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.
Analysis
President Donald Trump speaks from the Oval Office flanked by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on the day he signed executive orders for reciprocal tariffs, Feb. 13, 2025.
Now in its third month, Trump 2.0 has sustained a breakneck pace. In recent days, the administration announced 25% tariffs on automobiles, conceived of secondary tariffs for nations buying oil from Venezuela (and potentially Russia and Iran), and reiterated its interest in “getting” Greenland.
Market participants have held their breath for Wednesday – “Liberation Day” – as the administration is set to unveil global tariffs, the lynchpin of its America First trade policy.
As the zone has flooded, predicting the current administration’s next moves has become an Olympic-level sport. Details of a group chat between senior administration officials that leaked last week – the so-called Houthi PC small group – provide allies, adversaries, and watchers with revealing insights into the administration’s foreign policy blueprint.
Reestablishing deterrence
While campaigning, President Donald Trump was fond of saying that no wars broke out during his presidency and that the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel-Gaza would never have happened if he had been president. In the run-up to his inauguration, Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office (later extended to within six months). On Gaza, Trump posted on social media that Hamas would have “all hell to pay” if they did not release Israeli hostages before he was sworn in.
Whether the administration was prepared to back up these threats with action hung as a giant question mark. During his first term, Trump largely avoided large-scale security operations. The major exception was the January 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force. This time, the risk of threatening “all hell” is that to establish credibility, you may have to administer “all hell.”
On March 15, the US military began conducting a series of air strikes on Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen – the operation at the heart of the group chat.
Exchanges in the chat tell us this use of force was strategic by design.According to the transcript, after Vice President JD Vance shared concerns about conducting the attacks, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth countered, “We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This is not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered.” The message is clear: this is not about the Houthis; this is about the Trump 2.0 administration telegraphing its willingness to carry out “all hell.” TheUS has reportedly deployed B-2 bombers and cargo planes to the region as a further indicator of the administration’s apparent willingness to conduct additional strikes.
A ledger of allies
Hegseth’s remarks also reveal another principle of the Trump 2.0 foreign policy: Isolationism is dead, long live America First. During the first Trump administration, there was a sense that the president’s focus on rebuilding manufacturing jobs and tightening immigration meant that the US was taking its ball and going home. Now, Trump and his team are scanning the horizon, looking for angles, and from Greenland to Canada to Venezuela and Yemen,no stone is being left uncovered.
Since Oct. 7, 2023, Houthi militants have targeted shipping assets traversing the Red Sea, depressing trade through the channel and setting off a global rerouting of trade. Trump ordered the sea lanes reopened. As laid out in the group chat, the administration sees it as the US's role and a core national interest to restore freedom of navigation. In fact, according to Hegseth, “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But [US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz] is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close.”
Much has been made of the anti-Europe tone of the conversation. Anyone sitting in European capitals will certainly be disappointed by the language and accompanying content that the US will be looking to Europe to foot its security bill. But anyone sitting in European capitals hopefully already knows to expect this. That Trump (like President Barack Obama before him and President Joe Biden after him) wants to see Europe pay more for its collective defense is not new or news. What should, however, buoy Europe is that the US still counts itself on the same side of the ledger as its Western allies and that it feels a responsibility – a unique responsibility – toward them. This is not a case of the US pulling up the drawbridge. This is a US administration taking aim and looking for others to help settle the bill.
There can be no doubt that following the daily turns of the US administration can leave the rest of the world gasping for air. In his second term, Trump’s true north is legacy – perhaps even athird term. Through a relentless drive on tariffs, secondary tariffs, sanctions, export controls, and other measures, he is further aligning national security and economic security toward an ambition of bringing revenue and investment back to the US. This is a years-long project, beginning on Liberation Day, and no three-month period can definitively judge its outcome. The administration initiated the Houthi operation to backstop its economic policy prong with a hard-power policy prong. Going forward, when threats of a “bad situation” or of bombing Iran are made unless a deal is struck, they will carry weight.
Still, Trump hopes that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” The US is not leaving the world alone, for better or for worse.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
Last week, OpenAI released its GPT-4o image-generation model, which is billed as more responsive to prompts, more capable of accurately rendering text, and better at producing higher-fidelity images than previous AI image generators. Within hours, ChatGPT users flooded social media with cartoons they made using the model in the style of the Japanese film house Studio Ghibli.
