will be accused of enabling Israel’s killing of innocent Palestinians. Even before Oct. 7, young voters in the Democratic Party were far more progressive, pro-Palestinian, and skeptical of Biden than the average Democrat, let alone the average voter. A CNN poll from earlier this month shows that just 27% of 18-to-34-year-olds view Israel’s military response to the Hamas attacks as “fully justified,” compared to 81% of those 65 or older. Then there’s Muslim and Arab-American voters, around two-thirds of whom backed Biden in 2020. Recent polls show that very few of them will vote for him again in 2024.
Faced with the choice of Biden vs. Trump, these voters – an important part of the Democratic coalition in 2020 and 2022 – would have no choice but to stick with Biden as the lesser evil (or stay home and benefit Trump). But the third-party candidacy of progressive Professor Cornel West, who has been strongly critical of Israel throughout his entire career, gives them an alternative that could still hurt Biden. A USA Today poll shows West already picking up between 4-7% of the vote nationally, primarily from Biden. It would only take 2-3 percentage points for West to be a spoiler in a swing state like Wisconsin, potentially tipping the balance to Trump in a close election.
The war is all downside, no upside for Biden
Despite these risks, Biden is not going to back away from Israel. Doing so would run counter to his personal convictions, buck the strong pro-Israel bipartisan consensus in Washington, and alienate centrist voters who are otherwise likely to vote for him. Indeed, Biden’s handling of this crisis has thus far been one of the president’s few polling bright spots: His average net approval rating on Israel is significantly higher than his poor overall approval rating. There’s no reason for him to jeopardize that by pivoting away from supporting Israel.
At the same time, a Middle East crisis that Biden can’t fix will eventually weigh on the president, particularly if the war escalates, US involvement deepens, and the US economy starts to pay the toll through higher oil prices. A Morning Consult poll showed Biden far behind Trump in seven key swing states on his handling of the economy, which is likely to be the top issue in the 2024 campaign. Biden will also bear the burden of any terrorist and antisemitic attacks against Americans that emerge because of heightened tensions surrounding the war and growing US involvement in it, which could further sour voters’ mood on the president.
For now, 2024 is still a very close race. Biden remains the narrow favorite to win reelection, largely because of Trump’s extraordinary and unique weaknesses. But a Middle East crisis that is still dominating headlines in November 2024 will only compound the structural factors and weak economic outlook that have already created a bad environment for an incumbent president seeking re-election.
Unless he emerges as a peace broker (unlikely), an escalating and politically divisive war in the Middle East can only hurt Biden.
‘I pledge allegiance against AI’
The Washington Post’s technology columnist, Geoffrey Fowler, recently asked 2024 US presidential candidates to take an "AI Pledge" promising to:
- Label any communication made with generative AI tools.
- Not use AI to misrepresent what a competitor has done or said.
- Not use AI to misrepresent what you have done or said.
- Not use AI to confuse people about how to vote.”
AI-generated media can be innocuous: Take that image of Pope Francis looking fresh in a white puffer coat, which went viral earlier this year. But it could also be dangerous — experts have warned for years that deepfakes and other synthetic media could cause mass chaos or disrupt elections if wielded maliciously and believed by enough people. It could, in other words, supercharge an already-pervasive disinformation problem.
We’ve not reached that point yet, but AI has already crept into domestic politicking this year. In April, the Republican National Committee ran an AI-generated ad depicting a dystopian second presidential term for Joe Biden. In July, Florida governor and presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis used an artificially generated Donald Trump voice in an attack ad against his opponent.
There’s been some backlash: Google recently mandated that political ads provide written disclosure if AI is used, and a group of US senators would like to sign a similar mandate into law. But until then, perhaps a pledge like Fowler’s could offer some baseline assurance that cutting-edge technology won’t be used by America’s most powerful people for anti-democratic means. We already have enough people doubting free and fair elections without the influence of AI.
No candidates have taken Fowler’s pledge, but it got one key endorsement from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “Maybe most candidates will make that pledge,” Schumer said. “But the ones that won’t will drive us to a lower common denominator … If we don’t have government-imposed guardrails, the lowest common denominator will prevail.”
Everybody wants to regulate AI
US President Joe Biden on Monday signed an expansive executive order about artificial intelligence, ordering a bevy of government agencies to set new rules and standards for developers with regard to safety, privacy, and fraud. Under the Defense Production Act, the administration will require AI developers to share safety and testing data for the models they’re training — under the guise of protecting national and economic security. The government will also develop guidelines for watermarking AI-generated content and fresh standards to protect against “chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and cybersecurity risks.”
