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 }}
National Rally leader Marine Le Pen poses prior to an interview on the evening news broadcast of French TV channel TF1, in Boulogne-Billancourt, outside Paris, France, on March 31, 2025.
Can France’s Marine Le Pen run again?
National Rally leader Marine Le Pen was found guilty by a French court on Monday for embezzling European Parliament funds. She was sentenced to four years (with two years suspended and the remainder under house arrest with electronic monitoring) and faces a five-year ban from running for public office.
Coup de grâce? Le Pen shared her anger with French voters. “Like you, I’m scandalized, indignant, but this indignation, this feeling of injustice, is an additional push to the fight that I fight for [the voters],” she said on French television Monday night.
Le Pen’s lawyer said she will appeal the decision, which will likely lead to a retrial in 2026 — months before the 2027 presidential election. Le Pen can also petition the Constitutional Council to review her case and ultimately decide her eligibility. Last week, this court ruled that local politicians can be barred from office immediately if they are convicted of a crime — but this won’t apply to national figures like the National Rally’s longtime leader.
“Le Pen will now seek to make her appeal explicitly political, arguing before the Constitutional Council that she is too important a politician to ban and that doing so would be an affront to French democracy,” said Rahman. Even so, her route back to eligibility won’t be easy.
Next in line. If Le Pen is ultimately barred from running, National Rally President Jordan Bardella would be the most likely candidate to succeed her. The clean-shaven millennial, who grew up in the Paris suburbs, has tried to expand the party’s tent by courting younger voters and distancing the party from Le Pen’s father, the Holocaust-denying founder of National Rally.Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro walks after the Supreme Court voted that he should stand trial for allegedly attempting a coup after his 2022 electoral defeat, in Brasilia, Brazil, on March 26, 2025.
Brazil’s top court greenlights Bolsonaro trial
Much like Jair Bolsonaro’s beloved Seleção, which lost its soccer match to Argentina this week, the former Brazilian president has reason to be concerned about his own defensive strategy. On Wednesday, the country’s Supreme Court ordered him to stand trial for his alleged efforts to overturn the last election. The ruling raises the prospect of the 70-year-old ending up behind bars and imperils his hopes of running for office in 2026.
The case at hand: Brazil’s Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet charged Bolsonaro and 33 others in February with attempting a coup on Jan. 8, 2023, and accused them of forging a plot to poison President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and kill a Supreme Court justice. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing.
It is “highly likely” that the court will also find Bolsonaro guilty, said Eurasia Group Managing Director Chris Garman, but that wouldn’t stop him from holding significant sway at the next election in 2026.
“From an electoral point of view, he will remain a kingmaker on the right for the 2026 presidential election,” said Garman. “Polls consistently show his public support hasn’t dropped since the last presidential election, and he will be seen as a martyr among the conservative voters who will agree with claims he is being politically persecuted.”
A drone view shows a flooded area in the city of Bahia Blanca, in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hard Numbers: Deadly Argentinian floods, Palestinian protester arrested, Mexico’s grim discovery, DRC sets rebel bounties, America losing its butterflies, Internet shutdowns imperil democracy
13: The port city of Bahia Blanca, Argentina, was devastated by a massive rainstorm this weekend that dumped a year’s worth of rain in just a few hours, killing 13 people and displacing hundreds. A similarly devastating rainstorm in December 2023 also claimed 13 lives in Bahia Blanca.
200: A grim discovery was made in a clandestine crematorium in Jalisco, Mexico: 200 pairs of shoes. The footwear is believed to belong to people killed by organized criminal gangs. It was uncovered by relatives of some of Jalisco’s 15,000 missing people, the most of any state in Mexico, where over 100,000 people are registered as “disappeared.”
5 million: The Democratic Republic of Congo has announced a $5 million reward for information leading to the arrest of three M23 rebel leaders, and a $4 million reward for the arrest of two journalists in exile deemed as “accomplices.” But with the DRC’s army increasingly outmatched by rebel forces, the chances of capture are considered slim.
22: A new study reveals that America’s butterfly population has declined by 22% since 2000, with the Southwest hardest hit with a drop of over 50%. The change is primarily attributed to insecticides, climate change, and habitat loss, and it could imperil certain crops, including Texas cotton, of which half is pollinated by butterflies.
296: The latest twist in cyber warfare? Internet shutdowns. In 2024, 296 shutdowns were reported across 54 countries, compared with 283 shutdowns in 39 countries the previous year. Shutdowns were used for political control, to suppress dissent, and to disrupt elections, and they were particularly acute in Africa, where at least five have been in place for over a year.
From Davos: How global leaders are grappling with Trump’s return
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week.
I am standing here at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. And of course, it's a split screen right now because everyone's also got their eyes back on Washington, DC and the inauguration for the second time of Donald Trump as president. It is the end of the post-Cold War order. That's what Borge Brende said, he runs the World Economic Forum, in a piece in the New York Times. I call it the G-Zero world, but this is the organization that's most committed to that order over the last 50 years. And of course, committed to doesn't necessarily mean fighting for. I think that's part of the issue, is that so many people, whether they were captains of industry, or media leaders, or heads of state, just believe that, well, after the Soviet Union was defeated, a united, more multilateral, globalized order was just what was coming.
And so, we didn't have to do anything. We just had to keep on keeping on. Of course, that isn't the way it felt for an awful lot of people living inside those countries. And the Americans definitively elected Trump not just once, but twice. And the first time, it was an experiment. He was an outsider to shake things up. The second time, you're electing somebody who's already been impeached twice, who's been convicted for crimes, who's already made very clear that he has no interest in promoting a US-led multilateral order. And that is exactly what people wanted, or at least, more people than wanted the alternative. And so that's where we are.
Outside of the United States, and Davos is mostly about other countries, 60 heads of state are here, and CEOs from all over the world, it’s really a question of how are you responding to that? And I would say that there's a big question of whether or not you accept it and normalize and capitulate, or whether you try to fight. And overwhelmingly, what we have is the former. I mean, the number of times you're talking about things that you never would have found acceptable, a year ago, five years ago, from the United States, cryptocurrencies being launched by the president in the days before his inauguration, making billions, tens of billions of dollars, that's just the way it's done in the United States now. Elon Musk joining phone calls and meetings with CEOs and heads of state. Really bizarre if that was happening with any other leader. But if the United States is doing it, I guess that's just the way it's done. And if the Americans are telling you we're going to take Greenland or we're going to take Canada, we're going to take the Panama Canal, well, we're not going to take that seriously, but we do recognize that we're going to have to give them a little something, because otherwise it's going to cause us a lot of damage.
One major exception here is that I don't expect the Chinese to capitulate at all. I mean, they're talking with the Americans, and maybe there will even be a meeting in the early days, a summit meeting between Donald Trump and XI Jinping. That's very different from a breakthrough deal. And rather, I think we’re at the beginning of what's very likely to be a trade war between the two largest economies in the world. And frankly, of all the things I just mentioned, that's probably the one that is going to concern the attendees of the World Economic Forum the most. Certainly, the one that's going to affect them most.
Anyway, that's where we're starting off with the summit this week. There'll be massive number of meetings over the course of the next few days and I'm sure I'll talk to you again. Talk soon.
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.