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 }}
What Greenlanders might want from a deal with Trump
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: a Quick Take to kick off your week.
Let's talk about Greenland. First time I ever encountered it was when I was playing Risk in school, and it was this big island between North America and Europe that connected you with Iceland. But it was part of North America, at least on the Risk map, and that's how you got your five armies if you owned the whole thing. So you always threw a couple up there, a lot of big, big territory. And now we're visiting, and Donald Trump Jr. taking Air Trump One last week and landing in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. Landed for a few hours, did some social media stuff, and then got back to Mar-a-Lago, where he's probably more comfortable. What's happening? Why do the Americans say that they are going to buy it, incoming President Trump, and what does it mean for American alliances and the future of the global order and all of that?
Well, first, let's recognize that as much as it sounds crazy, Trump is not the first president to offer to buy Greenland. He's actually the third. The first was Andrew Johnson. His Secretary of State, William Seward, who was down for Alaska, also offered 5.5 million to buy Greenland. This was back in 1868. The timing is interesting, of course. There's no historic claim on Greenland. The US troops did briefly occupy it in World War II for defensive purposes, but it's not as if the United States has any reason to believe that this should be American. It's not like, say, what the Russians say about Crimea.
And the Greenlandic government, which is itself, it represents all of 55,000 people, despite the size, is led by a separatist political party. They want independence. Independence is popular in Greenland. They've had a few polls, and people generally say that they'd like to be Greenlanders and not part of Denmark. And they are clearly leveraging all of this spotlight from Trump to advance having an independence referendum during parliamentary elections coming up real soon, like in April. And frankly, given that Denmark is a tiny country and spends about $500 million a year on Greenland, that if the Americans came over the top and said, "Well, we'd make you an ally. We'd put troops on the ground and we'd pay you more, not taking it over, Greenland would be an independent state." I think it would be much more likely that Greenland would actually vote for independence. And then, Trump would say, "We've got a new ally, and we've got everything we wanted. And we have these basing rights for the Arctic," and all of that.
It's pretty significant in terms of talking about the Nordics. Denmark has had Greenland as part of its territory since 1830. And Greenland is autonomous, they have their own parliament, which means they are right now in charge of their own domestic affairs, but not foreign or security affairs. So in that regard, also much like Crimea under Ukraine. But they have moved more towards an independence movement over the past decades. In part, self-determination is what people generally are aiming for around the world, with better understanding of others, post-colonial, being able to achieve it for themselves. Also, because there's a difficult history with Denmark. A lot of forced integration, taking Greenlanders from their homes, from their families, to put them in Danish schools and make them more Danish. Even forced birth control to reduce the Greenland explosion of population. Those things are not happening now, but that is a history that was exploitative and makes a lot of Greenlanders feel about the Danes the way that a lot of Native Americans feel about the United States. So, it's understandable why there would be an independence movement.
Now, the Danes, in addition to all the European leaders, are squashing any idea that Greenland is for sale, but that is very different from Greenland might well go independent. And there's no question that Greenland is important, particularly in terms of national security. Russia has put billions of dollars into Arctic infrastructure, including its Northern Fleet, and they're the only country in the world that's really actively trying to seize the Arctic's economic and strategic potential. That's going to become much more important as the ice cap melts, with transit routes, with exploitation of resources. The United States did have some troops on the ground, a meaningful number, in Greenland, something like 10,000. It's now down to 200. They've reduced that. They could certainly expand it with a new relationship with an independent Greenland.
Of course, they could also expand it with a new relationship with Denmark, of which Greenland is a part, Trump not all that interested in that because it doesn't make spectacular headlines, and also because he likes real estate. Let's face it, you look at him personally, and he loves putting his names on pieces of property that are iconic and that have a large visual footprint in the minds of people. And historically, he almost lost his economic empire a few times by holding on to iconic real estate for too long. So is that a factor in how Trump thinks about Greenland? You'd have to imagine it plays a role. So I think we are going to be talking about this actually a lot more over the coming months, and it's going to have a lot more to do with what 55,000 Greenlanders decide to vote for. And then how the Americans negotiate with them.
