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 }}
U.S. President Donald Trump hosts his first cabinet meeting with Elon Musk in attendance as he sits next to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 26, 2025.
The rundown of Trump’s first Cabinet meeting
Donald Trump hosted the first Cabinet meeting of his second administration on Wednesday. Here’s what went down.
Ukraine. Trump said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was expected to sign an agreement in Washington on sharing its mineral wealth, and that it should look to Europe for security guarantees – not the US.
Elon Musk. The “special government employee” received a round of applause as Trump insisted to Cabinet members and reporters present that “everybody’s on board” with Musk’s efforts to shrink the size of the federal government to lower the country’s deficit. While he sat off to the side of the room, Musk’s presence was a show of unity after his email requesting federal employees send the Department of Government Efficiency a list of “five things” they did last week – and threatening them with job loss for noncompliance – spread confusion throughout Washington this week and led to pushback from some government departments.
Musk and Trump reinforced the email, saying it was intended to see “if you have a pulse and two neurons and you can reply to an email,” and said they were convinced some of the federal employees had not replied because they were dead but still being paid.
Golden ticket for citizenship. Trump outlined his plan to sell $5 million “gold cards” to wealthy foreigners seeking US citizenship. He presented this initiative as a significant measure to address the federal deficit, saying “people that can pay $5 million, they’re going to create jobs.”
Friedrich Merz, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, and Alice Weidel
Can Friedrich Merz be the leader Germany – and Europe – needs?
As expected, Friedrich Merz is set to become the next German chancellor after his conservative Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) won one of the tightest and highest-turnout elections in the country’s postwar history.
But the 28.5% earned by Merz’s CDU/CSU was the party’s second-lowest tally ever – hardly a mandate. Not to be outdone, outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s center-left Social Democrats (SPD) came third with just 16.4% – their worst defeat in 137 years. The moderate Greens led by economy minister Robert Habeck lost ground, too, scoring a disappointing 12.5%.
By contrast, extremist parties had a great night on Sunday. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) came in second place, doubling its vote share since the 2021 elections to 20.8% on the back of large gains with previous nonvoters, in the poorest districts, and across eastern Germany. The former communist Left Party (Die Linke), meanwhile, secured 8.8% of the vote by mobilizing younger women.
Neither the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) nor the far-left Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) were able to clear the 5% threshold needed to enter parliament, increasing the number of seats allocated to the larger parties. The CDU/CSU and SPD’s combined allocation of 328 of 630 seats in the Bundestag will allow Merz to form a two-way coalition with the Social Democrats, avoiding the worst-case scenario of a weak, unwieldy, and unstable three-party coalition like Scholz’s ill-fated government with the Greens and the FDP (before it collapsed).
Though the CDU/CSU and SPD have real differences on immigration, social spending, and taxation, and their presumptive 13-seat majority won’t be large, so-called “grand coalitions” between these rival establishment parties have a long history in Germany and are popular with voters for their track record of delivering moderation and stability. Merz’s predecessor as party leader, former Chancellor Angela Merkel, presided over three of them.
But the inevitable alliance this time around is a flashing warning sign of Germans’ fading patience with the political center – and, conversely, of their growing appetite for radical movements – in a fragmented party landscape. The AfD won enough seats to make a two-way coalition with the CDU/CSU mathematically possible, but it is considered a neo-Nazi party by the entire German political establishment. Merz has made it clear that, despite his flirtation with them over migration and the recent embrace by Elon Musk and US Vice President JD Vance, the “firewall” keeping the extremists out of power will continue to hold – for now at least.
Yet as mainstream parties continue to lose voters to the far right, they will be increasingly forced into forming ever weaker and more ineffective coalitions just to stay in power. Alice Weidel, the AfD’s leader, has set her sights on the 2029 elections, hoping that the AfD can capitalize on – and nudge – the failure of yet another disappointing centrist government to become Germany’s strongest party and kingmaker. Over the next four years, it will aim to use its much-strengthened position to dominate agenda-setting and sabotage the new government as much as possible.
