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.
Evan Solomon
Evan Solomon is the publisher of GZERO Media and a member of Eurasia Group’s Management Committee. He is excited to grow the GZERO brand with engaging new offerings and partnerships that help viewers around the globe better understand the rapidly changing world in which they live.
Evan has been one of Canada’s preeminent journalists for more than 25 years. Prior to joining GZERO, he was the host of CTV’s nightly political program "Power Play" and of Canada’s most-watched political TV show, the Sunday morning "Question Period." He also hosted "The Evan Solomon Show," a daily iHeartRadio/Bell Media radio program.
Evan has a long history of building brands and creating programs, starting as the co-founder of the pioneering Shift Magazine, an international digital culture magazine, and as the founder of the Sirius XM show and podcast "Everything is Political." He has also hosted the PBS series "Masters of Technology" and CBC shows such as "Power and Politics," "CBC News: Sunday," "The House," and "FutureWorld." Evan has reported on events from around the world, covering Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and he has interviewed key political figures, from prime ministers and presidents to the Dalai Lama. Evan’s best-selling books include "Fueling the Future: How the Battle Over Energy is Changing Everything" and "Feeding the Future: From Fat to Famine, How to Solve the World’s Food Crisis.” He has also been a columnist for Macleans and The Globe and Mail.
In the traffic jam of elections that is 2024 – there are over 50 this year worldwide – the US is still the BelAZ 75710 mega hauler of elections, the biggest rig that carries more payload than any other on the political road. So when it tips over, it’s impossible to ignore. Everything matters about the US 2024 election, and we have to stay within the nonpartisan lines to avoid veering off-road.
So after Donald Trump gave a fiery speech in Ohio last weekend about an impending “bloodbath” if he’s not elected, it’s worth sorting through the carnage of coverage to see what he meant. “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole…” he said. “That’s going to be the least of it, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.”
Did he mean another civil war, as some thought? Or, more plausibly and as his campaign has claimed, did he say it in the context of the auto industry and his concerns about high tariffs from China and Mexico?
That matters. Still, even the most charitable interpretation of Trump’s remarks – and I do think he was referring to the auto industry – doesn’t mean he wasn’t also playing footsie with apocalyptic, blood-soaked rhetoric, as he has long done. Warning people about illegal immigrants “poisoning the bloodstream" of the nation and openly talking about being a “dictator” are now standard parts of his campaign playbook.
The bigger problem is that the fallout obscured a much less difficult-to-interpret and more important moment in Trump's speech in which he openly rebranded the insurrectionists of Jan. 6, 2021, as “patriots” and those who went to prison after fair trials as “hostages.” It’s as if Jan. 6 is some 1979 redux of the Iranian hostage crisis and not a deadly attempt to overturn a free and fair US election. “You see the spirit from the hostages, and that's what they are, is hostages,” he said, adding: “And we’re going to be working on that as soon as the first day we get into office. We’re going to save our country, and we’re going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots.”
The point is that this election is already overturning political norms in ways we have never seen in the US. There are other dynamics worth examining as well. Are Joe Biden and the Democrats radically shifting their support not only away from just the Netanyahu government’s wartime policy, but from Israel in general? What could that mean over the long term in the Middle East? What about getting more support for Ukraine? Or, as Ian Bremmer wrote for GZERO yesterday, how will America's new role as a fossil fuel superpower under a Democratic president play out politically and from a climate change perspective?
These are the core election questions this year. Is the US on the precipice of making fundamental changes to its role in the world and to its core democratic values? In her peerless book, “These Truths,” historian Jill Lepore surveys US history and asks whether the country has always lived up to its foundational values. It is the most important modern history book about the US, and its core thesis is playing out in real-time in the 2024 election.
This is a historic moment of testing that merits deeper coverage. That’s why we at GZERO are boosting our coverage of the US election and its impact on global politics.
First, check out our Election Watch section on the website, where we will aggregate our US and global elections coverage so you can get a clearer picture of what’s happening and what it means.
From April, we will also be changing our weekly video series with Eurasia Group’s Managing Director and lead Washington analyst Jon Lieber to “US Politics: Election 2024” and combining that with the weekly series “3 Big Things to Watch in the Election.”
We will also be continuing to track disinformation and the impact it has on the election as we did last month with the death of Alexei Navalny.
This weekend, on our weekly PBS TV program “GZERO World,” Ian Bremmer dives into the impact US foreign policy may have on the 2024 presidential election. The big question: Would a Trump second term bring considerable change to the way the US does business abroad? Ian’s guest this week, Harvard Kennedy School professor and acclaimed political scientist Stephen Walt, says it probably won’t. Ian disagrees. Tune in for a great debate.
It’s the first of several episodes Ian will devote to covering the US election and America’s impact on the world over the coming critical months.
So, get ready for more coverage and what we do best: more insight into what it means, why it matters, and where we are all headed. Let us know what else you want to see us cover.
You’re leaving your role as president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce after 17 years, which has been a transformative time. What is the biggest economic challenge facing Canada's trade with the US?