- Trump wants something, but likely not a 51st state ›
- Musk vs. Europe: How far will each go? ›
- The Graphic Truth: The politics of polar bears ›
- It's Not So Absurd To Want Greenland ›
- Trump talks of taking the Panama Canal - and jokes about Elon Musk ›
- What Trump wants from Greenland, Canada, Panama … and more - GZERO Media ›
MAGA, the American Dream and immigration
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take in this holiday season on the back of the biggest fight in the United States that we have seen among Trump supporters since his election win.
Started off when Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire, the co-director of this new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE as they're calling it, writing that we have to bring in lots of high-talent immigrants, complaining that American culture isn't getting it right for the people that they need to hire in order to make the United States win and more competitive. We hear it all the time. You need to staple a green card to every STEM PhD that's being awarded to non-Americans in the US so they can stay. You need to keep those students here. You need to bring in far more talented legal immigrants in larger numbers to address the talent gap in the United States, and if Americans want to win, that's what you need to do.
The average American has heard this before, and they've heard it for a long time. To be clear, it is not like the US economy isn't winning right now. You look at the stock market, you look at corporate profits, you look at Elon Musk, the dude is worth nearly half a trillion dollars, and that's with a very strong dollar. Look at how the United States' economy has performed since the pandemic, while Europe, and Japan, and South Korea, and Canada, and others just are not, and they're not innovating, and they don't have the big companies. I've heard this about other issues. I've heard about tariffs. I've heard about even free trade. You hear it about investments and capital flows around the world and need to make things work more effectively for the big money in the United States. And working-class and middle-class Americans know that when elites in the US say that the US is going to win, that it doesn't mean 'em. The United States, for so many Americans, is a country of second-class healthcare, and second-class education, and second-class opportunities. And if the American dream doesn't work for the average American citizen, then you're telling them we should be bringing in really much more talented Indians? Good luck with that argument for them.
And those of you that know me, know that that's not my personal perspective. I grew up in the projects with a mother though that did absolutely everything for her kids. And I had opportunities. We had opportunities. I feel very lucky to have been born in America, not better than anyone else, not having any more intrinsic worth, just super, super fortunate. So the American Dream absolutely worked for me. Capitalism in the US and the ability to be an entrepreneur absolutely worked for me. But most of the kids that grew up in my neighborhood don't feel that way today, along with far too many working and middle-class Americans.
And if the United States felt like the land of opportunity instead of a two-tier system where you buy your way into privilege, and you buy your way into opportunity, and then you make sure you do that for your kids, and the best indicator of how well an American is going to do is how fortunate your parents are compared to other advanced industrial democracies, rich democracies around the world, well, that is not a country that's going to say, "Yeah, we need to do more to help the wealthiest win." Because the wealthiest have already figured out how to win for themselves, and there are lobbying dollars, and their access to the best that the world has to offer for them in the United States. If the average American felt that way and felt that applied to them, then Trump wouldn't be president today. You wouldn't have "America First" resonating for so many people that want to undermine globalism because globalism wasn't about the globe and it wasn't about all Americans. It was about just getting it done for that small, small group of people with access to capital.
This is the failure of globalism, and this is why the United States doesn't want to take the lead on global security, or global trade, or even global democracy anymore. You have to be a leader at home before you can effectively lead anybody, nevermind everybody else. This is what we're facing come January 20th. I think it's a useful fight to see play out publicly because there's a very big difference between those that have access to decision-making, power and authority in the United States and those that turned out and actually voted, the masses that voted against the establishment. And to the extent that they continue to be hard done by and every expectation for the last 40 years in the US is that that will be the case, whether it's a Democrat or Republican running the country, this situation is only going to get more toxic.
That's it for me. I wish everyone Happy holidays. Hope you had a merry Christmas. Looking forward to the new Year. I'll talk to you all real soon.
What Trump's Panama Canal threats reveal about today's geopolitics
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your Merry Christmas week. Maybe it'll be a little bit quieter, but it doesn't feel that way these days.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the statements from President-elect Trump about the territories that he seems to have some interest in. Over the last day, we've had statements that the US should take the Panama Canal, and some memes being posted by Trump and the vice president-elect. And he said that it used to belong to the United States, the Panama Canal, and President Jimmy Carter foolishly gave it away. And now he wants it back. And is it because he's angry that the Panamanian government is claiming that he owes lots of taxes for Trump properties? Maybe. Certainly, the governments don't like each other. The Panamanian president came out and said sovereignty and independence of his country are not negotiable, not surprisingly.