One weapon the AfD may be able to wield to hamstring Merz’s coalition is the so-called “blocking minority” it’ll form with the hard-left Die Linke, given the radical parties’ combined 216 Bundestag seats – just above the 210 seats needed to thwart constitutional reforms like the loosening of Germany’s strict fiscal rules (aka “debt brake”), which require a two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament.
Created in 2009 to restrict deficits, the constitutionally enshrined debt brake has since limited Berlin’s ability to borrow money to finance public spending. But 2025 is not 2009. Europe’s largest economy is in the midst of a profound economic crisis at a time of unprecedented geopolitical upheaval. Berlin needs to unlock hundreds of billions of dollars to modernize the country’s infrastructure, lower energy costs, invest in innovation, revive its stalled economy, ramp up support for Ukraine, and bolster its defense capabilities. The scale of the challenge has been compounded by President Donald Trump’s recent pivot toward Russia and threat to abandon Europe as the war in Ukraine turns three years old.
Merz struck the right level of urgency when he said that his “absolute priority” as chancellor will be “to strengthen Europe” in order “to achieve independence” from the United States, given that the Trump administration seems to be “largely indifferent” to Europe’s fate. A staunch transatlanticist before Washington started behaving like an adversary, Merz understands that what’s at stake is not just German interests but Europe’s future.
But Germany’s incoming chancellor has his work cut out for him. The AfD will obstruct all attempts to revamp the debt brake and raise borrowing, while the anti-militarist Die Linke supports reforming the borrowing rules but has explicitly vowed to oppose any vote to increase the country’s defense spending on principle. With a blocking minority in the Bundestag, these fringe parties could seriously undermine Merz’s agenda and, by extension, European security.
Merz’s plan to circumvent that challenge is the kind of boldness Germany needs more of. Instead of waiting for the blocking minority to be seated, the soon-to-be chancellor is exploring the possibility of pushing the defense spending hike through the lame-duck parliament, where mainstream parties will technically have a two-thirds supermajority until the newly elected parliament is sworn in on Mar. 25. The fiscally conservative Merz ruled out using this gimmick to reform the debt brake outright yesterday, but he’s reportedly in talks with the Social Democrats and the Greens to set up a special off-budget defense fund worth around 200 billion euros (this would also require a two-thirds majority).
Admittedly, four weeks is very little time to negotiate a workaround while juggling tricky coalition talks in a country that’s notoriously averse to big, fast changes. But extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. If the German political establishment can’t muster the courage to act decisively now, it may not just be the AfD knocking on their doors in four years – Russian troops could be knocking at Europe’s doorstep, too.
Demonstrators protest against U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk outside the U.S. Capitol as Republicans prepare to vote on Trump's tax-cut agenda, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 25, 2025.
Trump administration faces internal tensions over DOGE demands
What was that ultimatum? Over the weekend, federal employees were sent an email by DOGE requiring them to list five things they accomplished last week – failure to respond, it said, would signal they had resigned – which was met with opposition from agency heads who told their employees to ignore the email, primarily from national security agencies fearing intelligence leaks.
Several key federal departments are pushing back against demands from the Department of Government Efficiency, saying that employees do not have to respond since they do not answer to DOGE, marking the first significant resistance from MAGA-aligned forces within the Trump administration.
The resistance – including the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation – is noteworthy because these agencies are currently led by loyal MAGA appointees who have generally supported the administration’s efficiency initiatives. It suggests that national security could be a boundary for DOGE, and one where Trump appointees aren’t afraid to break from the president’s favorite billionaire.
Ultimately, the Office of Personnel Management – which is responsible for firing and hiring employees and has been working closely with DOGE – told workers that responding to the email was voluntary. However, Musk’s post seemed to contradict this directive.