Perrin: The politics of trade has undergone a sea change in the US under the last two presidents. Previous presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, viewed America's interactions in the global economy as an opportunity to foster American prosperity, and they saw an integrated North American economy as a source of strength. More recently, however, US politicians have started to turn inward, increasingly viewing their country as a victim, and not as the primary beneficiary of international engagement. This change has led them to increasingly align themselves with domestic protectionists who want to build economic walls along the US border.
Unfortunately, this turn inward has coincided with a complacency here in Canada about our most important bilateral relationship. Even the best of friends can't afford to take each other for granted, or they will soon drift apart.
As Canada's relationship with the US has moved from being strategic to being transactional, American leaders are increasingly looking at each issue as a standalone, and they are making their decisions, not on what is in America's long-term best interest, but on where they can find immediate political advantage at home.
We need to rebuild that strategic relationship. It's vital for Canada to be seen as bringing solutions to the major problems confronting the United States, as opposed to simply pleading to be exempted from the latest punitive measure. We need to demonstrate, both in Washington and far away from it that Canada should be treated not as a problem, but as a partner.
Perrin Beatty, outgoing president and CEO of Canadian Chamber of Commerce. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
You recently said: “Canada is increasingly being viewed by our partners in the region as a well-meaning but unserious player on the international stage." In what ways has Canada become an "unserious player," and what needs to happen to change that reputation?
Perrin: Unfortunately, we have come to see ourselves as a moral superpower whose job is to tell everyone else what they are doing wrong. And we expect them to be grateful to us for it. Too often, we are driven more by a desire for good feelings than for good results. In contrast, other countries are both faster-moving and more engaged in the issues their interlocutors consider most important. The consequence is that, where the US and other countries used to ask, “How do we get the Canadians involved?” their question is now, “Should we inform the Canadians?” The fact that we learned about the AUKUS agreement at the same time as everyone else is just one example.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine two years ago should have been seen by Canada as world-changing, and our response should have been both meaningful and swift, with us marshaling what we have to offer in defense of the democracies. For example, Canada has an abundance of the “three F’s” – food, fuel, and fertilizer – and critical minerals that are essential to global stability. What we lack is the infrastructure, the vision, and the will to bring them to global markets to give countries an alternative to sending dollars to despots. This could be Canada's moment, but only if we are prepared to seize it.
You were a former defense minister under Mr. Mulroney, so you know about dealing with a dangerous world. But now, everyone is looking at the impact of the US election. Are we headed into a period of instability, conflict, and the dismantling of both trade and defense alliances that have been built since World War II?
Perrin: The problems we face, from global poverty to pandemics to wars to global climate change, all require an effective, coordinated international response. Instead of that, we are witnessing countries turning inward on themselves, as well as the increasing ineffectiveness of global institutions like the UN, the World Trade Organization, and the WHO in actually resolving issues that go to our very survival.
When I was privileged to be in government, there was a sense that, when the leaders of the G7 – leaders who included Reagan, Thatcher, Mitterrand, Kohl, and Mulroney – came together, problems would be resolved. Today, when international meetings take place, you get the feeling that our problems are bigger than our leaders. In fairness, the world is a much more complex and dangerous place today, but that's precisely why we need leaders whose vision, determination, and morality are up to the challenge. As your question suggests, we're at a crossroads that will determine whether we will be able to maintain the institutions and strategies that have guaranteed democracy, peace, and prosperity since the Second World War. The stakes have never been higher.
AI is both a transformative opportunity and a destabilizing threat. What is your view of how will impact business?
Perrin: Like businesses the world over, Canadian businesses will be transformed either for the better or for the worse by AI. AI, like the nuclear genie, can't be put back into the bottle. Our challenge is first to understand it, then to decide how to mitigate its potential bad effects, and then to determine how to unleash its positive aspects. In this instance, the technology is developing at a pace that far outstrips our capacity to understand it and manage it well. However, calls to initiate some sort of a standstill until we have thought these things through are naïve and unworkable; all that would happen is that the unscrupulous players would widen their lead.
The challenge for Canadian policymakers is how to successfully work with others on coordinated policies that limit the dangerous aspects of AI without denying its benefits to our industry and our society.
If there is a second Trump Presidency, what should Canada expect from the 2026 review/renegotiation of USMCA trade deal?
Perrin: Many Canadians expected that when Joe Biden became president, he would reverse the Trump protectionist measures. However, that assumption overlooked the fact that, in the past, Republicans were more in favor of free trade, while Democrats were more protectionist. In fact, the Biden administration has actually deepened some of the protectionist policies initiated by Donald Trump.
The danger is that the election will be a contest between two candidates trying to demonstrate who is more protectionist. Canadians must respect the right of US voters to determine their own government, just as we would insist on the Americans respecting our rights, but we need to demonstrate that it is in Americans' self-interest to foster a stronger relationship with their closest neighbor and best friend. And we must do that, not by special pleading, but by coming up with solutions to problems.
Finally, what is the best-case scenario for the US-Canada relationship in terms of economic prosperity and security? Is there a way to slalom through the protectionism, AI disruptions, political polarization, climate challenges, and conflicts and see a time of increased joint prosperity?
