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.
{{ subpage.title }}
Trump indicted (again)
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take from Nantucket.
Another exciting week, far more eventful than we'd like in the US political environment, particularly because of more indictments that have come down on former President Donald Trump. You're used to me saying that these are unprecedented times in US politics. Unfortunately, all of the new precedents that are being set are about eroding political institutions. They are corrosive. The guardrails are being weakened, and it is very hard to find structural changes that are strengthening US democracy. All sorts of things that we can say that are promising about the US economy, maybe being able to avoid recession, about the US defense sector, and about its ability to protect not just the US but other countries around the world.
I can go on and on, but when it comes to the political system, it's getting weaker. And that is particularly in terms of the upcoming US presidential election. Now, these latest indictments that have come down from the special counsel, Jack Smith, focusing on Trump's efforts to overturn a legitimate, free, and fair election in the United States, are rejected categorically out of hand by Trump himself. Not surprisingly, that's what he would say in any case. And also by the overwhelming majority of his supporters. They are serious charges. They are, in my view, much more serious than the other charges that we have seen, the charges that we saw about obscuring hush money for sex that he had with a porn star, which also were illegal in terms of framing in the campaign contributions, are unserious charges. They're real charges, but they shouldn't rise to a level of felony, in my view. They are politicized, and I certainly don't think they should have an impact on his ability to run for 2024. I think that the issue of classified documents is more serious, but still, in my view, something that a lot of political leaders have been caught mishandling documents is a massive level of over classification that occurs with documents.
I also think that Trump, the big thing that he has done wrong, in my view, is not the fact that he originally took those documents, but rather that he has acted like a child in lying about the fact that he had them in telling people to destroy video. In other words, it's the cover-up and not because anyone really believes he was trying to do anything particularly malevolent with the classified documents. It wasn't like anyone is credibly accusing him of trying to give them to or sell them to, you know, spies or, you know, other governments. It's more that, you know, Trump just thinks that because he's all-powerful and former president and the Donald, that means that the rules don't apply to him. So he should be able to have those documents, and he's busy, and he shouldn't have to respond to the FBI when they demand a response. In other words, you know, he's just, you know, he couldn't be bothered. I do think those are serious charges. And I think that they should probably have a significant impact in whether or not he can run again. But I don't know that I would try to preclude him from running on the basis of those charges.
These charges are different, these much closer to the second impeachment. These have much more to do with the fact that President Trump attempted to subvert the core principles of rule of law in having a peaceable transition from one president to another. He has never accepted the legitimacy of the 2020 election. He's never accepted the legitimacy of President Biden and did everything in his power and a lot of things that were not in his power to try to ensure that there would not be a peaceful transfer of power. In other words, that there would not be an effective republic that democracy would not hold, and that certainly takes him out of the running for being able to be president going forward in my view. But my view is not just positive here. And unfortunately, irrespective of the severity of the crime, how you feel about this, almost certainly if you're an American citizen, is aligned with how you feel about the person of Trump. If you like Trump, if you would vote for Trump, if you believe that he is someone that is a better and more suitable president than Biden, it is overwhelmingly likely that you feel like these charges are politicized, that the Department of Justice and the FBI are engaged in a vendetta, probably led by Biden to unjustly remove Trump from the running. If you can't stand Trump, if you wouldn't vote for him, you believe that he's guilty before you even have a case. And it doesn't matter what the charges are, he should be out anyway. That is the opposite, of course, of rule of law is the opposite to the way a functional democracy runs. And that's because the United States is increasingly a dysfunctional democracy. It is the weakest part of America's global power status, the state and the trajectory of the American political system. And I don't think this is going to get resolved legally. I think this is going to be resolved politically, which is exactly the way it shouldn't be resolved. What's going to happen is that you're going to have a nomination process for the GOP.
It is very likely Trump is going to be the GOP nominee. It is more likely because of these crimes, which is, of course, the opposite of what it would be in a functional democracy because of the tribalism, because of the political alignment, because of the belief that this is a witch hunt. And it is possible that one or two of the cases will be resolved before the actual election. But it is not probable. It is more likely that the election itself will be held without having any of these cases concluded, which means that the outcome of the vote is what's going to determine to what extent and whether Trump himself will be punished or whether Trump will be president again. It is a horrible position to be in. It means that the election increasingly looks likely to be seen as illegitimate by virtually the entire political opposition, no matter who it is. In other words, if Trump wins in that environment, Biden supporters believe that he should be president and that the election was not legitimate. If he loses, Trump's supporters believe that the election is not legitimate.