DOGE’s public approval ratings currently rest at just 34%, according to a recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll. But the only factor that is likely to curtail DOGE is Donald Trump, who thus far has shown no indication of withdrawing support for the department's efforts.Elon Musk speaks next to U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 11, 2025.
Trump, Musk sow election interference controversy in India - and Europe
The fallout: India’s governing Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP,accused Congress Party Leader Rahul Gandhi last Thursday of having solicited foreign interference at a speaking engagement in England in 2024, before that year’s Indian elections. Congress denied the allegations and asked the government foran investigation of Trump’s claim.
The findings. On Monday, the Indian Finance Ministry reported that in 2024,USAID gave $750 million to seven projects related to agriculture, renewable energy, and health care, none of which was related to elections. Indian mediaalso reported that the funding was designated for Bangladesh, not India, to support youth civic engagement initiatives there before that country’s January 2024 elections – and that $13.4 million was utilized. Congress General Secretary in-Charge Jairam Rameshthen accused the BJP of spreading “fake news” about Gandhi and called the party “a procession of liars and illiterates.”
More than just India? While Russia has long been the focus of foreign interference allegations, the United States’ role in foreign elections is under the microscope as well. Musk stands accused ofelection interference in Romania and also was fiercely criticized for his interventions in the German election campaign by new Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who compared them to interference from Russia. “The interventions from Washington were no less dramatic and drastic and ultimately outrageous than the interventions we have seen from Moscow,” Merz said. “We are under so much pressure from two sides that my absolute priority now really is to create unity in Europe.”President Donald Trump looks on while meeting with President of France Emmanuel Macron in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 24, 2025.
GZERO Explains: Could Donald Trump run for a third term?
The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution is crystal clear: No person can be elected to the presidency more than twice. Ratified in 1951, it was a response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four-term tenure. Before FDR, the two-term limit was an unwritten rule respected as a tradition since George Washington.
The amendment doesn’t leave room for loopholes. It even prohibits a vice president who finishes out more than two years of a president’s term from being elected a third time. Grover Cleveland, the only other president besides Trump to serve two non-consecutive terms, was also barred from a third reelection.
So, could Donald Trump run for a third term? Legally, and probably, no. Not under the current rules. But we live in interesting times, and Trump and his advisers have repeatedly hinted that he could stick around for a three-peat – most recently last Thursday at a Black History Month celebration and later that same day at the Conservative Political Active Conference.
The (extremely unlikely) paths to a third term:
Repeal the 22nd Amendment. This would require two-thirds of Congress to approve removing an amendment and three-fourths of US states to ratify it. Translation: It’s politically impossible. There’s zero chance enough lawmakers — or states — would sign off on such a move. But a Republican lawmaker has still introduced a House resolution to amend the Constitution to allow President Donald Trump and future presidents to seek a third term.
Martial Law. While leaders in other countries have suspended elections during periods of martial law, in the US, the Constitution and the 22nd Amendment would remain in effect. There is nothing written in the Constitution that allows for it to be suspended during periods of national emergency. That said, when times are crazy, crazy things can happen that could weaken public and institutional pushback to a president expanding his powers during times of chaos.
Vice president loophole? Could Trump run as vice president, then ascend to the presidency if his running mate resigns? Legal scholars have debated this, but the consensus is no — since the 12th Amendment bars anyone ineligible for the presidency to serve as VP.
Ignore the law. The most extreme scenario: Trump – or any leader – could simply refuse to leave office and dare the system to stop him. Then it would come down to Congress, the courts, and the public to force him out. We saw Trump flirt with this idea after the 2020 election, which culminated in the Jan. 6 insurrection in 2021. But that’s the stuff of banana republics, not stable democracies.
Bottom line. The 22nd Amendment exists for a reason: to prevent the kind of power grabs that have destabilized other countries and destroyed democracies. As of now, it doesn’t appear that a third Trump term could happen — at least, not without a massive, unprecedented, shift in US law and politics. But things are rapidly evolving in US politics, so we will be keeping our eyes on how things develop.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, right, sits beside then-Senior Counselor to the President Steve Bannon, left, as President Donald Trump hosts a strategy and policy forum with chief executives of major US companies at the White House in February 2017.