Perrin: The best-case scenario is that we restore a strategic partnership with the world's greatest superpower. We've let the relationship slide for too long, and it won't be easy to regain that position. But I believe it can be done if we muster the vision and the will to make it happen.
Last thing: You worked for Brian Mulroney, who recently passed away. He was the architect of the North American Free Trade Agreement and worked closely with Ronald Reagan. What lesson can today’s leaders learn from that time?
Perrin: As Canadians commemorate Brian Mulroney, our leaders should ask what they can learn from Canada's last great transformative prime minister. Brian Mulroney understood that governments don't create jobs and prosperity, businesses do. He also knew that the best way to solve problems was not to shut people out but to bring them in.
It's impossible to say exactly what policies a different government would follow, but what we do know is that our economy and our country are under severe strain today. The leader history will remember best will be the one who brings people together again in what remains the most fortunate country on the face of the globe.
“Those clouds are not real,” the woman standing next me at the car pickup spot said, pointing to the overcast skies above San Diego.
I had just arrived here to speak to a group of business leaders about Eurasia Group’s Top Risk report and the political landscape ahead in a year of polarizing elections.
“Sorry?”
“It’s usually beautiful and sunny here, but now with the cloud seeding, all we get is this,” she explained, adopting that apologetic tone proud locals use when their home isn’t exhibiting its best for a visitor. She interrupted her weather flow to give me some other tips about local restaurants — “check out Roberto’s taco stand” — and hiking in the area, before returning to the weather.
“Yeah, you know all those floods we had this past month?” she asked rhetorically. “They’re from these clouds the climate folks created with their cloud seeding because they want to block out the sun to cool the Earth down.”
And then she added the kicker: “And it’s poison, you know.”
Of all the risks I had come here to talk about, the poison-fake-clouds-causing-floods risk did not make the agenda. But the theory is so pervasive in California that the LA Times just wrote a long story in order to, well, rain on the conspiracy parade.
A quick background might be in order.
Cloud seeding is not new. It’s been around since the late 1940s, when a meteorologist named Vincent Schaefer first tried to stop ice from forming on airplane wings by firing chemicals like silver iodide into the air to stimulate condensation. Since then it’s been happening all over the world to induce rain or reduce hail storms — but it’s not a Harry Potter magic trick that can cause mass flooding. Cloud seeding, at best, can increase precipitation by about 5%-10%, which won’t get Noah rushing to build an ark.
Silver iodide is the chemical most often used and there are legitimate health and environmental questions about the levels. The EPA and state governments regulate all cloud seeding programs. And there are multiple studies that show the levels of silver collected from cloud seeding are more than a 1000 times lower than EPA standards for drinking water and therefore have very minor environmental, toxicological or health impacts.
So, did cloud seeding cause the two flooding events that took place between Feb. 3-8 and 18-19? Nope. As the Times reported, the body in charge of the project, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA), hadn’t even conducted any cloud seeding operations since Feb. 1, and even then, they didn’t do it in the San Diego area.
I didn’t intend to go up the whole cloud seeding hole, but the short encounter prompted me to think about the polarization in both the US and Canada, where people no longer debate different ideas based on a shared set of facts, but believe in different realities. Genuine, substantial conversations between people who disagree on key events, like say, the war in Gaza, are just not happening in places like college campuses — where they should — because each side sees the other as illegitimate, as if one is looking at fake clouds and the other at the real thing.
University administrators are now so fearful of getting involved in any way other than making anodyne statements — they don’t want to be “Harvarded” and alienate students, donors, and politicians or all three — that campuses have become bunkers of protest, not bastions of political debate.
It's also playing out politically in the US election cycle, where perception is driving reality. Look at the strong economic news. Last quarter, US GDP increased at a 3.2% annualized rate, business investment is up, consumer spending is up, the market is up and wages are up — but Biden’s poll numbers are down.
Biden is getting no credit for strong economic news and Donald Trump is sustaining no damage from bad legal news because partisan voters simply see what they want to see. Biden’s problem is no longer inflation itself — it has come down dramatically — it’s vibe-flation. Biden simply doesn’t look like the good news he’s delivering. He looks weak while his facts are strong. Trump looks strong while his facts are weak. And it’s working for Trump.
The self-reinforcing reality bubbles of partisan politics make it next to impossible to break out of these myopic views because there are no institutions with enough trust to set a benchmark of consensus and corrective facts.
As Gallup polling on trust consistently shows, confidence in US institutions is at all-time lows and going down: “The five worst-rated institutions — newspapers, the criminal justice system, television news, big business and Congress — stir confidence in less than 20% of Americans, with Congress, at 8%, the only one in single digits,” wrote Gallup’s Lydia Saad.
If someone doesn’t believe the clouds are real, why would they believe the facts about the economy are real?
Everything is political. That’s our mandate here at GZERO, but it doesn’t mean everything is up for grabs. Seeding clouds of doubt with conspiracy theories everywhere erodes the foundational gift of our democracy, which is to have passionate disagreements respectfully with our neighbors and still manage to get big things done together. To do that, facts matter.
