Trending Now
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.
US & Canada
Visite d’Etat de M. XI Jinping, Président de la République populaire de Chine, en France en presence de Ursula Von der Leyen
5: China lifted sanctions on five European Union lawmakers on Wednesday as Beijing seeks to balance the growing trade war with the United States by warming ties with Europe. The sanctions were originally imposed on members of the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights in relation to European condemnations of human rights abuses against Uyghur minorities in Xinjiang.
500: Two Harvard University reports on anti-Muslim and antisemitic sentiment on campus released Monday stretched to over 500 pages cumulatively, noting that sizable minorities of Muslims (47%) and Jews (15%) did not feel physically safe. The reports, which were commissioned before the Trump administration took office, also showed that 92% of Muslims and 61% of Jews feared professional and academic repercussions for expressing political beliefs.
18: Turkish police have arrested 18 municipal employees in Istanbul as part of a growing crackdown against city Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu, who was imprisoned last month. Imamoğlu is widely considered the only opposition figure able to go toe-to-toe with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the next presidential election, but legal obstacles may effectively bar him from running. The municipal employees were among a group of 52 detained over the weekend, and are accused of taking bribes and participating in criminal conspiracy.
1 billion: Argentines deposited $1 billion in US dollars into their bank accounts over the last eight business after the government lifted restrictions on buying US currency following five years of strict controls. The dollar’s relative value has been sliding under the Trump administration and hit a three-year low last week after the president repeatedly criticized the chair of the Federal Reserve.
350,000: What stretchy inanimate thing killed 350,000 people in 2018? One word. Are you listening? Plastics. More specifically, chemicals that are added to the plastics that we encounter in everyday items like food packaging, lotions, and shampoos. A new study suggests that these “phthalates,” as they’re called, contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths from heart disease, especially in emerging economies where middle-class consumption has grown rapidly in recent decades.
How Trump fails, nuclearization, geopolitics on AI, and more: Your questions, answered
This is the third and last mailbag of the spring season. Check out the previous two here and here. I will resume the newsletter’s regularly scheduled programming next week, but I hope you’ve found this detour from long-form columns valuable and that I’ve covered some of the things that might have been on your mind.
Here we go (as always, questions lightly edited for clarity).
Gun to your head, what Democrat stands the best chance of becoming president in 2028?
Given how much the country – and the world – will change in the next couple of years, I suspect it'll be someone that nobody has on their shortlist right now. Or did you put money on “The Apprentice” host changing the course of history back in 2013?
School taught us the Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances, yet I don't see Congress stepping in to curb a dictator-type president. Why?
The system of checks and balances the framers designed in 1787 is resilient, but it has never been failproof. After all, the Constitution is a piece of paper – it isn’t self-enforcing. Ben Franklin’s “a republic, if you can keep it” shows the Founding Fathers recognized as much. One of the things the system needs to work is vigorous conflict between the branches. In other words, elected officials (looking at you, lawmakers) need to be willing to put duty to their office and their country above loyalty to their party.
But the modern American political system, with nationalized parties facing nationalized interests, nationalized polarization, and nationalized partisan media, has no ambition “to counteract ambition” as James Madison intended. This is especially true in Donald Trump’s GOP, which is cowed by the president’s political hold over the Republican voter base and media ecosystem. There’s also a big collective action problem – no one wants to be the first to stick their neck out, at least not until the crisis gets “big enough” to merit losing their jobs.
Given that virtually all of Trump’s actions are via executive orders and, therefore, can be overturned by the next administration, how big of a long-term effect do you think he will have?
Quite big. He’s setting precedents with the destruction of democratic norms, politicization of institutions, erosion of the rule of law, and expansion of executive authority that the next president will be able to build on if they so choose. As my colleagues and I flagged in this year’s Top Risk #2, Rule of Don, “Once precedents are broken by one party, the other tends to follow suit more easily.”
And let’s keep in mind there’s a decent chance the next president is someone Trump effectively anoints, which – presuming he’s still around after 2028 – could mean he’d still have a lot of direct influence. This assumes that free and fair elections are not materially disrupted through the weaponization of the “power ministries” (Justice Department, FBI, IRS). It’s far from my base case given state and local administration of elections, but still, a fatter tail risk than I’m comfortable with.
