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.
GZERO Explains
US President Donald J. Trump signs executive orders in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025.
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that aims to secure elections by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The order aims to guard against illegal immigrants voting in elections and would require all ballots to be received by Election Day.
The conundrum: The order has a strict list of ways to prove citizenship. So, while it will guard elections against illegitimate voting, it will also stop a lot of legitimate voters from casting ballots.
How does the executive order affect voter registration? Voters will have to provide proof of citizenship and valid photo identification. For most Americans, this will mean a passport or a combo of a Real ID-compliant license and a birth certificate. It also aims to eliminate online voter registration.
Who might this affect? About 140 million Americans do not have a valid passport. To put that into perspective, 153 million people voted in the 2024 presidential election. And close to 69 million women who have changed their names would have difficulty providing matching documents.
Is this enforceable? One provision of the order grants the Department of Government Efficiency, aka DOGE, the authority, with assistance from the Department of Homeland Security, to issue subpoenas to states for reviewing voter rolls to ensure compliance with federal laws. It also says that failure to comply could lead to a loss of federal funding.
But this is unlikely to fly with the courts. The US Constitution is crystal clear that Congress and the states have jurisdiction when it comes to creating election laws. This is likely to be thrown out by the courts. However, legislation called the SAVE Act was passed by the House on April 10 and contains the same provisions as the executive order, and would make them law if it is passed through the Senate.
But requiring proof of citizenship has been a goal for Republicans for a long time. So, even if the executive order is blocked nationwide, it will likely mean many GOP-led states and counties adopt rigid citizenship requirements anyway.
Are non-citizens voting? Despite levels of illegal immigration rising in the US over the last decade, audits by state officials and political scientists have concluded that it is still rare. A 2022 Georgia investigation found that there were 1,634 incidents of noncitizens potentially attempting to register to vote between 1997 and 2022, but 1,319, or 80.7% of them, happened after 2016. But, and this is important, in none of the cases was the person allowed to vote.
Are the payoffs worth it? Kansas implemented similar strict voting rules requiring proof of citizenship in 2013 in response to its Secretary of State saying that it found 129 non-citizens to have voted or tried to vote since 2000. While that accounted for 0.0007 of the state’s voters, the new rules ended up preventing more than 31,000 eligible US citizens from registering to vote after it was enacted – accounting for 12% of all first-time voter registration attempts in Kansas that year.
Democratic-backed Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford and Republican-backed Waukesha County Circuit Judge Brad Schimel square off in their only debate until their April 1 election.
Elections are back in the United States — and so is the money. Six months after the 2024 US presidential vote, Wisconsinites will head to the polls Tuesday to decide whether liberal candidate Susan Crawford or her opponent, conservative Brad Schimel,will tip the ideological balance of the state Supreme Court. The liberals currently have a 4-3 advantage.
Why it matters. This is the first electoral test of President Donald Trump’s second term. Wisconsin is one of the few swing states in the country, so the results are a solid bellwether for how the country feels about Trump — who endorsed Schimel — and his billionaire adviser, Elon Musk.
Strong scent of Musk. Liberal and Democratic groups have tried to make this election about Musk, targeting the Tesla CEO in their ads as they seek to seize upon some voters’ anger at the current government. Meanwhile, Musk has spent over $20 million to support Schimel, even recycling voter engagement tactics he used during the 2024 campaign, like his million-dollar raffles — a judge sanctioned these lotteries on Saturday.
Do liberals have an edge? Polling has been relatively limited on this race — one has the race tied, another has Crawford edging ahead — but Democratic-aligned candidates tend to perform better in off-season elections these days. The liberal candidate won the last Wisconsin Supreme Court race in 2023 by 11 points. As for Brandon Scholz, a Wisconsin-based lobbyist who worked for GOP campaigns for over 40 years, he couldn’t pick a winner.
“You go find your favorite quarter in your draw, and flip it,” he said.
Mahmoud Khalil speaks to members of the media about the Revolt for Rafah encampment at Columbia University on June 1, 2024.
The court battle over whether the US can deport Mahmoud Khalil, the 30-year-old Palestinian-Algerian activist detained in New York last Saturday, began this week in Manhattan. Khalil has been an outspoken activist for Palestinian rights, often leading protests at Columbia University in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the subsequent Gaza conflict.
