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 }}
The rise of a leaderless world: Why 2025 marks a turning point, with Francis Fukuyama
Listen: On the GZERO World Podcast, we’re taking a look at some of the top geopolitical risks of 2025. This looks to be the year that the G-Zero wins. As longtime listeners will know, a G-Zero world is an era when no one power or group of powers is both willing and able to drive a global agenda and maintain international order. We’ve been living with this lack of international leadership for nearly a decade now. But in 2025, the problem will get a lot worse. We are heading back to the law of the jungle. A world where the strongest do what they can while the weakest are condemned to suffer what they must. And the former—whether states, companies, or individuals—can't be trusted to act in the interest of those they have power over. It's not a sustainable trajectory. But it’s the one we’re on. Joining Ian Bremmer to peer into this cloudy crystal ball is renowned Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Podcast: The Top Geopolitical Risks of 2025, a live conversation with Ian Bremmer and global experts
Listen: It's officially the new year, and 2025 will bring a whole new set of challenges as governments react to the shifting policies of the incoming Trump administration, instability in the Middle East, China’s economic weakness, and a world where the global order feels increasingly tenuous. 2025 will be a year of heightened geopolitical risks and global disorder, with the world no longer aligned with the balance of power. So what should we be paying attention to, and what’s the world’s #1 concern for the year ahead? Each year, The Eurasia Group, GZERO’s parent company, forecasts the top political risks most likely to play out over the year. On this special edition of the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer analyzes the Eurasia Group's Top Risks of 2025 report with Cliff Kupchan, Eurasia Group’s chairman and a leader of the firm’s global macro coverage; Susan Glasser, staff writer at the New Yorker; and Jon Lieber, Eurasia Group’s head of research and managing director, United States. The conversation is moderated by Evan Solomon, GZERO Media’s publisher.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
- Foreign policy in a fractured world: US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on global threats and Joe Biden's legacy ›
- Podcast: Trouble ahead: The top global risks of 2024 ›
- A look back at the Top Risks of 2024 ›
- Exclusive: Ian Bremmer’s Top Risks for 2025 ›
- Top Risks 2025: America's role in the crumbling global order - GZERO Media ›
Donald Trump faces reporters in the Oval Office on Sept. 11, 2020.
Trump vs. world
The relevant foreign leaders are having none of it. Greenland remains a part of Denmark, though it has governing autonomy on many issues, and Denmark is a member of the European Union. In response to Trump’s latest salvo, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrottold French radio “there is obviously no question that the European Union would let other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders.”
Panama's Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Achasaid Tuesday that “the only hands operating the Canal are Panamanian and that is how it is going to stay.” The US managed the Panama Canal for decades until a treaty signed by the late US President Jimmy Carter in 1977 gave Panama full control in 1999.
And Canada’s outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Trump’s suggestion that the US and Canada should be part of a single country didn’t have "a snowball's chance in hell" of happening.
The odds of Trump accomplishing any of those goals is minuscule. His bargaining, in business and in politics, has always begun with startling demands meant to shock and awe the other side into concessions. But now other governments know that – and they’re more likely than during his first term as president to meet his blunt challenges with blunt responses.
Foreign policy in a fractured world: US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on global threats and Joe Biden's legacy
Listen: Outgoing US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan joins Ian Bremmer in front of a live audience at the 92nd Street Y in New York City for a rare and wide-ranging GZERO World interview about the biggest geopolitical threats facing the United States, Joe Biden’s foreign policy legacy, and how much will (or won’t) change when the Trump administration takes office in 2025. The world has changed dramatically since Biden entered the White House in 2021, and Sullivan has been the driving force behind some of the administration’s most consequential–and controversial–decisions over the past four years. The outgoing National Security Advisor reflects on his time in office, from managing strategic competition with China to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s invasion to navigating the US-Israel relationship. He warns that bad actors see presidential transitions as moments of opportunity, so it’s imperative that we send a “clear and common message” to both friends and adversaries during what he calls “a huge, plastic moment of turbulence and transition” in global politics.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) and former President Donald Trump, meeting in New York City on Sept. 27, 2024.
How will Trump 2.0 approach foreign policy?
Donald Trump’s return to the White House will have massive geopolitical implications. During his first term, Trump’s chaotic foreign policy was driven by his “America First” philosophy, which combined a transactional view of alliances and an isolationist-leaning skepticism about US involvement in foreign conflicts. He withdrew from major agreements, routinely insulted allies (often via tweets), questioned the value of NATO and the UN, launched a trade war with China, cozied up to authoritarian adversaries, and was viewed as an untrustworthy leader across the globe.
Given the tumultuous nature of his initial four years in office, the world is now bracing for the impact of Trump’s return.
Here’s a closer look at what we can expect from Trump on some of the biggest foreign policy issues.