This still has a long way to go because, of course, American elections are entirely too long. They are way too expensive. The Republic would probably be better off if there wasn't an election going on in 2024, even though, of course, that's also a subversion of the US political process and of course, around the world for all of those countries that look to the United States as an ally, as a partner, as someone you need to count on. In this environment, it becomes much harder to do so, much more dangerous going forward because we are in an environment of active war with the Russians, of much greater political tension and crisis with the Chinese. The only countries out there, the only actors out there that are excited about the 2024 US elections are rogue actors, rogue states, core adversaries of the US and terrorist groups. Really not what you want to say about the most important political transition that occurs in the world. What I'm not looking forward to, but one I'll certainly be focused very closely on. We'll be talking about it over the coming months and year plus.
So that's it for me. And I'll talk to you all real soon.
Trump's uncertain future amid new indictments
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC shares his perspective on US politics.
Will these new charges finally sink Trump?
And the answer is probably no. Special counsel Jack Smith this week announced a new set of indictments against President Trump for tampering with and destroying evidence in the case related to his mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. President Trump has survived multiple rounds of scandal, legal challenges, and ethical lapses that would've sunk any other politician. And politically, it sure looks like this one's not going to make much of a difference. He's still on top of the dog pile. That is the Republican presidential nomination process, and there probably won't be any consolidation or action on that until the first votes are cast in Iowa in January. What this does mean, however, is that it increases his legal jeopardy because it seems unlikely that the special counsel would've brought these additional charges if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to find him guilty in a court of law.
So, for President Trump, the best hope he has is that it's impossible for Smith to find a jury that would convict him, or that he can get out of this in some kind of legal technicality because the evidence that's starting to mount against him, both for the mishandling of the documents and now for obstruction of justice sure looks pretty bad. The trial is set to begin in May of next year, which means that a guilty verdict could come down even before the Republican Convention in July. And if not then, then maybe before the November election, or of course he could be acquitted. If he is found guilty, the sentencing would be the big question. Does he get sentenced before the election and does he continue to run from office while he's serving in jail? So, lots of unprecedented questions coming out about this latest case as President Trump continues to destroy norm after norm of American politics.
Too many people have US security clearance: former House Intelligence Committee member
The US government has an over-classification problem. Too many documents are marked "secret" that shouldn't be. And according to this week's guest, the over-classification problem has also created an over-clearance problem. Jane Harman, a former nine-term Congresswoman who led high-level intelligence committees, says that the two problems are closely related. "We over-classify, we over-clear. Our clearance problem is very cumbersome" Harman tells Ian. As a result, many people with clearance tend to err on the side of classifying information rather than risking their position by making public the wrong document.
"I argued we needed a tiered classification system where you can clear people only up to a certain amount. In other words, a person who speaks a regional dialect could be given papers to read, but not told the context of the papers, so that person would just translate the language. "
But, Harman says, we're still a long way from solving this problem.
To see the full interview with Jane Harman, watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
US Government information: What's the threshold for "classified"?
There are many reasons for a government to classify information. The US does not want Vladimir Putin getting his hands on our nuclear codes, for example. An estimated 50 million documents are classified every year, though the exact number is unknown—not because it’s classified, but because the government just can’t keep track of it all. But in the words of the former US Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, some “secrets are not worth keeping.”
This week on GZERO World, former Congresswoman Jane Harman argues that America has had for decades an over-classification problem. Harman mentions the findings by the 9/11 Commission, which concluded that a lack of information-sharing between agencies like the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA prevented the US government from foiling the largest terrorist attack ever on American soil. A key reason for that failure: the over-classification of information.
It’s difficult for Americans to understand the actions of their government if much of its work is classified. It also forces journalists to weigh the risks of disclosing information to the public against the possibility of prosecution under the Espionage Act.
Beyond national security concerns, over-classification is also driven by incentives. If you’re a government employee, the risk of classifying something that doesn’t need to be classified is low. But if you un-classify something that you shouldn’t, you're in trouble.
Tune in to “GZERO World with Ian Bremmer” on US public television to watch the full interview. Check local listings.
Is it time for the US government to rethink how it keeps its secrets?