What’s the most likely way Trump can fail?
After hubris comes nemesis. The pattern is relatively familiar: Trump overplays his hand by picking more and bigger fights than he can win, gets kicked in the head by reality, and is either forced to backtrack or suffers a decline in the polls that threatens to splinter off Republicans in Congress and constrains his ability to implement his agenda.
Whether it’s China responding forcefully to the tariffs, markets revolting against attacks on Fed chair Jay Powell, or Harvard defending its academic independence, we’re already seeing meaningful snapback functions limiting the president. Not from traditional institutions, the courts, or multilateral treaties, but from powerful forces domestically and internationally that are refusing to take it on the chin. When you want to live by the law of the jungle and claim the title of apex predator, you have to win the big fights.
Will Trump’s dramatic “you are on your own” security messaging drive more countries to acquire their own nuclear weapons?
Absolutely, it’s a rational thing to consider in a G-Zero world. I doubt any of them will go nuclear over the next four years, but America’s unreliability already has a number of US allies and partners searching for alternatives to the US umbrella. Germany is likely to work out some form of nuclear-sharing with France and the United Kingdom, whose umbrella could extend across Europe and cover Poland as well. The Poles are also openly contemplating developing independent capabilities. South Korea and Japan are more likely to get their own nukes as a deterrent to Chinese aggression. The big open question is the Middle East, where Saudi Arabia (and maybe Turkey?) could also go down this path if Iran negotiations fail. Bottom line, we’re headed for an era of nuclear proliferation.
What did you think the G-Zero meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays?
How should Canada manage the small but important risk of invasion from the US?
By continuing to make clear that the threat is unacceptable – a view shared by a large majority of Americans, too. As Canadians just did by electing Mark Carney as prime minister, something that was unthinkable only a couple of months ago when his Liberal Party was dead in the water. That should tell Trump (who, by the way, had already ruled out direct military intervention) everything he needs to know about Canadians’ reaction function to foreign aggression.
Can American power be used to stop the bloodshed in Gaza and broker any kind of durable Israeli-Palestinian peace? Should it?
Should it? Of course. Can it? Not in any way that seems politically plausible. After all, Trump is even more pro-Israel than Biden was, and that was a high bar to clear already after what we saw last year. He doesn’t care about the well-being of the Palestinian population. And beyond Biden and Trump, most American voters don’t care enough about foreign lives to change their leaders’ calculus.
Absent heavy political pressure from Washington that isn’t coming, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has little reason to ease the pressure on Gaza, let alone to enter a broader peace process that could end his political career and maybe even land him in prison. Not only does he need to keep the far-right faction of his coalition onside, but most Israeli citizens now support the continuation of the fighting … and no longer support a two-state solution.
How do you think it will end between Ukraine and Russia? Will the Ukrainians be able to get their lands back?
Ukraine will be de facto partitioned, as we said in last year’s Top Risks report. That may be uncontroversial now, but it wasn’t a popular call to make in January 2024, when most of the West (to say nothing of the Ukrainians) was still demanding that Ukraine get all its land back. It wasn’t going to happen then, and it isn’t going to happen now. That would still be true if Kamala Harris had won the US presidency. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledges that Ukraine is militarily incapable of retaking all its territory, while Russia won’t agree to a voluntary return. The question is how much each side will lose – and how much leverage each will gain – by the time they decide enough’s enough. That time just hasn’t arrived yet.
How do you think AI will impact geopolitics by 2040?
I expect we will not recognize our geopolitical order. International relations presume a state-based system with major powers cooperating and competing in the diplomatic, economic, and security realms. Artificial intelligence will blow that premise out of the water. As the digital realm becomes the dominant geopolitical arena, we will shift to a hybrid order where technology companies and governments compete for influence.
States will either completely integrate AI into their systems of governance and decision-making or they’ll be left behind by non-state actors that are growing increasingly sovereign not just in the digital space but in society, the economy, and national security. Closed political systems will have an evolutionary advantage, as power will lie with whoever controls the most data. Open systems will increasingly move toward more centralization, lest they become marginalized in global influence.