That’s why, with crises growing all around the world and the election cycle whirling ever faster, we at GZERO are committed to having humane, non-partisan, robust coverage about different, conflicting points of view — but at least with an agreed upon set of basic facts. To alter an old saying, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own clouds.
In an exclusive investigation into online disinformation surrounding online reaction to Alexei Navalny's death, GZERO asks whether it is possible to track the birth of a bot army. Was Navalny's tragic death accompanied by a massive online propaganda campaign? We investigated, with the help of a company called Cyabra.
Alexei Navalny knew he was a dead man the moment he returned to Moscow in January 2021. Vladimir Putin had already tried to kill him with the nerve agent Novichok, and he was sent to Germany for treatment. The poison is one of Putin’s signatures, like pushing opponents out of windows or shooting them in the street. Navalny knew Putin would try again.
Still, he came home.
“If your beliefs are worth something,” Navalny wrote on Facebook, “you must be willing to stand up for them. And if necessary, make some sacrifices.”
He made the ultimate sacrifice on Feb. 16, when Russian authorities announced, with Arctic banality, that he had “died” at the IK-3 penal colony more than 1,200 miles north of Moscow. A frozen gulag. “Convict Navalny A.A. felt unwell after a walk, almost immediately losing consciousness,” they announced as if quoting a passage from Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon.” Later, deploying the pitch-black doublespeak of all dictators, they decided to call it, “sudden death syndrome.”
Worth noting: Navalny was filmed the day before, looking well. There is no body for his wife and two kids to see. No autopsy.
As we wrote this morning, Putin is winning on all fronts. Sensing NATO support for the war in Ukraine is wavering – over to you, US Congress – Putin is acting with confident impunity. His army is gaining ground in Ukraine. He scored a propaganda coup when he toyed with dictator-fanboy Tucker Carlson during his two-hour PR session thinly camouflaged as an “interview.” And just days after Navalny was declared dead, the Russian pilot Maksim Kuzminov, who defected to Ukraine with his helicopter last August, was gunned down in Spain.
And then, of course, there is the disinformation war, another Putin battleground. Navalny’s death got me wondering if there would be an orchestrated disinformation campaign around the event, and if so, whether there was any way to track it? Would there be, say, an online release of shock bot troops to combat Western condemnation of Navalny’s death and blunt the blowback?
It turns out there was.
To investigate, GZERO asked the “social threat information company” Cyabra, which specializes in tracking bots, to look for disinformation surrounding the online reactions to the news about Navalny. The Israeli company says its job is to uncover “threats” on social platforms. It has built AI-driven software to track “attacks such as impersonation, data leakage, and online executive perils as they occur.”
Cyabra’s team focused on the tweets President Joe Bidenand Prime Minister Justin Trudeau posted condemning Navalny’s death. Their software analyzed the number of bots that targeted these official accounts. And what they found was fascinating.
According to Cyabra, “29% of the Twitter profiles interacting with Biden’s post about Navalny on X were identified as inauthentic.” For Trudeau, the number was 25%.
Courtesy of Cyabra
So, according to Cyabra, more than a quarter of the reaction you saw on X related to Navalny’s death and these two leaders’ reactions came from bots, not humans. In other words, a bullshit campaign of misinformation.
This finding raises a lot of questions. What’s the baseline of corruption to get a good sense of comparison? For example, is 27% bot traffic on Biden’s tweet about Navalny’s death a lot, or is everything on social media flooded with the same amount of crap? How does Cyabra's team actually track bots, and how accurate is their data? Are they missing bots that are well-disguised, or, on the other side, are some humans being labeled as “inauthentic”? In short, what does this really tell us?
In the year of elections, with multiple wars festering and AI galloping ahead of regulation, the battle against disinformation and bots is more consequential than ever. The bot armies of the night are marching. We need to find a torch to see where they are and if there are any tools that can help us separate fact from fiction.
Tracking bot armies is a job that often happens in the shadows, and it comes with a lot of challenges. Can this be done without violating people’s privacy? How hard is this to combat? I spoke with the CEO of Cyabra, Dan Brahmy, to get his view.
Solomon: When Cyabra tracked the reactions to the tweets from President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau about the “death” of Navalny, you found more than 25% of the accounts were inauthentic. What does this tell us about social media and what people can actually trust is real?
Brahmy: From elections to sporting events to other significant international headline events, social media is often the destination for millions of people to follow the news and share their opinion. Consequently, it is also the venue of choice for malicious actors to manipulate the narrative.
This was also the case when Cyabra looked into President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau’s X post directly blaming Putin for Navalny’s death. These posts turned out to be the ideal playing ground for narrative-manipulating bots. Inauthentic accounts on a large scale attacked Biden and Trudeau and blamed them for their foreign and domestic policies while attempting to divert attention from Putin and the negative narrative surrounding him.
The high number of fake accounts detected by Cyabra, together with the speed at which those accounts engaged in the conversation to divert and distract following the announcement of Navalny’s death, shows the capabilities of malicious actors and their intentions to conduct sophisticated influence operations.