China
Trump 1.0 took a hardline approach to trade with China, which he holds responsible for draining American manufacturing jobs. He imposed several rounds of tariffs that were continued by the Biden administration.
The president-elect has threatened to raise those tariffs further – up to 60%. China, which has been struggling economically, is ramping up exports in order to get ahead of any Trump 2.0 tariffs.
Trump has also threatened to revoke the CHIPS Act, a law signed by President Joe Biden to increase competitiveness with Beijing in the semiconductors race by offering billions to companies that produce in the US. Trump says he prefers to simply slap tariffs on Chinese chips directly.
Taiwan
Trump’s victory is making Taiwan anxious, amid questions over whether he’ll continue to support the self-governing island democracy as it contends with an increasingly aggressive China. The president-elect has called for Taiwan, which Beijing views as a breakaway province, to begin paying the US for defense. By law, the US is committed to providing Taiwan with defensive weapons. The island purchases billions in arms from the US.
Trump has also accused Taiwan, the world’s biggest producer of semiconductors, of stealing the US’s “chip business.”
When asked in October whether he would use military force against a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, Trump said, “I wouldn’t have to” because Xi “respects” him and knows he’s “f— crazy.”
The Middle East
Trump’s election victory is good news for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During his first term, Trump took numerous steps that aided Netanyahu’s agenda. He controversially moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and said the US no longer considered Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank as illegal under international law. Bibi in a tweet celebrated Trump’s win as “history’s greatest comeback!”
Trump will likely be even more pro-Israel than Biden – former CIA Chief Leon Panetta has even said he expects the president-elect to give Netanyahu “a blank check.”
But Trump has also expressed a desire for a quick end to the war in Gaza and has vowed to bring peace to the region. At a minimum, his election win gives Netanyahu room to delay any cease-fire deal until after Trump’s inauguration.
Saudi Arabia is also likely pleased to see Trump return. He stood by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the aftermath of the kingdom’s brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and derailed efforts in Washington to punish Riyadh. Trump could potentially use his strong ties with Saudi Arabia to foster a deal that would see the oil-rich country normalize ties with Israel — though the Saudis still say this won’t happen until the issue of Palestinian statehood is resolved.
Trump’s win also has significant implications with regard to Iran, which is currently locked in a tit-for-tat with Israel that has fueled fears of a wider war in the Middle East.
The US and Iran were on the brink of war under Trump after he ordered the strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian general. Tensions were already high at the time due to Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and reimpose harsh economic sanctions in a failed bid to get Tehran to agree to a stricter deal.
Trump has pledged to avoid new wars in his second term and in September signaled he was open to talks with Tehran to achieve a new agreement to ensure Iran doesn’t develop a nuclear weapon. But if he once again pursues a “maximum pressure” strategy, it could raise the risk of conflict.
Ukraine
Trump has pledged to end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours,” but he hasn’t elaborated on how he’ll accomplish this.
As a result, his victory ushers in a new era of uncertainty for Kyiv. Trump, who’s repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, opposes continued US support for Ukraine’s war against the Russian invasion. The Ukrainian military would struggle to sustain the fight without continued US assistance.
The dynamic between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is awkward. Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 was tied to his decision to freeze aid to Ukraine as he pressured Zelensky to launch an investigation into Biden over bogus corruption allegations.
Trump has also blamed Zelensky for the war with Russia, though it was Putin who ordered the Russian invasion of the former Soviet republic.
But Zelensky on Wednesday said he had a “great” conversation with Trump as he congratulated him on winning the election. “We agreed to maintain a close dialogue and develop our cooperation. Strong and steadfast US leadership is vital to the world and to a just peace,” he added, praising Trump’s “peace through strength” approach to global affairs.
Putin on Thursday also congratulated Trump, praising him as a “brave man.” The Russian leader added that what Trump has said “about the desire to restore relations with Russia, to help end the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion, deserves attention at least.”
Mexico
The US-Mexico relationship could suffer under Trump, who routinely rails against the country in relation to immigration, has pledged to conduct mass deportations, and has even suggested the US should use military force against Mexican drug cartels.
Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on America’s southern neighbor — and largest trading partner — even though this would potentially violate the trade deal that he negotiated with Mexico and Canada while in office.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is so far playing it cool in the face of these threats. On Wednesday, Sheinbaum said Mexicans have “nothing to worry about” over Trump’s election win.
“We are a free, independent, sovereign country and there will be good relations with the United States. I am convinced of this,” Sheinbaum added.
Europe
Trump’s victory raises many questions about US relations with Europe. Amid ongoing economic woes across the continent, European leaders are unsettled by Trump’s threat to apply blanket tariffs on goods imported into the US. But it remains to be seen whether Trump will make good on this.
Trump frequently clashed with European allies during his first term, using unprecedented and alarming threats to withdraw from NATO altogether as a means of getting them to spend more on defense as part of the alliance.. His win is sparking fresh conversations about the need for Europe to be less reliant on the US for defense.