The ordeal became an internet spectacle, but as the memes flowed, they also raised important technological, copyright, and even political questions.
OpenAI's infrastructure struggles to keep up
What started as a viral phenomenon quickly turned into a technical problem for OpenAI. On Thursday, CEO Sam Altmanposted on X that “our GPUs are melting” due to the overwhelming demand — a humblebrag if we’ve ever seen one. In response, the company said it would implement rate limits on image generation as it worked to make the system more efficient.
Accommodating meme-level use of ChatGPT’s image generation, it turns out, pushed OpenAI’s servers to their limit — showing that the company’s infrastructure doesn’t have unlimited power. Running AI services is an energy- and resource-intensive task. OpenAI is only as good as the hardware supporting it.
When I was generating images for this article — more on that soon — I ran into this rate limit, even as a paying user. “Looks like I hit the image generation rate limit, so I can’t create a new one just yet. You’ll need to wait about 5 minutes before I can generate more images.” Good grief.
Gadjo Sevilla, a senior analyst at the market research firm eMarketer, said that OpenAI can often overestimate its capacity to support new features, citing frequent outages when users rush to try them out. “While that’s a testament to user interest and the viral nature of their releases, it's a stark contrast to how bigger companies like Google operate,” he said. “It speaks to the gap between the latest OpenAI models and the necessary hardware and infrastructure needed to ensure wider access.”
Copyright questions abound
The excessive meme-ing in the style of Studio Ghibli also aroused interesting copyright questions, especially since studio co-founder Hayao Miyazakipreviously said that he was “utterly disgusted” by the use of AI to do animation. In 2016, he called it an “insult to life itself.
Still, it’d be difficult to win a case based on emulating style alone. “Copyright doesn’t expressly protect style, insofar as it protects only expression and not ideas, but if the model were trained on lots of Ghibli content and is now producing substantially similar-looking content, I’d worry this could be infringement,” said Georgetown Law professor Kristelia Garcia. “Given the studio head’s vehement dislike of AI, I find this move (OpenAI openly encouraging Ghibli-fication of memes) baffling, honestly.”
Altman even changed his profile picture on X to a Studio Ghibli version of himself — a clear sign the company, or at least its chief executive, isn’t worried about getting sued.
Bob Brauneis, a George Washington University law professor and co-director of the Intellectual Property Program, said it’s still an open question whether this kind of AI-generated art could qualify as a “fair use” exempt from copyright law.
“The fair use question is very much open,” he said. Some courts could determine that intent to create art that’s a substitute for a specific artist could weigh against a fair use argument. That is because [one] fair use factor is ‘market impact,’ and the market impact of AI output on particular artists and their works could be much greater if the AI model is optimized and marketed to produce high-quality imitations of the work of a particular author.”
Despite these concerns, OpenAI has defended its approach, saying it permits “broader studio styles” while refusing to generate images in the style of individual living artists. This distinction appears to be their attempt to navigate copyright issues.
When the meme went MAGA
On March 28, the White House account on X posted an image of Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, a Dominican Republic citizen, crying after she was detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement for illegal reentry after a previous deportation for fentanyl trafficking. The Trump administration has been steadfast in its mission to crack down on immigration and project a tough stance on border security, but many critics felt that it was simply cruel
Charlie Warzelwrote in The Atlantic, “By adding a photo of an ICE arrest to a light-hearted viral trend, for instance, the White House account manages to perfectly capture the sociopathic, fascistic tone of ironic detachment and glee of the internet’s darkest corners and most malignant trolls.”
The White House’s account is indeed trollish, and is unafraid to use the language and imagery of the internet to make Trump’s political positions painfully clear. But at this moment the meme created by OpenAI’s tech took on an entirely new meaning.
The limits of the model
The new ChatGPT features still have protections that keep it from producing political content, but GZERO tested it out and found out just how weak these safeguards are.
After turning myself into a Studio Ghibli character, as you see below, I asked ChatGPT to make a cartoon of Donald Trump.
Courtesy of ChatGPT
ChatGPT responded: “I can’t create or edit images of real people, including public figures like President Donald Trump. But if you’re looking for a fictional or stylized character inspired by a certain persona, I can help with that — just let me know the style or scene you have in mind!”