Solomon: Can you tell where these are from and who is doing it?
Brahmy: Cyabra monitors for publicly available information on social media and does not track IP addresses or any private information. The publicly shared location of the account is collected by Cyabra. When analyzing the Navalny conversation, Cyabra saw that the majority of the accounts claimed themselves as coming from the US.
Solomon: There is always the benchmark question: How much “bot” traffic or inauthentic traffic do you expect at any time, for any online event? Put the numbers we see here for Trudeau and Biden in perspective.
Brahmy: The average percentage of fake accounts participating in an everyday conversation online typically varies between 4 and 8%. Cyabra’s discovery of 25-29% fake accounts related to this conversation is alarming, significant, and should give us cause for concern.
Solomon: Ok, then there is the accuracy question. How do you actually identify a bot and how do you know, given the sophistication of AI and new bots, that you are not missing a lot of them? Is it easier to find “obvious bots”— i.e., something that tweets every two minutes 24 hours a day, then say, a series of bots that look and act very human?
Brahmy: Using advanced AI and machine learning, Cyabra analyzes a profile’s activity and interactions to determine if it demonstrates non-human behaviors. Cyabra’s proprietary algorithm consists of over 500 behavioral parameters. Some parameters are more intuitive, like the use of multiple languages, while others require in-depth expertise and advanced machine learning. Cyabra’s technology works at scale and in almost real-time.
Solomon: There is so much disinformation anyway – actual people who lie, mislead, falsify, scam – how much does this matter?
Brahmy: The creation and activities of fake accounts on social media (whether it be a bot, sock puppet, troll, or otherwise) should be treated with the utmost seriousness. Fake accounts are almost exclusively created for nefarious purposes. By identifying inauthentic profiles and then analyzing their behaviors and the false narratives they are spreading, we can understand the intentions of malicious actors and remedy them as a society.
While we all understand that the challenge of disinformation is pervasive and a threat to society, being able to conduct the equivalent of an online CT scan reveals the areas that most urgently need our attention.
Solomon: Why does it matter in a big election year?
Brahmy: More than 4 billion people globally are eligible to vote in 2024, with over 50 countries holding elections. That’s 40% of the world’s population. Particularly during an election year, tracking disinformation is important – from protecting the democratic process, ensuring informed decision-making, preventing foreign interference, and promoting transparency, to protecting national security. By tracking and educating the public on the prevalence of inauthentic accounts, we slowly move closer to creating a digital environment that fosters informed, constructive, and authentic discourse.
You can check out part of the Cybara report here.
A new poll on AI raises one of the most critical questions of 2024: Do people want to regulate AI, and if so, who should do it?
For all the wars, elections, and crises going on, the most profound long-term transition going on right now is the light-speed development of AI and its voracious news capabilities. Nothing says a new technology has arrived more than when Open AI CEO Sam Altman claimed he needs to fabricate more semiconductor chips so urgently that … he requires $7 trillion.
Seven. Trillion. Dollars. A moment of perspective, please.
$7 trillion is more than three times the entire GDP of Canada and more than twice the GDP of France or the UK. So … it may be pocket change to the Silicon Valley technocrat class, but it’s a pretty big number to the rest of us.
Seven trillion dollars has a way of focusing the mind, even if the arrogance of even floating that number is staggering and, as we covered this week, preposterous. Still, it does give you a real sense of what is happening here: You will either be the AI bulldozer or the AI road. Which is it? So how do people feel about those options?
Conflicted is the answer: GZERO got access to a new survey from our partners at Data Sciences, which asked people in Canada about Big Tech, the government, and the AI boom. Should AI be regulated or not? Will it lead to job losses or gains? What about privacy? The results jibe very closely with similar polls in the US.
In general, the poll found people appreciate the economic and job opportunities that AI and tech are creating … but issues of anxiety and trust break down along generational lines, with younger people more trusting of technology companies than older people. That’s to be expected. I may be bewildered by my mom’s discomfort when I try to explain to her how to dictate a voice message on her phone, but then my kids roll their eyes at my attempts to tell them about issues relating to TikTok or Insta (Insta!, IG, On the ‘Gram, whatevs …) Technology, like music, is by nature generational.
But all tech companies are not equal. Social media companies score much lower when it comes to trust. For example, most Canadians say they trust tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, or Apple, but less than 25% say they trust TikTok, Meta, or Alibaba. Why?
First, it’s about power. 75% of people agree that tech companies are “gaining excessive power,” according to the survey. Second, people believe there is a lack of transparency, accountability, and competition, so they want someone to do something about it. “A significant majority feel these companies are gaining excessive power (75% agree) and should face stronger government regulations (70% agree),” the DS survey says. “This call for government oversight is universal across the spectrum of AI usage.”
This echoes a Pew Research poll done in the USin November of 2023 in which 67% of Americans said they fear the government will NOT go far enough in regulating AI tech like ChatGPT.