In the long run, would you bet against the US? Is it still the land of opportunity?
I’d bet against all national governments in the long run. They are too slow-moving to adapt to what’s coming. Many people living in today’s United States may well continue to thrive in this future. But it will increasingly be up to us – not governments – to make ourselves fit for purpose.
If 75% of the world’s economy and 95% of the world’s population keep globalizing, especially its fastest-growing parts, is it accurate to talk about deglobalization?
No, you’re right, the world as a whole is not deglobalizing. Certainly not digitally, less so once the AI revolution goes truly global. But it is accurate to talk about the United States actively deglobalizing and the US-China relationship decoupling. Both of which have massive structural, long-term implications.
How can we return to a state where facts are less strongly disputed? Can social media ever recover from having become a manipulation-friendly propaganda machine?
Two small but useful, pro-social ideas to start. First, only verify actual people, not bots. Second, make platforms legally responsible for the content created and shared by large accounts that they algorithmically promote. The goal is not to constrain free speech – which, to be clear, should be protected according to our constitution and laws – but to weaken the present incentives to intentionally engineer and maximize outrage and anger to drive user engagement at the expense of our societies and democracies.
Why should I care so much about what’s going on in the world? It feels like it’s more of a headache than anything else. I am doing nothing with all the information that I absorb except complain, get angry, stand in disbelief, and of course, enjoy a lot of memes. But it weighs on me, and sometimes I wonder what the point is.
Because it involves your fellow humans. They’re just like you, only slightly more irritating. And they’re all we have. They’re worth caring about, even if you, your family, and your friends are all doing just fine. Because those people suffering in lands near and far could be you, your family, or your friends. That they aren’t is just an accident, luck of the draw. As John Donne wrote, “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” If you hear a bell tolling … it may well be tolling for you, my friend.
With all of the chaos unfolding in the US, do you ever wish that you were back in Antarctica?
Not in the slightest. It’s way too cold, and there’s nothing much interesting happening there. Though the whole no Wi-Fi thing would be occasionally welcome.
Does Moose profit from your use of his name, image, and likeness? If not, can I offer him some pro bono legal assistance?
Moose is in it for the art, not the money. Plus, he’s family. He gets two, sometimes three, meals a day – even on days when his content doesn’t perform very well.
As the US marks 50 years since withdrawing from Vietnam, one person would like to revisit the history VERY STRONGLY. #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning PUPPET REGIME series!
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks with members of the media as he walks into his office after the Liberal Party staged a major political comeback to retain power in parliamentary elections, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on April 29, 2025.
Prime Minister Mark Carney may have won the battle for power in Canada, but his country’s war of words with US President Donald Trump is only just beginning. And before that all begins, the Liberal leader must form a government.
Carney has options. The Liberal Party is projected to fall just three seats shy of a majority. Even so, the former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor is unlikely to seek a confidence-and-supply agreement, according to Eurasia Group senior analyst Graeme Thompson, even though Bloc Quebecois offered him a “truce.”
“If the Liberals fall short of a bare majority, they will be in a strong enough position to govern with a minority government, seeking ad hoc support from the NDP and Bloc Quebecois on specific issues,” Thompson said.
The elephant in the room. Once Carney forms a government, his principal test will be dealing with Trump. The aim for Carney, per Thompson, will be “to secure tariff-free (or at least low-tariff) access to the US market,” and the White House’s more dovish tone on trade over the last week suggests there might be an opening. The pair agreed to meet in person some time in the near future, according to a readout from the prime minister’s office, which comes after Carney insisted on Monday that he would only visit Washington to discuss trade agreements when there was a “serious discussion to be had.”
Ian Bremmer examines the future of the US-Canada relationship in his latest World in:60 here.
What’s next for Pierre Poilievre? The Conservative leader lost his own seat – a verdict that would consign you to reality television if you were in the United Kingdom. But he also led the Tories to their largest popular vote share since 1988, and expanded the right-wing coalition, so his political future may not be dead yet.
“He’s humbled,” Thompson said, “but likely to stay on to fight another day.”