Daggers out for Elon Musk
What does former senior Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon think of current Trump senior adviser Elon Musk? He’s shared plenty of public insults. “Musk is a parasitic illegal immigrant,” Bannon recently told a reporter. “He wants to impose his freak experiments and play-act as God without any respect for the country’s history, values, or traditions.” He dismissed Musk’s cost-cutting projects in government as “performative.”
This latest Bannon salvo at Musk reflects the sharpening of already rough-edged rivalries within Trump’s circle between hard-core populists (like Bannon) and hyper-libertarians (like Musk). For his part, Musk has mostly ignored Bannon’s attacks. In a recent tweet, Musk dismissed Bannon as “a great talker. Not a great doer.”
That may be in part because Musk knows Bannon and others have little real leverage to use against him. In past administrations, members of the president’s party in Congress or major party donors could use their influence with the chief executive to sideline an unpopular aide. But Musk’s money gives him a potent weapon to use against lawmakers fearful of well-funded election challengers, and no donor has ever offered a candidate more than Musk gave Trump in 2024. Former Trump Communications Chief Anthony Scaramucci predicts that though the president won’t “jettison” Musk, his influence on Trump is “not sustainable.” We’ll see.
The sniping will continue as Musk racks up both successes and failures in the coming weeks. But the only person who can undermine Musk is President Trump, who has given no indication of dissatisfaction.
Graphic Truth: Cutting military spending … in half?
A person walks in front of the Department of Education building in Washington, DC, on Feb. 4, 2025.
GZERO Explains: How did the US Department of Education become so controversial?
When was it established and why? US President Jimmy Carter created the department in 1979 as a Cabinet-level agency. It consolidated educational functions that were previously the responsibility of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services).
The department had a broad mandate, overseeing elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education, vocational training, special education, and civil rights compliance. Carter wanted to centralize programs and ensure equal access to education, which he considered “a fundamental right.”
Why was this significant? Historically, education in the United States has been primarily a state and local responsibility. The US Constitution does not explicitly mention education, and the 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.
At the same time, however, the 14th Amendment mandates equal protection under the law. In 1954, the case of Brown v. Board of Education gave the 14th Amendment precedence, upholding federal intervention in cases of legal discrimination, such as bussing to combat school segregation.
Eleven years later, as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It does not mandate direct federal oversight of schools but offers states funding based on meeting federal requirements, including safeguarding civil rights. These funds were later administered by the Department of Education.
How have Republicans viewed federal involvement in education? In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the department, citing concerns about federal overreach. George Bush Sr. took a more activist approach, styling himself as the“Education President,” and leveraging the department’s powers to improve education quality.
What is Trump’s position? President Donald Trump has criticized the department for imposing a race and gender agenda on schools that encourages children to “hate” their country. He has said the federal government should not have control over schools and that it’s staffed with “people that hate our children.”
On Feb. 14, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education Craig Trainor issueda directive that all schools receiving federal funding rescind their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies within two weeks or “face a loss of funding.” Trump has also nominated Linda McMahon, cofounder of World Wrestling Entertainment and former head of the Small Business Administration, as Secretary of Education. At her confirmation hearing last week, McMahonstated that her first assignment as Secretary would be to “put herself out of a job” by dismantling the department, shifting control of education to the states and curbing federal oversight.
McMahon also proposed reallocating programs from Education to other federal agencies, such as moving the enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to the Department of Health and Human Services and transferring the Office for Civil Rights to the Justice Department.
How can these changes be made? All these changes would require congressional approval. At her confirmation hearing, McMahonsaid “President Trump understands that we will be working with Congress …We’d like to do this right. We’d like to make sure that we are presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with, and our Congress to get on board with.”