Trump's plans for policy & personnel

- YouTube

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Everyone, of course, talking about the incoming Trump administration. What it's going to mean in terms of personnel and in terms of policy. The latter, more important, but informed very significantly by the former. Couple of things I would say.

First of all, on the personnel side, clearly most important point here and very different from the first administration is that loyalty matters immensely. Trump is angriest not at Democrats, angriest at people that used to work for him who have now flipped, who are calling him a fascist. Some of the worst things that have been said about Trump in the first administration came from senior people that he put in that weren't loyal. They may have been long-term establishment Republicans and adults, but now he couldn't be bothered with them in the slightest and wants them to know it.

And that's why nobody really expected, that was talking to the Trump team, that Pompeo or Haley were going to be appointed. But the fact that Trump came out immediately before even making other appointments to a cabinet and saying, "No, you two, thanks, but no thanks. You can go get on with the rest of your lives." Because he sees them as not loyal. Nikki said all sorts of horrible things about Trump, and Pompeo was feeling around with other candidates and didn't endorse until way too late. And Trump was angry about that at the time, and he holds that grudge.

So you're going to see a team that I think is much more consolidated around Trump. And that doesn't mean there won't be different constellations, groups of people that are more aligned with each other, but when Trump has something he wants done, everyone's going to run alongside him.

And I think that's true for JD Vance too. The idea that there's going to be a shadow cabinet that is run by Vance, and he's the Project 2025 guy. No, if that happens, Trump will be angry. If there's any large meeting internally, Trump wants to be the star. And he expects Vance to do his bidding and to be effective at it and to run other things that he doesn't care as much about. And that is, I think, the role that Vance will play.

Is it going to be more populist on some issues? Sure, but not necessarily on as many as you'd think. Why? Because there are going to be a lot of billionaires who are interested in their business interests, their investment interests around the Trump team. There will be CEOs. There'll be a lot of people that aren't globalists in name; they've been thoroughly repudiated, but globalists in more policy than you would think.

Now here, China policy is extremely interesting because on the one hand, Trump really wants to see higher tariffs on China and has talked about that. Robert Lighthizer, who was US trade rep for Trump last time around, very professional, very capable in that role, clearly playing a very significant role in running trade and maybe other things economically for Trump this time around. He is pushing for more jobs in the United States, more investment in the United States, decoupling from China. Very comfortable with a new Cold War between the US and China.

You know who isn't? Elon Musk. Has massive investments on the ground in China, wants a more comfortable relationship there, and has basically told the Chinese that he's very interested in helping to be an interlocutor. Kissinger is dead. And the one person who's out there that could be a conduit of information and potentially better relations between the two most powerful countries in the world is Elon. Will he be effective? A technology policy is kind of interesting because Trump first time around didn't do technology policy. Remember the CHIPS Act? That was Biden. Semiconductors, export controls, that was Biden. Wasn't something Trump was focused on. He was focused on trade, on the trade deficit, on tariffs, on those issues, intellectual property theft, those issues. Not as focused on technology. Elon will be, and he's going to want people he wants to be appointed in relevant positions in the Trump administration. So if that happens, maybe it's true that US-China relations become more functional than they otherwise might've been. But this is an untested proposition, something very interesting to watch.

A couple other places that are really important, Russia-Ukraine. Did Trump, did Trump not have a conversation already with Putin? Kremlin's saying no, that means absolutely nothing. But clearly he is very interested in pushing Zelensky, who is on the back foot militarily right now, to end this war. And the likelihood of a near-term ceasefire has gone way up because of Trump. Orbán of course, already been saying that from Hungary. Robert Fico from Slovakia wasn't saying that before Trump was elected. Now he is. Are we going to see that from Giorgia Meloni in Italy, for example, who's ideologically disposed to Trump, but has been much more anti-Russia in her policies? Watch that very, very carefully. Other countries that aren't on the front lines.