And then, Trump with another statement, and it's not the first time, saying that ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity. In his first administration, he wanted to try to buy it. Denmark said no. Now he's saying, "Look, national security reasons for the United States, absolute necessity, that's like pretty much 100%, right? So, got to take Greenland over." And the Greenland prime minister has said it's very much not for sale.
So, look, what are we talking about here? Well, first, national security reasons are of course defined by the United States as the most powerful country. That is a different type of US exceptionalism. Historically, US exceptionalism was more about the idea that the Americans actually had right on their side, and so their values were somehow different and better than those of other countries.
Now, it's more about we want it. It's for our national security. It has nothing to do with values, but we can get away with it because we are stronger. Now, lots of countries do this. Russia they have made that argument about Crimea, which used to belong to the Soviet Union under the leadership in Moscow and the Russian Federation first among equals. And then was given to the Ukrainians by Khrushchev, which I remember Elon Musk referred to as "Khrushchev's mistake," which seemed the kind of thing he wouldn't come up with and would've heard from the Kremlin. Now they want it, and they want it because it was historically theirs, and they shouldn't have given it back. And so, it doesn't matter if the Ukrainians have sovereignty, and the locals wanted to be a part of Russia anyway, which is true in the case of Crimea. Not in the case of the Southeast Ukrainian territories that the Russians presently occupy.
But of course, it's against international law. Having said that, against international law, when you're the more powerful country, doesn't seem to matter very much in today's international environment. Certainly not as much as it used to. That's why Ukraine is going to get partitioned, and Ukraine is going to have to accept a loss of territory de facto in order to maintain security guarantees going forward. We see this in terms of China and the "nine-dash line" in the South China Sea, which clearly is ridiculous, if anyone that looks at a map recognizes that China should have no claim on all of this territory and the resources inside that territory. But China's more powerful than all these other countries, like Indonesia, and the Philippines, and so they can get away with a lot more.
Israel in the West Bank, and more territory that they're taking, and more territory just in the last couple of weeks that they say is temporary. But for how long? Who knows. Near the Golan Heights, strategically important for them, national security reasons, so it's ours, right? That is where we are heading.
And does Trump mean it? Probably not. He didn't mean it last time with Greenland. It's just a negotiating stance, and he exaggerates a fair amount. And he's looking to both say things that amuse him and put other countries on the back foot. Just like he did with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada who is facing a much harder domestic political time because Trump is making him look like an idiot on the international stage, and Trump and the US are a lot more powerful than Trudeau in Canada.
But it does matter if the United States doesn't support international law. It does matter if the US is not interested in upholding its existing trade deals, its existing collective security agreements. And unlike in 2016, when Trump won for the first time, this time around there's more legitimacy to it in the United States. And what I mean by that is, Trump won, and he won the popular vote. And he almost got 50% of all of the voters in the United States. And it's not like Americans don't know what Trump did, don't know what he's accused of, don't know his role around January 6th, don't know what he's intending to do going forward. They're fully aware of this, and they voted for him anyway. Or maybe I should say they voted for him in part because of that.
So, you don't get to blame the Russians, which was farcical back in 2016, but no one's even trying to make that argument now. Trump won, and Trump won on an agenda that he is now very much moving forward with. And that is going to be a big issue for other countries because they are a lot less powerful than the United States. Elon Musk, similar challenge here, acting in many ways as the most powerful person in the US government after Trump. Certainly the most unfettered, and when he comes out publicly and says that Germany's in trouble if it's not for the alternatives for Deutschland, the AFD, it's not close to a majority of support in Germany, but the German government's in trouble. And he will push for more support for a Euro-skeptic group. Very far on the right in the German political spectrum, and the German government is going to be scared.