NATO chief Mark Rutte on Thursday said Trump was “right” to pressure NATO countries to spend more on defense. The NATO chief said he was “looking forward” to sitting down with Trump to discuss issues of concern to the alliance.
Meanwhile, the far right prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, celebrated the US election result as a “much needed victory for the world,” though on Thursday he cautioned that trade relations with a more protectionist administration “will not be easy.”
- The 2024 Paris Peace Forum faces a dysfunctional global order - GZERO Media ›
- UN's Rebeca Grynspan on the world’s debt crisis: Can it be solved? - GZERO Media ›
- Trump's plans for policy & personnel - GZERO Media ›
- Global leaders scramble to align with Trump - GZERO Media ›
- Europe's biggest concerns about Trump's return - GZERO Media ›
- 2024's top 10 geopolitical game changers - GZERO Media ›
Exclusive: Americans care most about this issue ...
Polls reflect an American electorate split over who should become the 47th president. So GZERO decided to dig deeper and partnered with Echelon Insights for some exclusive polling to find out what Americans think should be the first geopolitical priority for the next US president, regardless of who ends up in the Oval Office in January.
Our survey of 1,005 voters found that across the political spectrum, a majority of Americans believe the Israel-Gaza war is the most pressing issue for the White House, followed by the Ukraine-Russia war, US-China relations, and then climate change.
Interestingly, climate change was the second most pressing issue for Democrats, with 26% of respondents saying it should be the top priority. Meanwhile, among Republicans, only 5% of respondents answered it was the biggest issue. The Ukraine-Russia war, which Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed to end within 24 hours of taking office, came in second among Republicans’ top priorities, at 24%, compared to third for Democrats, at 18%.
This could be a reflection that Republicans share Trump’s belief that immediate action needs to be taken to end the Ukraine war (even if that comes at the expense of Ukraine), whereas Democrats are more satisfied with the continuation of the current administration’s support for Kyiv.
We also polled Americans on who they trusted more to be alone in a room with Vladimir Putin and found that the responses were almost as equally divided as the polls on who should be the next president, as you can see below:
The White House in Washington, DC.
The world is knocking on the door
It has already been a dangerous week for the world. After months of trading aerial attacks, Israel’s northern border with Lebanon has shifted from a watchpoint to the brink of a ground invasion and wider regional conflict.
As Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. JD Vance take the debate stage tonight for the only vice presidential debate of this election season, everyone from global leaders to young people is asking: What will the next US president do with the world they are inheriting?
In his final remarks before last week’s United Nations General Assembly, President Joe Biden sought to remind the international audience of his 40-year political career. Biden’s speech framed the Afghanistan withdrawal as much-needed, the global coalition in support of Ukraine a resounding success, and new partnerships like the Quad as pillars for the US’s future.
Despite the personal highlight reel, Biden’s global legacy hangs in the balance. After dropping his reelection bid, it was widely reported that Biden viewed ending the war in Gaza as the top priority for the remainder of his term. Months of negotiations and tireless trips to the region by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the Central Intelligence Agency’s Director Bill Burns, and others have translated into almost no tangible progress on a May 2024 US cease-fire proposal. Senior US officialsacknowledged earlier this month that a deal is neither imminent nor likely.
Instead, a second front along Israel’s north has gone from warm to blazing hot. This weekend’s assassination of longstanding Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (reportedly without US awareness) followed by targeted Israeli strikes against Iran’s “axis of resistance” in both Syria and Yemen have sent shockwaves through the region.
When the next US president assumes office on Jan. 20, 2025, they will likely encounter a geopolitical landscape with wars in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Sudan, the threat of a nuclear Iran, US-China tech and space races flaring, and a host of other global challenges, from climate and inequities to radicalization. As we saw with last week’s UNGA, global engagement and interconnectivity may be at an all-time high. Yet, no one knows what the incoming US leadership will do about the tests ahead.
In speaking last week with leaders of the next generation across Europe and Africa as part of an election-related conversation forChatham House’s Common Futures Conversationsproject, the desire for clarity from the US is clear. There is anxiety that US voters will not reject former President Donald Trump’s America First brand of isolationism in November. Trump worried Europe earlier this year when he claimed he would encourage Russia to do whatever it wanted with any NATO member not paying their fair share of defense. Likewise, his plans to impose blanket tariffs of 20% on all imports, including those manufactured by US allies and partners, are ringing the alarm that American friendship may not be what it once was.
Alternatively, if American voters reject Trumpism, a status quo foreign policy strategy under Vice President Kamala Harris is also considered unsatisfactory. There is a sense that more unfulfilled rhetoric of democratic resilience and values will not move the needle for the next generation. There’s a nagging concern that even under a Harris administration the US may be turning inward,focusing on “American workers, innovation, and industry.” What will this mean for the future of development aid and foreign investment across Africa and elsewhere?