Fifty years ago today, North Vietnamese troops seized Saigon, and ended the Vietnam war with a communist victory. GZERO writers and producers have taken a deep dive into the history behind this solemn occasion, exploring life in Saigon during the war, the emotional and chaotic scenes that unfolded as thousands fled, the life Vietnamese-Americans built from scratch in their new homes, and asking whether we have learned the lessons of the war.
50 Years on, have we learned the Vietnam War's lessons?
Fifty years after the fall of Saigon (or its liberation, depending on whom you ask), Vietnam has transformed from a war-torn battleground to one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies — and now finds itself caught between two superpowers. Ian Bremmer breaks down how Vietnam went from devastation in the wake of the Vietnam War to become a regional economic powerhouse.
Saigon’s Last Day: The fall, the flight, and the aftermath of the Vietnam War
Don Shearer, US Defense Department via National Archives
Saigon, April 29, 1975. For six weeks, South Vietnamese forces have been falling back in the face of a determined communist offensive. American troops have been gone for two years. The feeble government is in disarray. The people are traumatized by three decades of war and three million deaths.
Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” begins playing on radios across the capital.
Some Saigonese know it’s a sign: It is time to run.
Lien-Hang T. Nguyen, now a Columbia University history professor, was just five months old, the youngest of nine children. After a failed first escape attempt by helicopter, her family heard about an uncle with access to an oil transport boat. More than 100 refugees crammed aboard the small vessel, where they waited for hours to set sail. Nguyen’s father nearly became separated when he dashed back into the city in a futile attempt to find more relatives.
At nightfall, they finally departed, crossing enemy-controlled territory under cover of darkness before being ordered onto an ammunition barge floating off the coast, bursting with over 1,000 refugees.
“When the sun rose the next day, April 30, we realized Saigon had fallen,” says Nguyen.
Read more about the amazing stories of survival, and just what happened to Vietnam after the war here.
PODCAST: Revisiting the Vietnam War 50 years later, with authors Viet Thanh Nguyen and Mai Elliott
On the GZERO World Podcast, two authors with personal ties to the Vietnam War reflect on its enduring legacy and Vietnam’s remarkable rise as a modern geopolitical player.
Life in Saigon during the Vietnam War
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, author Mai Elliott recalls how witnessing the human toll of the Vietnam War firsthand changed her views — and forced her to keep a life-altering secret from her own family.
Growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in 1980s America
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer,Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen shares what it was like growing up as a Vietnamese refugee in the US — and how the Americans around him often misunderstood the emotional toll of displacement.
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Mark Carney leads the Liberals to victory in Canada. So, what's next for the US-Canada relationship?
I think sometimes you have relationship with somebody, and they do something that shocks you, you can't unsee it, I think US-Canada is like that now. I think the damage is permanent. Of course, the interdependence is immense. The dependence on the Canadian side is higher. They're a much smaller country. Their population is right next to the United States. Just a thin strip there. So, it's not like you can suddenly decouple, but there's going to be a lot of de-risking. So, strong efforts, very tough negotiations coming on trade and on security, but also an effort to build infrastructure and ship Canadian resources away from the United States, towards other countries around the world. Medium-term, that's going to be a pretty significant change in how we think about Canada.
The conclave will pick the next pope. How is it relevant for the wider geopolitical landscape?
It's relevant because, increasingly, political leaders do not inspire. So, here you have a population as large as any country, about 1.4 billion Catholics all over the world, just like India, just like China. That's the size of the global population. If the next pope that is picked is someone who is inspirational, is someone that is seen as a 21st century leader that can reflect sensibilities and ideology, values that are not seen from political leaders around the world, in your own countries, then the ability to have an impact on what gets young people out, and motivated, and inspired and engaged in public service or on the streets, and mobilized, and demonstrating becomes significant. So, I do think there's a real opportunity here, but we'll see what it means when we finally see white smoke coming out of the Vatican.
President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as he returns to the White House on Feb. 22, 2025.
World leaders and the global audience are trying to adjust to so much change in such little time, but the dominant thread has been the surprises hidden in plain sight throughout these last three months.