I switched it up. I asked ChatGPT to make an image of a person “resembling Donald Trump but not exactly like him.” It gave me Trump with a slightly wider face than normal, bypassing the safeguard.
Courtesy of ChatGPT
I took the cartoon Trump and told the model to place him in front of the White House. Then, I asked to take the same character and make it hyperrealistic. It gave me a normal-ish image of Trump in front of the White House.
Courtesy of ChatGPT
The purpose of these content rules is, in part, to make sure that users don’t find ways to spread misinformation using OpenAI tools. Well, I put that to the test. “Use this character and show him falling down steps,” I said. “Keep it hyperrealistic.”
Ta-dah. I produced an image that could be easily weaponized for political misinformation. If a bad actor wanted to sow concern among the public with a fake news article that Trump sustained an injury falling down steps, ChatGPT’s guardrails were not enough to stymie them.
Courtesy of ChatGPT
It’s clear that as image generation gets increasingly powerful, developers need to understand that these models are inevitably going to take up a lot of resources, arouse copyright concerns, and be weaponized for political purposes — for memes and misinformation.
Canada’s Liberals and Conservatives are neck and neck as election begins, and running on similar promises
Canada’s federal election is on. The polls show a polarized contest between the Liberals and Conservatives, one dominated by Donald Trump and the question of who’s best-suited to deal with his tariff and annexation threats. Canadian nationalism has surged. The Liberal Party, recently down 25 points in the polls to the Conservatives, have seen their fortunes turn around under new leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney — a manwho’s been all too keen to, ahem, adapt ideas from his top rival.
Liberal, Tory, same old story?
A Trump-centric campaign risks obscuring other important policy issues. But how much does it matter when the two front-runners are so close together? So far, both parties — one of which is running on the slogan “Canada Strong” and the other on “Canada First” – have adopted similar proposals for a range of issues.
Both Liberal and Conservative campaigns launched with promises to cut personal income taxes. The Liberals are offering a 1% cut to the lowest bracket, and the Conservatives are putting forward a 2.25% cut. Both parties are also promising to cut federal sales taxes on new homes for first-time buyers, with Liberals including new builds worth as much as CA$1 million and the Conservatives ramping it all the way up to … $1.3 million, but they’ll expand eligibility to non-first-time buyers, including investors.
On defense, Carney is promising to spend 2% of GDP on the military by 2030 and expand Arctic security. Poilievre has promised more or less the same, with details to come. Both say they’ll speed up the building of energy infrastructure, including oil and gas pipelines, though Carney would keep a Trudeau-era emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, while Poilievre would not.
Affordability remains a major concern, even more so with tariffs threatening the economy. Poilievre even says he’d keep (though perhaps not expand) the Liberals’ public prescription drug, daycare, and dental care programs. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of Canadians can’t afford food. In 2024, the Liberals launched a food lunch program, which the Conservatives attacked as a headline grab but didn’t outright oppose. The parties haven’t released more on food security and affordability yet, but they almost certainly will.
Can the Liberals rewrite the past?
While the Liberals are now led by Carney, with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gone, they’re still the same party that has governed for nearly a decade and earned ire from voters for policy shortcomings. With a policy agenda that, so far, looks similar to that of the Conservatives, the Liberals must persuade voters they’re not just better on policy, but that their guy is better on character and competence, and that his team is fit for purpose.
It’s a tricky task, and it’s fair to ask how much the Liberal Party has changed. Many top candidates and current Cabinet ministers are the same faces from Trudeau’s years, including Chrystia Freeland, Mélanie Joly, Dominic LeBlanc, Bill Blair, and François-Philippe Champagne. The Liberal surge even persuaded a handful of candidates who’d served in the caucus to run again after saying they were out under Trudeau, including high-profile players Anita Anand, Sean Fraser, and Nate Erskine-Smith.
When Carney announced his Cabinet just before he triggered the election, Conservatives were quick to point out that the group contained 87% of the same faces from Trudeau’s table. Among the faces are those who supported, just weeks earlier, policies Carney is now reversing, including the Liberals’ signature consumer carbon price and its planned increase to the capital gains inclusion rate (reversals Conservatives were calling for).