So, while there is some consensus regarding the need to regulate AI, there is a diminishing number of people who actually trust the government to regulate it. Another Pew survey last September found that trust in government is the lowest it has been in 70 years of polling. “Currently, fewer than two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right ‘just about always’ (1%) or ‘most of the time’ (15%).”
Canada fares slightly better on this score, but still, if you don’t trust the digital cops, how do you keep the AI streets safe?
As we covered in our 2024 Top Risks, Ungoverned AI, there are multiple attempts to regulate AI right now all over the world, from the US, the UN, and the EU, but there are two major obstacles to any of this working: speed and smarts. AI technology is moving like a Formula One car, while regulation is moving like a tricycle. And since governments struggle to keep up with the actual innovative new software engineering, they need to recruit the tech industry itself to help write the regulations. The obvious risk is here regulatory capture, where the industry-influenced policies become self-serving. Will news rules protect profits or the public good, or, in the best-case scenario, both? Or, will any regulations, no matter who makes them, be so leaky that they are essentially meaningless?
All this is a massive downside risk, but on the upside, it’s also a massive opportunity. If governments can get this right – and help make this powerful new technology more beneficial than harmful, more equitable than elitist, more job-creating than job-killing – they might regain the thing they need most to function productively: public trust.
It’s a busy Thursday as we watch the Trump and the Supremes legal dance that could determine whether the former US president is eligible to run in November’s election. The Supreme Court hearing comes from the Colorado case, which argues that Donald Trump’s alleged involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, “insurrection” legally disqualifies him from running for President, something his team obviously opposes.
Don’t bet on Trump being disqualified by the conservative-dominated court, but in the long-shot scenario that he is – we won’t know a decision until likely just before Super Tuesday, March 5 – well, then, rewrite the playbook as to what happens next. “American Carnage 2” perhaps?
But first, it’s Super Bowl weekend, and while the tailgate conspiracy party over Taylor Swift’s presidential influence steams ever onward, the biggest political football continues to be support for Ukraine.
Last night, Republican senators refused to coordinate the play on Joe Biden’s domestic border deal, one that bundled in military support for Ukraine. Trump sacked any chance it had when he flexed his soon-to-be-the-nominee political muscle and demanded it not be passed. He is the Republican leader again, in every way but his actual election, and there are crisp little creases along the seams of the party where former opponents have folded.
Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., then picked up the fumbled ball and called an audible, saying he would try to pass a $95-billion bill focused solely on military support for Ukraine and Israel, but that also looks like it won’t get over the line.
Now what?
As the Feb. 24 second anniversary of the Ukraine war nears, the political game has profoundly changed as much as football changed in 19o6 when the forward pass was allowed. Only in politics, they’re now passing backward, instead of forward. Republicans can no longer rally support for a democracy fighting Vladimir Putin and illegal Russian expansion.
Trump’s first term signaled a neo-Republican isolationism and a refusal to honor longstanding foreign policy alliances, but with Ukraine suffering new military setbacks while facing deep shortages of equipment and soldiers, this is more urgent. It is handing Putin a win.
Without the $60 billion in US support – which pays for critical items such as HIMARS, Javelin, and Stinger missiles to take out Russian troops, tanks, and aircraft, and the heavy artillery ammunition the army needs for the grinding land battles – Ukraine will lose the eastern part of its country. As we called it in Eurasia Group’s 2024 Top Risks report, Ukraine will be partitioned. Putin wins.
Ukraine's security and continued US support for NATO’s Article 5 were once articles of faith. Now they are optional items on the foreign policy buffet menu. That is what has been normalized.
It’s not just a uniquely American issue. A consequential Angus Reid poll in Canadathis week revealed that both attention to and support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia is waning, especially among Conservative voters.
The poll found that the number of people saying Canada has offered “too much support” has doubled since the early weeks of the war. “One-quarter (25%) of Canadians believe their country is doing too much to assist Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion, up from 13% who said the same in May 2022. During the same interval, the number who say Canada is not doing enough has halved (38% to 19%),” according the Angus-Reid.
But here is the kicker. Of that group, Conservative voters make up the largest numbers. “The number of 2021 CPC voters who say Canada has done too much for Ukraine has more than doubled from 19 to 43% between May 2022 and now.”
Both in the US and Canada, the right is turning away from Ukraine. You might think that would pose some significant political challenges in a country like Canada, which has the largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world, if anyone cared to notice. But that’s another thing the poll revealed ...
Turns out, people are tuning out from the war, even though things are more urgent than ever. “The number of Canadians following news of the conflict closely has dropped from 66 to 45% in that same period – a trend that holds for Canadians of all ages and political stripes.”
On a day when President Volodymyr Zelensky just removed top Gen. Valery Zaluzhny in a desperate effort to reboot his country’s military fortunes and perhaps shore up his own position domestically, the news from indifferent allies abroad is as bad as news from the front.
A newly confident Putin is about to strike again tonight, when he sits down with his sycophant Tucker Carlson for a two-hour, pre-approved … what to call this? A PR stunt? An interview? A propaganda fest?