Border security & budget cuts take center stage
At home, the administration immediately got to work on commitments made on the campaign trail and in the latest Republican platform. Atop the list was a mandate to reverse “open-border” immigration policies and secure the US frontier. In its “Protecting the American People against Invasion” presidential action, one of a flurry of Day 1 executive orders, Trump established the groundwork for a multipronged policy, which has included detentions and mass deportations, designating MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization, and court battles over the protected status of Venezuelan migrants as well as birthright citizenship. The approach has had a chilling effect on immigration, with southwest land-border encounters down more than 90% year-on-year, according to the latest March data.
Trump’s other major domestic campaign priorities, deregulation and reigning in federal spending, have spawned a similar pace of action. Elon Musk’s work overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency has come to symbolize how the contours and shape of the US federal government have been redrawn. Last week’s announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that his department will also be overhauled – reducing jobs, shuttering “redundant” offices, and reprioritizing departmental focus – is just the latest example of a campaign throughline to reevaluate federal government spending and structure. The news comes as local governments and populations are still adapting to the shuttering of USAID, a key lever of US soft power abroad.
On domestic policy, there have been few surprises. Trump’s 2024 campaign commitments have become Trump 2.0 administration policy. Despite efforts last fall by the Trump campaign to distance itself from Project 2025, co-author Russell Vought’s selection to lead the Office of Management and Budget was a clear and present signal to all market players of how expansively the plans currently unfolding had been laid.
Remaking America’s role abroad
Turning to the global stage, Trump 2.0’s America First foreign policy has not been the “Make America Great Again” isolationism of Trump 1.0. Instead, from Canada to Mexico, Greenland, and Yemen, no stone is being left unconsidered or unturned. Global expectations set by the first Trump administration that foreign policy would only play second fiddle to a brighter spotlight on the domestic agenda are being updated. Trump has begun to remake America’s role in the world in his image, sowing a geopolitical unsettling but being transparent about the administration’s intentions – as peacemakers and trade disrupters.
As a would-be peacemaker, the president had hoped to bring an efficient closure to the war in Ukraine, an ambition welcomed by those sitting in European capitals. He committed initially to ending the conflict on his first day in office but later extended the timeline to within six months. Last week’s decision by lead attaché Steve Witkoff and Rubio to pull out of peace talks in London is telling. With remaining wide gulfs between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump (even after their 15-minute tête-à-tête at the pope’s funeral this weekend), and likewise, between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the US administration is quickly discovering that intractability is in the details. European leadership has yet to identify an offramp to the conflict that does not include the US administration’s stewardship.
As a quick resolution does not appear imminent, the Trump administration may soon look to quietly back out and close the door on its peace negotiation efforts. Rubio acknowledged as much over the weekend, saying that “we cannot continue … to dedicate time and resources to this effort if it is not going to come to fruition.”
Any reduction in attention on Ukraine and Europe would almost certainly coincide with a ramp-up toward the Middle East, where the administration has historically had more success (e.g. Trump 1.0’s Abraham Accords).
While being a peacemaker remains a work in progress, the president has exceeded expectations as a trade disrupter over the first 100 days. Despite Trump’s constant refrain of tariffs and a four-decade commitment to seeing the US not get “ripped off,” the markets and global leadership still held their breath for a targeted, gradual installation of levies. Instead, April 2, aka “Liberation Day,” introduced the world to one man’s concept of “kind reciprocity,” a benign phrase that has the potential to reshape the global trading system, financial markets, and international relationships.
The accompanying executive order provided for a 10% flat tariff on all trading partners, which went into effect earlier this month. The additional “discounted” reciprocal tariff rates to be imposed on certain trading partners were postponed for 90 days until July 9 for all except the People’s Republic of China. In the intervening weeks, markets have wobbled but are holding onto hope.
The dominant question now is what lies ahead for the next 100 days and beyond. As the “Liberation Day” announcements and maneuvers clarify, there will be more volatility to come. Even with the policy priorities and details beginning to be filled in, this is not the finishing line; it is merely the starting gun. Trump has 90% of the race still to run.
Still, the Trump administration will be pleased with the scorecard of promises kept thus far. It has planted seeds across the domestic and global landscape and will now step back to watch the garden grow. On trade, the ambition is 90 deals in 90 days. And with it, Trump assumes his most preferred role: dealmaker-in-chief.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.