Canada’s “presidentialized” election
A leader-focused campaign in the face of Trump’s threats will, perhaps ironically, be thoroughly American. Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group’s global macro-geopolitics practice, notes that the tricky thing for the Liberals is this is a change campaign, with voters looking to reset after the Trudeau years. Carney will have to present himself as that change – which could mean an intense focus on him as leader.
Thompson calls it a “presidentialized” campaign, one that comes with a risk for the neophyte Liberal leader. “It opens the question of Carney’s political experience, or rather lack thereof – and the fact that he has never run an election campaign before, let alone a national general election campaign. It’s an open question whether his political inexperience comes out in a negative way.”
But a focus on character could also set Carney apart from Poilievre, even if the two don’t have much daylight between them on policy. Voters see Carney as the best person to be prime minister, and he enjoys high favorability ratings — over half the country likes him. The Conservative Party leader, on the other hand, isn’t particularly well-liked, with his unfavorables sitting at 59%.
Promise now, worry later?
For all the talk of character, Conservatives, including Poilievre himself, have accused the Liberals of stealing their ideas. That’s a fair criticism. As Thompson puts it, the Liberals have caught the Conservatives out and, indeed, have adopted their positions. But how far will that take the Liberals? And at what cost?
“These are all Conservative policies that were being wielded against Trudeau,” Thompson says, “which Carney has now adopted as his own. And it’s shrewd politicking.” But it’s also risky. “If the Liberals win, they need to deliver very quickly on showing that this is a new government and that they have new policies. The honeymoon period would be, I think, quite short.”
The Liberals will be happy to worry about all of this later. For now, they’re the beneficiaries of an election in which the very issues that were set to spell their doom have become temporarily incidental to Trump and to questions of character and competence – questions to which voters seem to think Carney is the answer.
The policy challenges that got Liberals into trouble in the first place are still lurking and waiting to reassert themselves in short order. But for the Liberals, those are problems for another day.
Donald Trump’s second term is having considerably more impact on the global stage than his first. Trump may have been a largely transactional president last time around, when he was more constrained at home and faced relatively more powerful counterparts abroad. But the first two months of Trump 2.0 have shattered the illusion of continuity. No American ally faces a ruder awakening than Europe, whose relationship with the United States is now fundamentally damaged.
Core partners in Asia like Japan, South Korea, India, as well as Australia worry about being hit with tariffs and will do what they can to defuse conflict, but they also know their geostrategic position vis-à-vis China means Trump can’t afford to alienate them entirely. Accordingly, their relations with Washington should remain comparatively stable over the next four years.
America’s largest trade partners, Mexico and Canada, are facing more significant trade pressures from the Trump administration, but the imbalance of power is such that they have no credible strategy to push back. Everyone understands they’ll have to accept Trump’s terms eventually; the only question is whether capitulation comes before or after a costly fight. Riding an 85% job approval, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has enough domestic political space to yield to Trump’s demands to keep Mexico in his good graces, as she is already doing. By contrast, Canadian leaders have a political incentive to put up a bigger fight because Trump’s threats toward Canada’s economy and sovereignty have sharply inflamed nationalist sentiment north of the border in the run-up to the April 28 elections. However, I expect Ottawa will quietly fold shortly after the vote to ensure that ongoing relations with the US remain functional.
Most US allies have no choice but to absorb Trump’s demands and hope for a reset after he’s gone. But Europe is different. It possesses both the collective heft to resist Trump’s demands and the existential imperative to do so.
Three structural forces render the transatlantic rupture permanent.
First, the European Union has the trade competency and market size to punch back against the Trump administration’s aggressive tariff blitz. Unlike most other US trading partners who lack the economic leverage to go toe-to-toe against Washington and have little choice but to fold under pressure, Brussels’ defiance ensures a protracted trade war with no easy resolution.
Second, most Europeans view the Trump administration’s unilateral pursuit of rapprochement with Russia as a direct threat to their national security. While President Trump would still like to end the war in Ukraine as he promised on the campaign trail, he is prepared to do so on the Kremlin’s terms – and he’s even more interested in business deals with Moscow. He won’t be deterred by a collapse of the Ukraine peace talks, even though it’s Vladimir Putin who’s shown no interest in softening his maximalist demands. Nor will Trump care that the Europeans stridently oppose US normalization with their principal enemy. After all, the United States is protected by two oceans from Putin’s army, and Trump’s embrace of Euroskeptic movements reveals their shared aim: a fragmented and weakened Europe that is easier to dominate.