Here is what to watch for:
- Will Putin reveal anything about negotiating a peace deal or simply try to sell Russia’s view of the invasion, a view Carlson has long supported, to the growing far right in North America and Europe?
- Will Putin say anything about Trump to try to influence the US election?
- Will this interview deepen the resolve of Republicans to block more Ukraine funding to undermine both Zelensky and Biden?
- Facts: What will be straight-up lies and BS, and what will be factual?
For people paying less and less attention to the facts on the ground in the war, this Putin ploy will garner millions of views and allow him to shape the political debate.
We will have Ian Bremmer's Quick Take reaction to the Putin interview later tonight on our social media channels, and we will have more fact-checking in tomorrow’s GZERO Daily, so watch for those.
So, as the political Super Bowl of politics is playing out in Ukraine right now, there is no doubt who’s ahead: Russia.
This is the year of elections, with half the world’s population set to vote in more than 65 elections, so it’s no wonder there’s a lot of urgency over one issue: election interference.
Right now, Canada is holding a critical independent inquiry into election interference from China and Russia and yet, they naively missed the most disruptive election conspiracy mastermind of them all: Taylor Swift.
Or not.
In the department of “Weapons of Mass Distraction,” Swift merits a brief diversion before we get to China and Russia. As we covered in the Daily this morning, there is a double album of MAGA paranoia around China and Russia – sorry, I keep doing that … around Taylor Swift – and her plot to tilt the US election to Joe Biden.
One-time Republican presidential candidate-turned-Trump Hype Man Vivek Ramaswamy courageously exposed how Swift and her beau Travis Kelce, the future Hall of Fame tight end from the Super Bowl-bound Kansas City Chiefs, have it all cooked up. Working alongside, um … Deep Football and the Democrats, Swift and Kelce have, apparently, hatched an anti-Trump football plot.
“I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl next month,” Ramaswamy tweeted out knowingly, “and I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall.” What? No way! Vivek doubled down on his doubters, with one of those cryptic-conspiracy bro things that sound smart but then you realize you have no idea what he actually means.
“What the MSM calls a “conspiracy theory” is often nothing more than an amalgam of incentives hiding in plain sight,” Ramaswamy tweeted. “Once you see that, the rest becomes pretty obvious.” To which Elon Muskretweeted, “Exactly.”
Exactly what is in plain sight? That there is a Super Bowl-Swiftian election interference plot? That a billionaire musician, her record company, the NFL, Travis Kelce, and Joe Biden all got together to fix the outcome of the NFL playoffs and the Super Bowl in order to support the Democrats and undermine Donald Trump?
The Swift-Kelce-NFL-Biden fever dream has been widely repeated and reported on, but it has zero merit, as we covered this morning. Swift has a history of supporting Democrats in places like Tennessee in 2018. In other words, like millions of people, she supports a political party. That is not a conspiracy, that’s called “voting.” Many other celebrities support Trump and Republicans. That is also called voting.
Yes, Travis Kelce does vaccine ads for a pharmaceutical company. Again, not a conspiracy against Trump, but the choice of a man who, like hundreds of millions of people, believes in the science of vaccines – and in making a buck. It’s no more complicated than that. This isn’t a plot for election interference, as folks like Ramaswamy allege; it’s a paranoid new deflection from the very real act of attempted election interference that was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
But foreign election interference is troubling, and Canada’s inquiry merits attention. The independent “Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions” – catchy name, I know, so let’s go with the “Hogue Inquiry,” after the commissioner Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, who is overseeing it all — kicked off this week. It is looking into allegations that China and Russia interfered in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.
Just this morning, Global News reported that it had obtained a secret briefing note from Canada’s spy agency CSIS that says China attempted to interfere with the last two Federal elections. “We know that the PRC sought to clandestinely and deceptively influence the 2019 and 2021 federal elections,” Stewart Bell writes in his superb story today.
That’s exactly why Canada’s allies are watching this case so closely, especially in the US. “Much of the attention about foreign interference in American democratic processes has focused on Russia and its malicious online activities,” Stephanie Carvin, a Carleton University professor and former CSIS national security analyst, tells me. “But Canada presents an important case study in how other state actors, namely (but not exclusively) China, conduct such operations. This includes the harassment of dissidents, alleged interference in electoral nomination processes, and targeting of politicians. Western countries need to observe and learn from the experience of other countries, which may impact them one day.”
Despite the recent assurances from President Xi Jinping to President Joe Biden that China will not interfere in the election, FBI Director Christopher Wraywarned a House Committee on China this week that Beijing has a very sophisticated plan to disrupt the upcoming election and also hack critical infrastructure.
Other countries, like Russia and Iran, are playing copycat. “Unfortunately, malicious actors are learning from one another, and Western countries should expect more foreign interference in the future,” Carvin says. “I am particularly worried about artificially generated content ‘deepfakes’ that may alter perceptions of current events and politicians.”
Canada, the US, and its allies are arming up for a war on the heart of democracy: elections. “If there is a good news story here, it is that countries are not going through this alone,” Carvin tells me. “By working together, states can better inform themselves about what is happening around the world, to make their democratic institutions more resilient.”