How much do you want to go after Elon and push him back when you know that he has the full support of the American president? Do you really want to fight with him? And the answer is a lot less than you would've been willing to fight with him before Trump won. So, I think all of this is really creating a much more transactional law of the jungle global space, where both the United States, and China, and a number of other countries are increasingly playing by a very similar lack of rule book if you will. And we're becoming more a world of winners and losers, as opposed to a world of leaders that bring people together, and that is a problem. We've experienced that in the past, but we haven't experienced it when the challenges are so obviously larger, the national challenges.
So, clearly global challenges when it comes to climate, or it comes to AI, when it comes to the proliferation of dangerous weapons. So, clearly a much more dangerous environment is the consequence of all of that, and that's how I think I respond to what I see from Trump. Not that it's so different from what we're seeing from other countries, but precisely because it's so similar, and because those are countries that the Americans historically are like, "No, no, no, we don't play by that." And that's increasingly where we are. So, anyway, a lot that we'll be looking towards in 2025, and a very, very volatile geopolitical environment. Merry Christmas to everyone. Hope you have a happy New Year, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
What's next for South Korea after President Yoon's impeachment?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week. The South Korean President, Yoon Suk Yeol has been impeached. Second time the charm, the first time his own party didn't go ahead with it because they wanted to give him the opportunity to resign, himself. He chose not to, shredding what little was remaining of his own personal and political legacy, and now he's out. The party itself basically freed the members of the party to vote their conscience, and many of them did, and that's it. He's now a former president. There's a caretaker government coming in with the prime minister in charge. South Korea's in disarray. They don't have a president. They don't have a minister of interior. They don't have a minister of defense. They don't have a minister of justice. Everything's not occupied and going to have to be, "acting," for a matter of months.
First, you've got to get the constitutional court to rule on this, and that will happen. But there are three absentees that need to be appointed there. Hopefully that all gets done within a matter of weeks, a couple of months, and then after that, when it's upheld the impeachment, then you'll have new elections in a couple of months.
So, I mean, first the bad news. The bad news is that this was a disgrace. It was an active subversion of the South Korean constitution or attempt thereof, and their checks and balances on their president and his approval ratings as he's forced out in the single digits, we're talking Peru president levels almost, at this point. It comes at a bad time. The Japanese have a weak government in coalition, and the United States has a new president coming in with much stronger consolidated power. So if you're South Korea and you need to formulate a response to dealing with America First demands, to spend more money on American troops on the ground, demands to do more, to redress what's seen as a trade imbalance by the incoming President-elect. All of that is really hard to do when you don't have an effective government. That's the bad news.
The good news is that the system worked the way it was supposed to, and both the military, and the judiciary, and the constitutional court, and the parliament, everyone is acting to contain behavior that is off the rails by a sitting executive. And that shows that South Korean democracy is very much functional and representative of its people, much like nearly all of the advanced industrial democracies. The US is the country that is the outlier here. South Korea, not so surprising.
Another piece of bad news is that it's almost certain that the winner, the incoming winner of the next presidential election will be the Democratic Party of Korea, which got the majority in parliament in the last parliamentary elections. And their leader, Lee Jae-myung is frankly not much more popular than outgoing Yoon. It's going to be, he's had his own scandals, electoral scandals that could potentially bring him down depending on how the court, the Supreme Court rules, assuming that that doesn't happen. If it did, it would cause massive instability and lots of people out on the streets demonstrating and the rest. But if that didn't happen, then he's going to be the leader of South Korea and he'll be again, a very weak leader. It'll also be a very weak leader leading the country in a very different direction. This is a party that will actively support the Sunshine policy with North Korea, very different than outgoing former President Yoon. Would support closer ties with their leading trade partner, China. Would question the rapprochement with Japan and would also question a stronger relationship with their defense partner and ally, the United States. So a lot of uncertainty going forward with South Korea.
One other really interesting thing about this whole saga is the role that AI played. Yoon, a deeply unpopular kind of anti-social figure. Very brusque, not an obvious retail politician, but on the campaign trail, developed an AI essentially deep fake Yoon that was training on a lot of his speeches, but better looking and more engaging and more social, and was used extensively on the campaign trail, both to talk about his policies, to engage with individual voters, to hurl insults at the opposition, and even to engage socially. And this was, I mean, AI Yoon was a lot more popular than actual Yoon, and a big piece of why it was that he ended up being elected president. Unfortunately, AI Yoon was not the president that the South Koreans got. They got actual Yoon who turned out to be possibly even less capable than AI Yoon, and we are all very happy to see the back of him.
