Search
AI-powered search, human-powered content.
scroll to top arrow or icon

Editor's Picks

- YouTube

Trump has deployed his most disruptive weapon yet against China. Will it work? #PUPPETREGIME

Read moreShow less

Trump in front of a downward trending graph and economic indicators.

Jess Frampton

For someone who campaigned on lowering grocery prices on day one and rode widespread economic discontent to the White House, Donald Trump sure seems bent on pursuing policies that will increase that discontent.

If you don’t believe me, take it from the president himself, who refused to rule out a recession last Sunday and acknowledged that his sweeping tariff plans would cause “a little disturbance.” But, he added, “we are okay with that.”

Are we okay with that, though?

Read moreShow less
- YouTube

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. Marco Rubio heading to Saudi Arabia to talk with the Ukrainians. That's clearly the most important of a lot of moving parts geopolitically in the world right now. I say that because so much of what the Americans decide to do and not do with the Ukrainians is going to have massive impact on the transatlantic relationship, on NATO, on US-Europe relations, and on the nature of what has been the most important collective security arrangement in the world and is now experiencing crisis. It's very clear that the Ukrainians, as Trump says, lack the cards. And so the outcome is going to be determined largely by countries outside of Ukraine, not just the willingness and the capacity of the Ukrainians themselves to continue to fight. The United States, on the one hand, is pushing the Europeans to do a lot more. A lot more in terms of providing economic support, providing military support, and having a security backstop for a post-ceasefire environment that the Americans are not prepared to participate in.

Now, if all of that happens, and of course that's a big if, but certainly the Europeans are moving in that direction, then the interesting point is the Americans aren't going to determine the outcome. In the sense that the ultimate ceasefire terms will be driven not by the United States, who's basically saying, "We're washing our hands of it." But instead by the Europeans and the Ukrainians, in concert with Russia. And first of all, that's analogous to what's been happening in the Middle East. Everybody remembers that Trump said, "We're going to own Gaza and all the Palestinians are going to leave," and of course, that's not where we're heading. And the eventual outcome will be determined overwhelmingly by the countries that are prepared to spend the actual money and provide the security and figure out the politics. And that means the Arab States, that means Egypt and Jordan, it means Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and it means the potential for blocking by Israel.

That's the environment that we are increasingly going to be seeing on the ground in Ukraine. That the Europeans are going to be doing the driving. The Ukrainians are going to have to align with that and the blocking potentially by Russia. The big difference, of course, is that in the case of Ukraine, the United States is also very interested in doing a deal with Russia over the head of the Ukrainians and the Europeans. There's no equivalent in the Middle East at all. And here, the reason it's so important is because the ability of the Ukrainians to continue to engage in their willingness with the US and Europe together will determine in large part whether a deal between the US and Russia involves a ceasefire with Ukraine or doesn't. If Trump can say, "Hey, the reason we didn't get a deal and the reason they're still fighting is because Ukraine refuses to be a part of it," then a deal with Russia is actually much easier to get to by Trump. Because it involves just re-engagement diplomatically, investment by the US and Russia, joint projects, reopening of arms control conversations, and doesn't involve a Ukraine ceasefire.

Trump has said, "Not only does Ukraine not have cards, but Russia doesn't have cards." Of course, the reality is that if the Russians are willing to do the fighting for a longer period of time, and the Americans don't care and the Europeans can't stand up, then the Russians are the ones with the cards. That is where we are heading. And if the Americans are prepared to do a deal with the Russians irrespective of what happens on the ground in Ukraine, and that is being tested very much over the coming days, that's perhaps the most important outcome of what we see from the US-Ukrainian talks in Saudi Arabia, then the transatlantic relationship is in a lot more trouble than it is right now.