Khalil was arrested Saturday at his apartment in a university-owned building at Columbia University by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, and he is now being held in an ICE detention center in Louisiana. His lawyers are fighting to have him returned to New York for the deportation trial as they believe a hearing in Louisiana would more likely favor the government.
For now, a New York judge has blocked Khalil from being deported while he challenges his detention in a separate case. The judge has also required that Khalil be allowed unmonitored calls with his lawyers, which he hadn’t been granted before Wednesday.
What is his background? Khalil is a legal permanent resident of the US, which means he has a “green card.” He was born to Palestinian parents in Syria, where he was raised in a refugee camp. Palestinian refugees have historically been denied Syrian citizenship, and Khalil eventually gained Algerian citizenship.
He is married to Noor Abdalla, a US citizen who is eight months pregnant with their first child. He is also a recent graduate of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and was a lead negotiator for students participating in the Gaza solidarity encampment at the school last year.
What is he accused of? There have been no criminal charges against Khalil, but government officials, including President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, say Khalil is a threat to national security and foreign policy. The US administration views the pro-Palestine protests on Columbia’s campus last year as aligned with Hamas’ worldview, and Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin has said Khalil participated in activities “aligned with Hamas.”
The Trump administration seeks to deport Khalil in line with section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 USC § 1227), which states that an LPR can be deported if their “presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
But Khalil’s lawyers say the government has not presented any evidence in court filings that Khalil has ties with or supports Hamas.
Can a permanent resident be deported? ICE agents said they were stripping Khalil of his green card, but according to legal scholars, green card holders can’t be stripped of their immigration status without due process.
Khalil’s arrest raises serious questions about the rights and entitlements of green card holders under the new Trump administration. But green card holders are entitled to basic Constitutional protections, including First Amendment and due process rights, which advocates and attorneys for Khalil say the government is violating.
There’s very little legal precedent for this kind of removal, especially for LPRs, but this section of the INA has been used to prevent people from coming to the US. The administration appears to be testing this little-used statute to see if it can be deployed further.
Where would Khalil be deported? The US government has not mentioned whether it plans to deport Khalil to Syria or Algeria, but as he holds Algerian citizenship, the latter would be the most likely. It’s worth noting, however, that Algeria often rejects deportation orders from France, and it’s unclear how Algiers responds to US deportation requests.Why Khalil? President Donald Trump has said that Khalil is “the first arrest of many to come.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly named two people, including Khalil, to be deported in a March 7 letter he sent to Homeland Security. Both were identified as legal permanent residents, but the second person has not yet been arrested.
President Donald Trump looks on while meeting with President of France Emmanuel Macron in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 24, 2025.
The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution is crystal clear: No person can be elected to the presidency more than twice. Ratified in 1951, it was a response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four-term tenure. Before FDR, the two-term limit was an unwritten rule respected as a tradition since George Washington.
The amendment doesn’t leave room for loopholes. It even prohibits a vice president who finishes out more than two years of a president’s term from being elected a third time. Grover Cleveland, the only other president besides Trump to serve two non-consecutive terms, was also barred from a third reelection.
So, could Donald Trump run for a third term? Legally, and probably, no. Not under the current rules. But we live in interesting times, and Trump and his advisers have repeatedly hinted that he could stick around for a three-peat – most recently last Thursday at a Black History Month celebration and later that same day at the Conservative Political Active Conference.
The (extremely unlikely) paths to a third term:
Repeal the 22nd Amendment. This would require two-thirds of Congress to approve removing an amendment and three-fourths of US states to ratify it. Translation: It’s politically impossible. There’s zero chance enough lawmakers — or states — would sign off on such a move. But a Republican lawmaker has still introduced a House resolution to amend the Constitution to allow President Donald Trump and future presidents to seek a third term.
Martial Law. While leaders in other countries have suspended elections during periods of martial law, in the US, the Constitution and the 22nd Amendment would remain in effect. There is nothing written in the Constitution that allows for it to be suspended during periods of national emergency. That said, when times are crazy, crazy things can happen that could weaken public and institutional pushback to a president expanding his powers during times of chaos.
Vice president loophole? Could Trump run as vice president, then ascend to the presidency if his running mate resigns? Legal scholars have debated this, but the consensus is no — since the 12th Amendment bars anyone ineligible for the presidency to serve as VP.