The president’s rhetoric – echoed by the Signal-gate private texts, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s recent interview with Tucker Carlson, Vice President JD Vance’s Munich speech, and so many other pieces of evidence – makes clear that the current administration sees Europeans not as allies but as “pathetic freeloaders” who shouldn’t be “bailed out” as a matter of principle. Even if Washington begrudgingly agrees to provide them with transactional security, Europeans now realize that relying on a hostile US for survival is strategic suicide.
Which brings us to the third and final driver of the definitive US-Europe break: common values … or lack thereof. From free trade and collective security to territorial integrity and the rule of law, Europe’s foundational principles are now anathema to Trump’s America. Just look at Trump’s repeated threats to annex Greenland, to say nothing of his willingness to recognize illegally annexed Ukrainian territories as Russian and support Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank and Gaza. For an EU built from the ashes of World War II, it's hard to compromise with a worldview in which borders are mere suggestions and might makes right.
After years of complacency, European leaders seem to have finally gotten the message that the United States under Trump is not just an unreliable friend but an actively hostile power. They understand they need to drastically increase Europe’s sovereign military, technological, and economic capabilities – not just to survive without America but also to defend their borders, economies, and democracies against it. Whether they can muster the political mettle to act on this realization, however, is Europe’s greatest test since 1945.
Recent moves – Germany’s historic debt brake reform and Brussels’ fiscal and financial maneuvers to boost defense spending – hint at urgency. Yet half measures won’t suffice. If Europeans refuse to commit troops to guarantee Ukraine’s post-ceasefire security absent an American backstop and continue to balk at seizing Russia’s frozen assets and overriding Hungary’s veto, it will confirm my view that the bloc lacks the nerve to survive in a jungle-ruled world where Trump and Putin refuse to play by any rules.
The irony is that Europe has the resources and capacity to stand up for itself, its values, and its fellow Europeans. What’s missing is the collective courage to act like it’s 1938, not 1989. For Ukraine’s sake and its own, that needs to change.
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. If DeepSeek can be believed, they achieved a huge technological advance without unfettered chip access — an affront to the US government’s export controls that, it thought, were keeping China at bay.
After DeepSeek, China is emboldened
Now, the Chinese tech industry seems emboldened, with a slew of new releases from startups and incumbents alike. This breakthrough has jumpstarted AI development across China that has, in an instant, changed global tech competition and reshaped Beijing’s tech strategy.
Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu, along with newcomers like Manus AI, have since released their own advanced models. Many of these are available for free as open-source software, unlike the subscription models of OpenAI and others.
“DeepSeek shifts the narrative — not by immediately putting China ahead, but by undermining America's AI dominance and forcing Silicon Valley giants onto the defensive much sooner than anticipated,” said Tinglong Dai, professor at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School.
“DeepSeek did two things: increase confidence in China's ability to innovate and convince policymakers to push hard on tech advancement now,” said Kenton Thibaut, senior resident China fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab.
At a press conference earlier this month, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi wrote off America’s strict export controls. “Where there is blockade, there is breakthrough,” he said. “Where there is suppression, there is innovation; where there is the fiercest storm, there is the platform launching China’s science and technology skyward like the Chinese mythological hero Nezha soaring into the heavens.”
Beijing’s shifting focus
After DeepSeek, Thibaut notes, the Chinese government has signaled it will expand support to finance technological innovation — increasing its relending program budget, establishing a new national venture capital fund, allowing unprofitable firms to go public, and increasing mergers and acquisitions in the Chinese tech sector.
This is a major shift from just a few years ago when Beijing sought to put the explosive domestic tech sector in its place — infamously sinking the IPO of the rideshare giant Didi and closing a key loophole for companies going public on foreign markets in 2021.
Beijing’s incentives are now “aligned” with developing the domestic tech sector, Thibaut said, “Both are aligned on the understanding that companies have major incentives to localize — i.e. using domestically produced chips, even if they aren’t as good as NVIDIA’s — in the long term because of just how uncertain and unpredictable chip availability is and will be.”
And China's embrace of open-source AI models, which are freely available for the public to download and modify, has also raised eyebrows because it stands in contrast with the mostly closed Western models, with Meta’s Llama as a notable exception. If China can get its open-source models to be commonly used by Western developers, it could make an important stake in the global AI space. That said, the open-source model could hinder the economic benefits of AI in China — at least, in terms of making money directly off of these advancements.