Here’s one of the United States' worst-kept secrets: its flawed classification process. Whether it’s the unnecessary classification of material or the storage of top-secret documents behind a flimsy shower curtain in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom, it’s crucial to address our approach to confidentiality. Joining GZERO World to discuss all things classified, including those documents in Trump’s bathroom, is former Congresswoman Jane Harman. As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee after 9/11, the nine-term congresswoman has insider knowledge of the matter.
According to Harman, “The only good reason to classify documents is to protect our sources and methods, how we got information.” The 9/11 Commission identified a lack of information-sharing among agencies such as the CIA, the FBI, and NSA as a key reason the government was unable to stop the attacks. Over-classification of information played a significant role in this failure. Approximately 50 million documents are estimated to be classified each year, although the exact number remains unknown—not due to classification, but because the government struggles to keep track of it all. In the words of former US Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, some “secrets are not worth keeping.”
To see the full interview with Jane Harman, watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
Podcast: How to fix the US government's classified information problem with Jane Harman
Listen: Maintaining secrecy can be invigorating, whether you're a child with hidden treasures or a CIA agent safeguarding classified information. However, the more secrets you bear, the heavier the burden becomes. This week’s guest, Jane Harman, who served nine terms in Congress and was a ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee after 9/11, understands the weight of secrecy firsthand.
While there are valid justifications for classifying information, Harman asserts that the US government has grappled with an issue of excessive classification for decades. "A bad reason to classify is to protect your turf—you don't want other people to know what you know in order to protect yourself from embarrassment."
The 9/11 Commission revealed that inadequate information-sharing between agencies like the CIA, FBI, and NSA hindered the government's ability to prevent the tragic terrorist attacks. One significant factor contributing to this failure was the over-classification of information. Each year, approximately 50 million documents are estimated to be classified, though the exact count remains elusive—not due to classification, but because the government struggles to effectively manage the vast volume. In the words of former US Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, some “secrets are not worth keeping.”
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Ian Explains: Why America is bad at keeping secrets
Here’s a secret: the US government’s system for classifying documents doesn’t work very well, and it hasn’t for decades. If you follow the news, you’ve likely seen stories a-plenty about former President Donald Trump’s penchant for holding onto classified documents, not to mention less egregious examples like former Vice President Mike Pence and current President Joe Biden doing the same. But what you might not know is that the US government has a tortured history of overclassifying information, sometimes with disastrous results.
The 9/11 Commission found that a lack of information-sharing between agencies like the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA prevented the US government from foiling the terrorist attacks that day. A key reason for that failure was the over-classification of information. An estimated 50 million documents are classified each year, though the exact number is unknown—not because it’s classified, but because the government just can’t keep track of it all. In the words of former US Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, some “secrets are not worth keeping.”
It’s difficult for the American public to know what its government is up to if so much of its work is classified. It also forces journalists to weigh the risks of disclosing information to the public against the risk of prosecution under the Espionage Act.
There are, of course, plenty of good and important reasons to classify information. We don’t want Kim Jong Un or Ayatollah Khamenei to get their hands on US nuclear codes. But beyond national security concerns, a big contributor to over-classification comes down to incentives—If you’re a government employee, the risk of classifying something that doesn’t need to be classified is low, but if you un-classify something that you shouldn’t, you're in trouble. It’s also about control. Classification protects the government against revelations of mistakes, false predictions, or other embarrassments that the rest of us like to call “accountability.”
Watch Ian Explains for the full breakdown, and for more on the US, watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
What's Vladimir Putin reading these days?
Forget Goodreads. The president of Russia and other world leaders give us their summer reading recommendations. #PUPPETREGIME
Watch more of GZERO's award-winning comedy series PUPPET REGIME!
Are you subscribed to GZERO Media's GZERO Daily newsletter? Sign up today for daily insights about foreign affairs.
Subscribe to GZERO Media's YouTube channel to get notifications when new videos are published.
- PUPPET REGIME: the Really Bad People song ›
- MBS wants to know: Where is the line? ›
- Putin signs up for MBS' Masterclass ›
- Vladimir Putin, lifeguard (?!) ›
- Surprise party for Putin ›
- Putin' It Out There: dealing with dissent ›
- Putin’s moment of truth has come - GZERO Media ›
- Putin does your taxes - GZERO Media ›