Ignore the law. The most extreme scenario: Trump – or any leader – could simply refuse to leave office and dare the system to stop him. Then it would come down to Congress, the courts, and the public to force him out. We saw Trump flirt with this idea after the 2020 election, which culminated in the Jan. 6 insurrection in 2021. But that’s the stuff of banana republics, not stable democracies.
Bottom line. The 22nd Amendment exists for a reason: to prevent the kind of power grabs that have destabilized other countries and destroyed democracies. As of now, it doesn’t appear that a third Trump term could happen — at least, not without a massive, unprecedented, shift in US law and politics. But things are rapidly evolving in US politics, so we will be keeping our eyes on how things develop.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., February 18, 2025.
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.A person walks in front of the Department of Education building in Washington, DC, on Feb. 4, 2025.
When was it established and why? US President Jimmy Carter created the department in 1979 as a Cabinet-level agency. It consolidated educational functions that were previously the responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services).
The department had a broad mandate, overseeing elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, vocational training, special education, and civil rights compliance. Carter wanted to centralize programs and ensure equal access to education, which he considered “a fundamental right.”
Why was this significant? Historically, education in the United States has been primarily a state and local responsibility. The US Constitution does not explicitly mention education, and the 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.
At the same time, however, the 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law. In 1954, the case of Brown v. Board of Education gave the 14th Amendment precedence, upholding federal intervention in cases of legal discrimination, such as bussing to combat school segregation.
Eleven years later, as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It does not mandate direct federal oversight of schools but offers states funding based on meeting federal requirements, including safeguarding civil rights. These funds were later administered by the Department of Education.
How have Republicans viewed federal involvement in education? In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the department, citing concerns about federal overreach. George Bush Sr. took a more activist approach, styling himself as the“Education President,” and leveraging the department’s powers to improve education quality.
What is Trump’s position? President Donald Trump has criticized the department for imposing a race and gender agenda on schools that encourages children to “hate” their country. He has said the federal government should not have control over schools and that it’s staffed with “people that hate our children.”
On Feb. 14, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education Craig Trainor issueda directive that all schools receiving federal funding rescind their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies within two weeks or “face a loss of funding.” Trump has also nominated Linda McMahon, cofounder of World Wrestling Entertainment and former head of the Small Business Administration, as Secretary of Education. At her confirmation hearing last week, McMahonstated that her first assignment as Secretary would be to “put herself out of a job” by dismantling the department, shifting control of education to the states and curbing federal oversight.
McMahon also proposed reallocating programs from Education to other federal agencies, such as moving the enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to the Department of Health and Human Services and transferring the Office for Civil Rights to the Justice Department.
How can these changes be made? All these changes would require congressional approval. At her confirmation hearing, McMahonsaid “President Trump understands that we will be working with Congress …We’d like to do this right. We’d like to make sure that we are presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with, and our Congress to get on board with.”GZERO Explains: Why is Trump fighting South Africa over its land policy?
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa looks on during the 55th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 21, 2025.
President Donald Trump has said that he will cut all US funding to South Africa, accusing the government there of confiscating land and “treating certain classes of people very badly,” an allegation South African President Cyril Ramaphosa denies.
What is Trump talking about? Last month, South Africa passed the Expropriation Act, which aims to address severe racial imbalances in land ownership. Thirty years after the fall of Apartheid, three quarters of private farmland is held by whites, who comprise less than 10% of the population. The new act repeals an Apartheid era law that was used to expropriate Black farmers.
What does the bill say? It facilitates the government purchase of unused or abandoned land, provided that “just and equitable” compensation is given. But it also, in the “public interest”, allows land to be expropriated without compensation if the property is abandoned and the landowner can’t be reached, or if it is being used for criminal activity.
What’s the controversy? Critics say this latter provision violates the South African constitution’s protections for private property. AfriForum, a South African lobbying group that acts on behalf of white Afrikaans speakers, recently briefed Trump on the bill. Elon Musk, who hails from South Africa, has also said the bill threatens South Africa’s white minority.
What happens if Trump pulls funding from South Africa? From a geopolitical perspective, “not much,” says Eurasia Group Africa Practice Head Amaka Anku, “the funding in question is about $440 million to South Africa’s HIV program, which is not significant enough to make South Africa retaliate.”
Still, that funding accounts for nearly a fifth of South Africa’s total HIV program funding. In a country with the largest HIV-positive population in the world, the human consequences could be significant.