For now, we’re witnessing a moment of confidence for China — one shared by both its government and tech sector. “Xi Jinping surely feels emboldened,” Dai said, “viewing this as tangible evidence of Western vulnerability and China’s rising trajectory.”
Last Thursday, Justin Trudeau’s last full day as prime minister, Donald Trump was emphatic in his desire to force Canada to join the United States during a press event in the Oval Office.
“Canada only works as a state,” he said, referring to the border as “an artificial line” and suggesting that Canschluss — a play on the term Anschluss, denoting Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938 — is just a matter of time.
“There will be a little disruption, but it won’t be very long. But they need us. We really don’t need them. And we have to do this. I’m sorry.”
On Friday, former central banker Mark Carney was sworn in as Canada’s prime minister. In his first news conference, he called Trump’s comments “crazy. That’s all you can say.”
For a few days, Trump didn't repeat his threats, which opened up the possibility that he merely enjoyed dunking onTrudeau, whom he seems to despise, and would now move on. But it was likely that the US president was just busy — carrying out airstrikes in Yemen, deporting migrants to El Salvador, and trying to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine.
On Tuesday night, in an interview with Fox News, Trump angrily denounced Canada again, said he doesn’t care if his comments cost the Conservatives the election, and said Canada is “meant to be our 51st state.”
Trump is so toxic in Canada that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievreseized on the comment as evidence that he, not Carney, is the champion the country needs.
Trump’s continued trash talk may show that his fixation is too deep to be deterred by the disinclination of Canadians to be annexed, which is setting him up for a showdown with the new prime minister.
People who know Carney think he may be better equipped to respond than Trudeau was.
Anthony Scaramucci, who became friends with Carney at Goldman Sachs many years ago, and who briefly worked for Trump in 2017, said on MSNBC that the president likely doesn’t want a fight with Carney, who he described as a “very, very tough guy.”
“I don’t think the administration really wants to fight with him,” said the Mooch. “He has energy on his side. He has electricity on his side.”
Trudeau looked weak
Trump and Carney have not yet had the traditional congratulatory call but, on the other hand, he is not yet calling Carney governor — which would be ironic, since he previously served as governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.
It may be that Trump had a special desire to bully Trudeau, who was an unpopular lame duck when Trump was elected.
“Trump, as everybody knows, has an unerring instinct for the weakness of a counterparty, and he seeks to exploit that and control them for it,” says Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group.
The White House will have noticed that Canadians now have their backs up, says Jamie Tronnes, executive director of the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, and are unified around the idea of “sticking it” to the Americans.
“It really has changed the way in which they will be able to negotiate with the United States in an upcoming [trade] renegotiation. It doesn’t matter who the leader of the Canadian government is. That person is going to have to represent the national mood, and the national mood is not conducive to cutting a deal with the United States.”
And Trump appreciates muscle. After blustery Ontario Premier Doug Ford threatened to impose a 25% tariff on electricity exports to the United States, Trump threatened him into backing down, and then praised him as “a very strong man.”
Thompson notes that Trump has been respectful to Ford, who just won a majority, and Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who enjoys overwhelming support among Mexicans.
“I think that whoever ends up on the other side of the Canadian election, if they get a majority, that would be the most powerful thing in Carney or Poilievre’s pocket, in terms of relations with the Trump administration.”
An election on tackling Trump
For Carney, everything depends on managing Trump, since he has the power to badly damage Canada’s economy with tariffs.
Carney is trying to show strength. After being sworn in, he flew to Europe to meet with French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to “strengthen ties with reliable allies,” which seemingly no longer includes the United States.
After flying back to the Canadian Arctic, Carney announced that Canada would buy a CA$6 billion radar system from Australia, getting it before the Americans. He also has asked for a review of the planned CA$19 billion purchase of 88 F-35 fighter jets from the United States, “given the geopolitical environment,” although the Americans might be able to use technology-sharing agreements to block Canada from purchasing alternatives.
Last week, Portugal announced it would buy European jets rather than F-35s because of America’s new hostility toward traditional allies, so the Canadian announcement would seem like bad news for politically powerful American supplier Lockheed Martin. This would normally be the kind of thing to get a president’s attention.