So I think those are the pieces that we're talking about here. It is very clear that the Americans see alliances and see allies as expendable, that it's not that important for the Americans to treat allies with respect. If they're smaller, if they're less powerful, you can do whatever you want. And we saw that with Elon Musk beating up on Poland and the Foreign Minister, Radek Sikorski, someone I've been actually friends with for a very long time, and I think that's not a smart way to conduct business. Poland's been a steadfast ally, they're spending upwards of 4% of their GDP on defense, heading towards 5% going forward. They've housed millions of Ukrainian refugees. They've done far more on the ground in Ukraine per capita than the Americans have on pretty much every front. And also, by the way, there are a lot of Polish Americans that vote, and some of them vote Republican. Far more important than the Ukrainian vote, for example, and that seems to matter too, but maybe not to Elon.

I think that these sorts of insults are unnecessary, and they damage American allies. But I think the Trump administration's perspective is as long as the US is the most powerful country in the world, that America alone is stronger than America with friends, and it's probably the area of greatest geopolitical disagreement that I have with this administration. But we will see how it plays out. I certainly agree that there will be a lot of wins that we will continue to see, because less powerful countries do not want to get into a big fight with the United States. But long-term, I think this is going to play out badly. And I particularly think that's true in the transatlantic relationship where permanent damage is being done irrespective of what happens after Trump. Anyway, a lot to talk about, a lot of moving pieces. We'll talk real soon, and that's it from me.

President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025.

Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS

Does Donald Trump’s revolutionary start make the grade?

On Tuesday, America once again celebrated the great presidential tradition called “marking your own homework,” also known as the Joint Session of Congress address. You didn’t need to sit through all 99 minutes of Trump’s peroration to know that he gave himself an A++ on his first six weeks in office.

Read moreShow less
- YouTube

On this episode of Vladimir Putin's public access AMA, the Russian president offers his thoughts on dealing with an annoying neighbor. #PUPPETREGIME

Read moreShow less

Trump and Putin shaking hands in front of European leaders.

Jess Frampton

In geopolitics, there are moments that define decades. Europe is facing one of those inflection points right now. How it responds will determine not just Ukraine’s fate but the continent’s future.

For generations, Europe has comfortably sat under the American security umbrella, content to let the United States shoulder the burden of its defense while it reaped the economic and geopolitical dividends of the resulting peace. But the events of the past week have exposed the fragility of this arrangement and laid bare the extent of America’s retreat from its role as guarantor of European security under President Donald Trump.

Read moreShow less

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., February 18, 2025.

REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

The Trump administration is moving to expand presidential authority over key independent regulatory agencies that were set up to be guarded from the executive’s influence.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump issued an order titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” requiring independent agencies to submit any proposed regulations to the White House to ensure they align with the president’s priorities.

What does the order say? It gives the Office of Management and Budget – which has been working in lockstep with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency – the authority to make funding decisions and to “establish performance standards” for employees. It also instructs the agencies to create a leadership position for a “White House Liaison.”

The order applies to 19 agencies, and notably affects:

  • The Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees markets.
  • The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces antitrust laws and protects consumers from deceptive business practices.
  • The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the media, internet, and all other forms of communication.
  • The Federal Election Commission, which oversees elections and political campaigns.
  • The Federal Reserve. While the order does not apply to the monetary policy decisions of the Federal Reserve, it does bring its regulation of financial institutions under the purview of the president.

Pros: Proponents of the executive order argue that putting the commander in chief in charge makes agencies more democratically accountable because voters can hold the president responsible for their decisions at the ballot box. Trump is also keen to control the regulatory state, which he believes hindered his first time in office.

Cons: These agencies were established by Congress to operate independently from the White House for a reason. They protect democratic principles like freedom of the press, preventing their potential weaponization through selective auditing or manipulation of election and campaign finance laws, and shielding markets and financial institutions from short-term, politically motivated regulations that could cause long-term harm.

The courts just caught another case. Since these agencies were established by Congress to be independent of the president, the order will inevitably trigger legal challenges, likely to reach the Supreme Court since they concern questions of checks and balances and executive authority. Once there, Trump will test the long-fringe unitary executive legal theory, which argues that the president has the sole authority over the executive branch.

Subscribe to our free newsletter, GZERO Daily

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO's daily newsletter

Most Popular Videos