So that's pretty much the end of this crazy little few-week saga in South Korean politics. We now bring you back to our regularly scheduled program.
People gather outside the National Assembly after South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, in Seoul, South Korea, on Dec. 4, 2024.
South Korean president declares martial law — then backs off
In an unexpected, late-night speech on Tuesday, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law, banning all political activity, taking control of all media, and suspending parliament. For all of a few hours, it turned out. Now, he's facing possible impeachment.
The announcement appeared to come as a total shock to all parties except the military, with even the head of Yoon’s party announcing he would “stop it, with the people.” Troops surrounded the National Assembly in Seoul soon after Yoon’s announcement to preempt resistance, but 190 of the chamber’s 300 lawmakers made it inside after midnight, with more held up at the gates.
Legislators unanimously voted to order Yoon to lift martial law, and Speaker Woo Son-shik declared the president’s action “null and void.”
Meanwhile, thousands of citizens arrived to demonstrate in the wee hours. They chanted “Abolish martial law!” and “Arrest Yoon Suk Yeol!” Demonstrators blocked an eight lane road and began organizing impromptu caravans to bring in protesters from across the country, but by 4 a.m. the crowds began to thin.
Soon after, Yoon caved in. He got back on television around 4:20 a.m. to announce he had called a cabinet meeting, and that martial law would be lifted within hours.
What the hell was Yoon thinking? It was “an act of political desperation,” says Eurasia Group’s Jeremy Chan. It wasn’t about North Korea or social order — despite Yoon’s claims, he explains. Yoon was “trying to send a message to the National Assembly and bring all legislative investigations to a halt.”
Yoon, who is deeply unpopular, has been trapped in a stalemate with the opposition that controls the legislature. They have repeatedly tried to launch corruption investigations against his wife, which Yoon always vetoes, and moved to impeach government prosecutors while stymying the president’s budget priorities. Still, Yoon’s calculus is not entirely clear, as he was not subject to impeachment proceedings.
What happens next? “It’s hard to see how Yoon survives this unless there’s some sort of other shoe to drop that we don’t know about yet,” said Chan.
On Wednesday, amid calls for Yoon to resign, South Korea’s opposition politicians began impeachment proceedings that could lead to a vote as early as Friday.
Two-thirds of legislators must vote in favor in order for Yoon to be impeached, and the opposition has the needed votes almost by themselves; it will take only a small number of votes from Yoon's party to pass. The impeachment must then be approved by the Constitutional Court of Korea, and if Yoon is removed from office, a new election will be held within two months.
Beyond that, it’s unclear whether Yoon might face any legal punishment for his attempt to suspend democracy, but two out of the last three South Korean presidents served jail time after their terms for considerably less serious violations.
How is the world reacting? Mostly with shock. US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell expressed “grave concern” but reiterated that Washington stands by its ally. President Joe Biden was briefed while traveling to Angola, and US officials say they are in contact with their counterparts in Seoul.
Plus: For more on why South Korea’s president declared martial law, check out Ian Bremmer’s latest Quick Take here.
Why South Korea's president declared martial law
President Yoon had said that the reason for this is that the opposition is supporting North Korea and that there are North Korean forces that have been infiltrating the South Korean opposition. It is true that this opposition, this is by the way the ruling party in parliament, supports the "Sunshine Policy" and Yoon's government is hard line on North Kore. But there's no evidence of any North Korean infiltration or involvement. What there is evidence of is that President Yoon is incredibly unpopular. Lots of corruption scandals around his family, around his government, approval ratings in the 20s, which is pretty much the lowest you'll see of any advanced industrial democracy today. Though there are a number of countries that are trying to give him a hard run for it.