Instead, these young voices are hoping for new solutions – and innovation – in US foreign policy that acknowledge the attitude and norm shifts they are experiencing as well as the technological change and saturated information environment around them.
There are two camps about this moment in US geopolitical history. One side draws a trendline from Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and over-reliance on tariffs and sanctions to the Biden administration’s “small yard and high fence” as the start of the US retrenchment from global leadership.Another side says the US remains the most important actor in every room it enters and will continue to set the global agenda.
We may only know in hindsight if this decade turned out to be a turning point. For now, it seems clear that the world is still knocking on the door of the White House, asking for a glimpse of the blueprint ahead.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
Supporters hold placards as Democratic presidential nominee and US Vice President Kamala Harris visits North Western High School in Detroit, Mich., on Sept. 2, 2024.
Foreign policy tests lurk within the US election
By all accounts, the 47th president of the United States will have plenty on the domestic to-do list once they assume office on Jan. 20, 2025. The US continues to navigate a post-COVID hangover with inflation hovering higher than before the pandemic and a long-expected interest rate reduction remaining just beyond reach.
In the latest indicator of economic health, theUS Bureau of Labor Statistics revised downward its estimate of jobs created for the year ending in March 2024 to the tune of 818,000. These numbers matter to US voters, who are feeling it in their pocketbooks. Measures ofeconomic confidence have fallen through 2024, even as inflation, pricing pressures, and the economy continue to be top issues for voters.
Will isolationism win?
Yet, if the last four years have taught us anything, it is that developments abroad and the demands on US foreign policy are never dormant. Given the stakes, global leadership has been tracking former President Donald Trump’s words closely over the last year. Now, with Vice President Kamala Harris’ historically late entrance into the race, the world is left wondering if isolationism will win in November, or if something else (but what is it?) may drive the US approach to the world over the next four years.
Trump has never been one to shy away from the headlines. Earlier this year, he sent ripples across Europe when he claimed he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member not paying their fair share on defense. Given prior reports that Trump contemplated pulling the US from NATO during his first administration, this warning focused the minds and dominated conversations across European security circles. His VP running-mate selection of Sen. JD Vance, an opponent of US security guarantees, has more recently exacerbated those concerns.
From promises to ending the war in Ukraine upon taking office by negotiating on favorable terms with Russia to apolicy platform that includes “building a great iron dome missile defense shield over our entire country,” Trump’s America First brand of foreign policy has become synonymous with a go-it-alone, pull-up-the-drawbridge isolationism.
With unresolved conflicts remaining (Ukraine, Israel, Sudan) and potential stressors lurking (South China Sea, the wider Middle East region, the Arctic), many allies and adversaries of the US await a Trump 2.0 with apprehension. President Joe Biden’s exit and Harris’ stepping into the 2024 campaign have represented a potential reprieve for these anxieties.
Glimpses of Harris’ vision begin to seep through
Despite plenty of reporting on the alternative, relatively little is known about what a Harris foreign policy agenda would look like. In her nomination acceptance speech at last month’s Democratic National Convention, Harris spoke at length about the US’ global role and the need to be “steadfast in advancing our security and values abroad.”
She touched on the range of ongoing territorial tensions – from China and Russia-Ukraine to the Middle East – as well as borderless challenges like artificial intelligence and space. In a particularly insightful, behind-the-scenes moment, Harris described meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky five days before Russia attacked Ukraine to warn him of the planned invasion.
While conventional wisdom suggests that Harris represents a policy continuity story for Democrats, there are early indications that as president she would chart her own course. In her DNC speech, Harris sought to associate herself with the Biden administration’s perceived successes (the global coalition for Ukraine), distance herself from its missteps (the Afghanistan withdrawal), and introduce daylight where she has apparent conviction. The clearest evidence of that daylight thus far has been on Israel, where Harris has projected a sense that she holds multiple difficult truths in parallel. In her first sit-down interview since accepting the nomination, Harris revealed little more of her plan for resolving the conflict, saying only that a deal must get done.
Perhaps the biggest indicator to follow is personal, or personnel. It has long been believed that current national security advisor Jake Sullivan would not stay on through a second Biden administration. With Harris being guided by a separate set of policy strategists, including her national security advisor Philip Gordon, the major architects of Biden’s foreign policy – Biden himself, Sullivan, Sec. of State Antony Blinken and Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin – may all be out of the Situation Room.
Greater understanding of both Harris’ foreign and domestic policy priorities will be filled in over the coming weeks, including with the first Harris-Trump debate currently set for Sept. 10. Given Trump’s warm embrace of isolationism, there is a growing sense abroad that only a Harris presidency stands between the world as it is and a very different – and more precarious – geopolitical trajectory.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.