The US order comes the same day that G7 countries agreed to a “code of conduct” for AI companies, an 11-point plan called the “Hiroshima AI Process.” It also came mere days before government officials and tech-industry leaders meet in the UK at a forum hosted by British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The event will run tomorrow and Thursday, Nov. 1-2, at Bletchley Park. While several world leaders have passed on attending Sunak’s summit, including Biden and Emmanuel Macron, US Vice President Kamala Harris and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen plan to participate.
When it comes to AI regulation, the UK is trying to differentiate itself from other global powers. Just last week, Sunak said that “the UK’s answer is not to rush to regulate” artificial intelligence while also announcing the formation of a UK AI Safety Institute to study “all the risks, from social harms like bias and misinformation through to the most extreme risks of all.”
The two-day summit will focus on the risks of AI and its use of large language models trained by huge amounts of text and data.
Unlike von der Leyen’s EU, with its strict AI regulation, the UK seems more interested in attracting AI firms than immediately reining them in. In March, Sunak’s government unveiled its plan for a “pro-innovation” approach to AI regulation. In announcing the summit, the government’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology boasted the country’s “strong credentials” in AI: employing 50,000 people, bringing £3.7 billion to the domestic economy, and housing key firms like DeepMind (now owned by Google), while also investing £100 million in AI safety research.
Despite the UK’s light-touch approach so far, the Council on Foreign Relations described the summit as an opportunity for the US and UK, in particular, to align on policy priorities and “move beyond the techno-libertarianism that characterized the early days of AI policymaking in both countries.”Biden seeks urgent aid package for Israel, Ukraine
President Joe Biden, having just returned from Israel, addressed the United States on Thursday night, making a plea for steadfast American support of both the Jewish State and Ukraine.
At this “inflection point in history,” Biden said, Hamas terrorists and Russia’s Vladimir Putin are trying to annihilate a neighboring democracy.
“I know these conflicts can seem far away,” he said, warning that unchecked aggression from terrorists and dictators continues to spread.
“What would happen if we walked away?” Biden asked. “We are the essential nation.”
Biden said he intends to send an urgent budget request to Congress on Friday, seeking tens of billions to support Israel and Ukraine.
Aid for Gazans. He also noted that he had finalized a deal with Egypt to allow 20 aid trucks to enter the Gaza Strip at the Rafah Crossing, linking Gaza to Egypt.
The US has come under pressure from Arab capitals to broker a way to get aid into Gaza. The Strip’s 2.3 million residents are facing a humanitarian crisis following two weeks of siege and airstrikes by Israel in retaliation for Hamas’ Oct. 7 rampage.
There are currently more than 100 trucks laden with aid on the Egyptian side of Rafah, but only 20 have been cleared to enter. Israel has reportedly sought assurances that any aid sent into the enclave is not diverted by Hamas fighters.
If Hamas does not interfere, Biden said, a more regular flow of humanitarian aid may become possible.
Ground invasion looms. Biden reiterated that Hamas unleashed unadulterated evil with its Oct. 7 attacks, and he has repeatedly supported Israel’s right to defend itself in the face of terror. But he also cautioned Israeli leaders “not to be blinded by rage.”
The president’s remarks came just hours after Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant met with military leaders along the Gazan border, where he told hundreds of thousands of Israeli troops to prepare to invade Gaza.
Meanwhile, tensions in the occupied West Bank continue to rise. Israel carried out airstrikes on a Palestinian refugee camp Thursday, killing 12 people it said were a “threat to nearby soldiers.” Since Hamas’ Oct. 7 raid, Israeli forces in the West Bank have killed 70 Palestinians and arrested more than 800, according to Palestinian officials.
- Saving US hostages in Gaza: Use Egypt as intermediary, urges Rep. Mike Waltz - GZERO Media ›
- Is Biden's embrace of Israel a political liability for him? - GZERO Media ›
- Israel-Hamas war: America's tightrope walk - GZERO Media ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Biden's second foreign policy crisis - GZERO Media ›
- Israel-Hamas War: Can the US count on its Arab allies? - GZERO Media ›
- Israel-Hamas war is a mixed blessing for Putin - GZERO Media ›
- UN Security Council resolution calls for Gaza humanitarian pauses - GZERO Media ›
- Why the Israel-Hamas war is so divisive - GZERO Media ›
- Zelensky's US trip likely to secure aid for Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
- As Israel presses conflict, US frustration grows - GZERO Media ›
- Israel, Hamas and US in impasse over cease-fire deal - GZERO Media ›