The opposition party, the ruling party in parliament, has been pushing really hard to make his life miserable. They have investigated his wife. They've tried to impeach a number of cabinet officials. They're refusing to pass the budget and apparently he just couldn't take it anymore. I'll tell you, nobody expected it. Aside from the military leaders that he coordinated with, senior government officials were shocked by the move. Our parliamentarians were shocked by the move. This isn't like January 8th in Brazil where it was clear that Bolsonaro was going to do everything he could try to overturn the elections. Just as it was clear January 6th in the United States that Trump was going to do everything he could to overturn election.
This is a very different situation. This was a very sudden move. It is perfectly legal to declare martial law, but you have to actually pre-notify the National Assembly, which he did not do, so it wasn't done legally. You also need 151 lawmakers to approve martial law within 72 hours. That isn't going to happen. The next thing that's very likely to occur are lots of demonstrations and it's very hard to imagine that the military would violently break them up. This isn't Pakistan. And we also saw an emergency session that they got a majority for of National Assembly lawmakers that all 190 voted to end this. So I think what's going to happen is President Yoon is going to wake up tomorrow with a really bad hangover, certainly a political one, maybe others too, and going to realize that he did something incredibly stupid, overreached, and has destroyed any remaining legacy that he might have had.
South Korea's going to remain a democracy. This coup will be very short-lived. I'd be surprised if outside of South Korea we're talking much about it in coming weeks. But it is important. It's important because South Korea is an ally of the United States. It now has a robust relationship with Japan. In fact, the tripartite agreement brokered by Biden at Camp David was arguably his greatest foreign policy success. The equivalent of the Abraham Accords by the Trump administration. And the right-wing Yoon is particularly aligned with Japan and the Japan's LDP Party as well as with the Americans and certainly would be with incoming President-elect Trump. So in that regard, the US is going to have a hard time being overtly critical. They won't want to because, as unhinged as he is, he is a strong ally.
And an incoming administration, if he's now assumingly going to be impeached and probably end up in prison, is not going to be as aligned with the United States or Japan going forward would also lead to a softer policy towards North Korea. So I do think it matters geopolitically long-term, but the coup itself is not something that is going to be sticking around. So I think we still have a democracy in South Korea. We'll watch this unfold and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Biden brings South Korea and Japan together ›
- Japan, US, South Korea unite against North Korea-Russia Pact ›
- How will South Korea respond to North Korean troops in Russia? ›
- Yoon leads South Korea away from China, toward the US ›
- What's next for South Korea after President Yoon's impeachment? - GZERO Media ›
Trump's plans for policy & personnel
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.
- Trump lays the groundwork to contest the election ›
- Viewpoint: Trump to overshadow UN climate conference ›
- How Trump won – and what it means for the world ›
- How will Trump 2.0 approach foreign policy? ›
- How a second Trump term could reshape global politics ›
- Global leaders scramble to align with Trump - GZERO Media ›
Trump's America: How MAGA came out on top
On this episode of GZERO World, Ian Bremmer unpacks the implications of Donald Trump’s decisive election win, marking his historic return to office and the GOP's comprehensive control over government (assuming they hold onto the House). Despite polls suggesting a razor-close election, Trump won with strong support across critical swing states, including Pennsylvania, where voter shifts were significant even in traditionally Democratic strongholds like Philadelphia. Bremmer discusses Nov 5 and its wide range of implications with Vanderbilt historian Nicole Hemmer and Wall Street Journal correspondent Molly Ball. How did Trump’s return signal a change election? How much of it was driven by voters' discontent with inflation and immigration, and how much was simply the appeal of a populist alternative to the status quo.
The conversation highlights Trump’s longstanding opposition to globalism and his strategy to reshape America’s place on the world stage. With the GOP controlling the presidency, Senate, and likely the House, Trump's second term could bring sweeping policy changes, including a push to consolidate executive power and reduce judicial and institutional independence. Reflecting on the stakes, Molly Ball comments, “If there are not those barriers before him, what is he willing to do? What norms and traditions, not to say laws, is he willing to violate in order to pursue his goals?” Hemmer adds, “The erosion of representative democracy…has accelerated over the past 10 years,” emphasizing the risks of unchecked power. They also examine the Democratic Party’s struggle to resonate with working-class voters across racial lines and its internal debate over progressive versus centrist policies. With both parties facing pressure, there remains an enduring tension between America's democratic ideals and the growing appetite for anti-establishment reform.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).