Carney, who has met Trump at international conferences and been involved in business deals with Jared Kushner and Elon Musk, will highlight his economic and crisis-management experience in the upcoming Canadian election, which could start as soon as Sunday.
Polls show, in a dramatic reversal, that Canadians now favor Carney over his Conservative rival, who is promising to stand up to Trump but whom Carney has linked to the MAGA movement.
Carney is campaigning on taking a hard line. In London, he said he didn’t intend to negotiate with Trump until he stopped threatening to make Canada the 51st state.
“We’ve called out those comments,” he said. “They’re disrespectful, they’re not helpful, and they need to stop. They will have to stop before we sit down and have a conversation about our broader partnership with the United States.”
But Trump shows no sign of stopping, and if he doesn’t, it’s unclear what Carney — or Poilievre — can do. Both leaders talk about diversifying trade, but it would take years to build the transport infrastructure to make a major shift workable. In the short term, a showdown with a hostile neighbor looks inevitable.
Last week, the US and Ukrainian governments agreed to pursue a 30-day ceasefire with no preconditions. Putin said yesterday on that call that he agrees – as long as the halt to fighting applies only to strikes on energy infrastructure, a major military target for both sides in recent months. That’s far short of the pause on fighting by land, sea, and air that Trump wanted, though Putin did say he was also ready to talk about a pause on attacks on Black Sea shipping. (Clearly, the Russian president is tired of daily briefings on the successes of Ukrainian air and sea drones.)
In the meantime, Russian forces will continue to push for more territorial gains on the ground, and Russia remains free to launch air attacks on civilian populations. We saw more of that last night. Since spring is here and power losses will no longer leave Ukrainians in the freezing cold, the promise to hold off on attacking energy infrastructure costs Russia little.
Putin offered Trump enough to encourage the US president to continue talks on a broader US-Russia rapprochement, one that includes benefits for both economies. Trump also has no reason to begin insisting that Ukrainians and Europeans participate in future negotiations, another prize for Putin.
Any halt or slowdown in the intensity of attacks will keep more civilians alive, at least for now. That's good news, and there's likely to be further movement toward a broader ceasefire at some point later in the year, maybe by the end of April.
But a durable peace agreement is another question. Putin made clear to Trump that he has some bright red lines that must be respected. For example, the Russian president insisted there could be no ongoing military and intelligence support for Ukraine from either the US or Europe. (The US readout of the call doesn’t mention that, but the Kremlin version does.) Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky will turn quickly to the Europeans for help, and he’ll get it. Neither Ukraine nor Europe has any reason to accept an end to support for Kyiv. That will be a large problem for Trump in getting the big-splash peace deal he wants.
Still, Trump might soon argue that Ukraine and its Euro allies are the obstacle that prevents a temporary ceasefire from blossoming into permanent peace. If so, Putin will miss out on a peace deal he doesn’t want in exchange for a big new opening with the president of the United States.
That’s where Trump and Putin have left it. From his visit yesterday to Finland, Zelensky offered a positive preliminary appraisal of the energy infrastructure ceasefire, but with some big caveats. He said that he’ll have a “conversation with President Trump” where he’ll try to read the fine print on Trump’s exchange with Putin. That call happened earlier today. He called on Russia to free all Ukrainian prisoners of war as a gesture of good faith, and he vowed to keep Ukrainian troops inside Russia’s Kursk region “for as long as we need.”
But the energy ceasefire is essentially a scaled-back version of the proposal for a long-range airstrike halt and naval truce that Zelensky offered before the US-Ukrainian meeting last week in Saudi Arabia. If Ukraine’s president does fully endorse the idea, Europe will quickly get to yes too. Ukraine and the Europeans will then try to work toward winning a broader ceasefire that puts the Kremlin back on the spot. For now, that prospect looks doubtful.
Sadly, today’s news on Ukraine sounds a lot like what we’ve seen in Gaza where, as hard and time-consuming as it was to get that first ceasefire, a move to phase two will yield a lot fewer points the two sides can agree on. And as with Gaza, when that first ceasefire comes to an end, expect a new burst of deadly violence.
That’s why it’s hard to be optimistic that yesterday’s bargaining has moved us any closer to a true and lasting peace, the outcome all sides say they want.