So it's going to be a lot of pressure on the Ukrainians, an opportunity for Putin, if he wants it, though he's doing well militarily, so he's going to probably drive a harder bargain on even a short-term ceasefire than he might have three months ago, six months ago. And he knows Trump wants to get this done. And then we need to see what the Europeans do. Do they hang together under a relatively strong and aligned European Union leadership, or do we start to see a real split among a whole bunch of European individual government leaders that are a lot weaker? Super interesting.

And then of course, you have the Middle East. And on the Middle East policies are even stronger than Biden's pro-Israel policies. And you've seen a lot of support for going after Iran. Might the Israelis now do that? Oil prices are low. China's not demanding much energy. Hitting the Iranians nuclear and energy capabilities wouldn't bring oil as high as they would've been 6 months ago, 12 months ago. Depends on what the Iranians do in response, how disruptive they want to be. But right now they're reaching out to everyone. The Europeans, the Iranians are reaching out to the Saudis. They just did some low level military exercises with the Saudis. This is a country that is basically saying, "We don't want a big fight. We know that we're going to lose if we have one." Easy time for Trump to press in the Middle East. Last time he was president, first place he went was Saudi Arabia, then Israel. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he does that again. Though he probably flips it this time around in terms of the order.

Okay, so much to talk about, so much to watch. I hope you find this interesting. We'll be on top of it and we'll talk to you all real soon.

More from GZERO Media

Joachim von Braun, president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, speaks at the “Risks and Opportunities of AI for Children: A Common Commitment for Safeguarding Children” event.

© Alessia Giuliani/IPA via ZUMA Press via Reuters

In a conference at the Vatican last week, Catholic leaders called for global action to protect children from the dangers of artificial intelligence.

Semiconductor chips are seen on a circuit board of a computer in this illustration.

REUTERS/Florence Lo/Illustration

A coalition of nine European countries is discussing how to accelerate the continent’s chip independence, the group said on Friday.

Midjourney

Just a few short months ago, Silicon Valley seemed to have the artificial intelligence industry in a chokehold. Startups OpenAI and Anthropic blazed the trail on large language models while Google, Meta, Microsoft, and other tech incumbents invested billions to keep up. But when the Chinese startup DeepSeek released its AI models in January, claiming they matched American ones in performance at much cheaper prices to develop, the US lead was suddenly called into question.

- YouTube

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A key insight revealed by the Yemen military strike group chat: The entire Trump cabinet is saying we shouldn’t be helping the Europeans, and if we have to then they should be paying for it. It's not collective security, it’s purely transactional security.

National Security Advisor Michael Waltz speaks at the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, March 7, 2025.

Chris Kleponis/Pool/Sipa USA

Washington is buzzing over a major security breach that saw the editor of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, mistakenly added to a Signal group chat that included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, VP JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. The group coordinated a war plan and sent real-time operational details about US strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen, sharing classified information on an external app without noticing that Goldberg was on the chat.

A young protester is holding a banner with a photo of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the demonstration. Protests in Ankara continue into their fifth day following the arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu.
Bilal Seckin / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

When opposition leader Ekrem Imamoglu was first elected mayor of Istanbul in 2019, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, claimed his victory was a fraud and ordered a rerun.

People visit the booth of Walmart eCommerce during the 5th China Cross-Border E-Commerce Trade Fair at Fuzhou Strait International Conference and Exhibition Center on March 18, 2025 in Fuzhou, Fujian Province of China.
Photo by Wang Dongming/China News Service/VCG

“Save money, live better” may be Walmart’s promise to consumers, but US President Donald Trump’s tariffs are making it hard to fulfill.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) speaks with reporters following the Senate Republicans' weekly policy lunch on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 11, 2025.
REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo

House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune will meet on Tuesday to try to bridge the massive schism between budget reconciliation packages in the House and Senate. At stake: Donald Trump’s policy agenda.