Big picture? It might be best not to confuse Swiftian halftime entertainment with political election interference. Both are worth paying attention to, but they play in very different arenas.
Tucker Carlson visited Canada this week to “liberate” it from … from what exactly?
Well, that’s what thousands of people – including the premier of Alberta – came to Calgary and Edmonton to hear in packed arenas.
Tucker’s two-day liberation tour from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “authoritarian dictatorship” is timed perfectly around two political pieces of populist kindling: Trump’s march to victory in the US presidential primaries and a Canadian judge’s ruling that the Liberal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act during the Trucker pandemic protest was “unreasonable” and unconstitutional.
It all sent a message: The populist forces are gathering and ready to take down Trudeau (and Biden) and save Canada from “disgusting decline.”
Here are the things destroying Canada, according to Liberator Carlson: mass immigration, medical assistance in dying (“genocide”), legalized pot, transgender people, the woke folks, the media, big tech, a “metrosexual” prime minister, anti-Christian groups, solar panels … and then, the great biggie, the authoritarian state itself, which exposed itself during the pandemic. “This is a destruction of you and your culture and your beliefs and your children and your future,” Tucker breathlessly summarized.
Pause for a moment on that sentence, because in it lies, perhaps, the most challenging dynamic facing democracies worldwide: hate disguised as anger. The stark casting of politics as a personal, apocalyptic battle over the imminent destruction of … everything. Your culture. Your beliefs. Your children. Your future.
In Tucker’s End-of-Days casting, this is not a mere election cycle, a debate of ideas, or even a culture war. It is a war. Period. Mao Zedong once said “politics is war without bloodshed,” but as the rhetoric keeps getting hotter and political opponents are increasingly viewed as personal enemies, the lines between politics and war are dangerously blurred. And it raises the question, how to respond to this?
The first thing to establish is that a fierce debate of ideas is the core of democracy. Freely disagreeing with others is the whole shemozzle here, so protecting and defending the right of people to say things you disagree with (outside of hate speech, etc.) is foundational. Disagreement doesn’t make someone the enemy; it makes them a partner in democracy. That’s why the arrest of a commentator from Rebel News as he chased down a Canadian minister was fundamentally wrong. And why having Carlson come to Canada is perfectly normal. It may have a political impact, but it was not and should not be banned. Questioning power and protecting speech is core democratic stuff.
It's also why debates and court cases over, say, the government’s use of the Emergencies Act in Canada are critical.
But contrary to Carlson’s distorted mirror, this happens all the time. That’s why willfully twisting facts, playing footsie with hate speech – Carlson’s stock in trade as he profits from paranoia – needs an equally robust response.
For example, the Emergencies Act is a controversial tool, but the fact is, it was heavily scrutinized when invoked. There was a vote in Parliament, a built-in sunset clause (it was only in use for nine days), an inquiry headed by Justice Paul Rouleau (whose scope included access to confidential cabinet documents), and court cases from civil liberties groups … who just won!
Hardly the hallmarks of a dictatorship. It is the robust debate about a government’s use and overuse of powers, which is ongoing in any democracy. Torquing this stuff as some kind of fascistic conspiracy erodes the hard work it took to build these check and balance systems in the first place.
On one hand, the media and politicians have to be extra transparent, open, and fair, and they should take criticism about their own biases and assumptions. On the other hand, they can’t be scared to check facts, call bullshit, and avoid promoting hate.
For example, as Carlson raged about the government’s overreach on COVID – “hey Canada forcing people to take an untested medicine is not a good idea” – he left out the fact that in January, February, and March of 2020, HE was one of the leading voices calling on the government to do MORE. “People you know will get sick …Some may die. This is real,” he said. In March, he actually visited Donald Trump in the White House to urge him to take stronger action. “Anybody who imagined that this was just media hype turned out to be wrong,” Carlson said. “Feb. 3 is the day that it was confirmed to me by a US government official that this was a huge problem and that a lot of people could die. That’s when I learned it. And that’s the night we went on the air and said, "Wow this is something you really need to worry about.’”
Did Tucker mention any of this during his liberation tour? Is calling out his own call for action against the dangers of COVID political bias or just fact-checking
the revisionist history he’s peddling?
I guess this used to be called “standards,” but standards of shame, debate, and humanity have been abolished by the anonymous shield of social media, the political efficacy of disinformation, and the profitability of anger. Both the far right and the far left, among other culprits, bear responsibility. This is not bothsidesism. The fringes of both political spectrums have destroyed the middle ground on a host of issues – the pandemic, Ukraine, Israel-Gaza – and made reasonable dialogue a helluva lot harder.
Where does it end up?
Look, people are scared about where we are headed, but let’s not arm up.
Maybe it’s just good to remind folks that in the US and Canada, though there are real and deep problems, we have it pretty darn good next to, well, almost anywhere.
In the US this week, inflation was 3%, wage growth was 3% and employment was 3%. Look around the world. That’s not bad.
It sure as heck doesn’t look like the apocalypse or like your children will be destroyed.
Wars require liberators. Democracies require candidates.