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.
Top Risks 2025: America's role in the crumbling global order
Is international order on the precipice of collapse? 2025 is poised to be a turbulent year for the geopolitical landscape. From Canada and South Korea to Japan and Germany, the world faces a “deepening and rare absence of global leadership with more chaos than any time since the 1930s,” says Eurasia Group chairman Cliff Kupchan during a GZERO livestream to discuss the 2025 Top Risks report. Kupchan highlights that the US is at the heart of it. He warns that it is a country that has “abdicated its throne,” which has created a dynamic that is “very prone to vacuums and misperceptions.” With no other country willing or able to take the reins and lead, the world is left in a vulnerable position facing unprecedented geopolitical risks.
Take a deep dive with the panel in our full discussion, livestreamed on Jan. 6 here.
Unpacking the biggest global threats of 2025
With political instability plaguing US allies, from Canada and South Korea to Japan and Germany, 2025 promises plenty of geopolitical storms. To get you up to speed, GZERO Publisher Evan Solomon sat down with Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremmer, Cliff Kupchan, and Jon Lieber, as well as the New Yorker’s Susan Glasser, to discuss the 2025 Top Risks report.
One name came up over and over again: Donald Trump. The incoming US president promises tariffs that could upend the global economy, crash relations with China, and worsen the chaos in ungoverned spaces. With Russia still running rogue, Iran badly bruised on the world stage, and AI changing geopolitics — not necessarily for the better — Kupchan characterized the current situation as the riskiest since World War II.
Bremmer said that all of the above, from Washington to Ouagadougou, is merely a symptom of the biggest risk facing the planet: that the G-Zero world, one in which no power can bring order to the international system, is on the rise.
Take a deep dive with the panel in our full discussion, livestreamed on Jan. 6.
Ian Bremmer explains the 10 Top Risks of 2025
Every January, Eurasia Group, our parent company, produces a report with its forecast for the world's Top 10 Risks in the year ahead. Its authors are EG President
Ian Bremmer and EG Chairman Cliff Kupchan. Ian explains the Top 10 Risks for 2025, one after the other. He also discusses the three Red Herrings.
Read the full report here.
Red Herrings
Trump Fails: Over time, Trump’s transactional foreign-policy approach will weaken US alliances, erode America’s influence on the global stage, heighten geopolitical volatility, and make the world a more dangerous place. But in 2025, Trump is score likely to score victories than to fail.
Europe Breaks: Economic malaise, security threats, and defense shortcomings will test Europe’s unity in 2025. But as with the Eurozone crisis, Brexit, the pandemic, and Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the EU will likely overcome, or at least muddle through, these latest challenges.
Global Energy Transition Stalls: The return of Donald Trump has raised anxieties in sustainability circles that the global energy transition will be thrown into reverse this year. But the global energy transition survived the first Trump administration, and it will survive the second, especially since it has much more momentum now than in 2017.
Risk #10: Mexican Standoff
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has a strong mandate and few checks on her executive power. Still, she will face formidable challenges this year in her relations with the Trump administration at a time of ongoing constitutional overhauls and fiscal stresses at home. Her diplomatic and governance skills will soon be tested.
Risk #9: Ungoverned spaces
The deepening G-Zero leaves many places thinly governed. Conflict in the Middle East has left ungoverned spaces within Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. In Africa, the aftermath of the war in Ethiopia and the ongoing civil war in Sudan have worsened humanitarian conditions. In Myanmar, more than three million civilians have been displaced since the coup in 2021. In Haiti, political turmoil, civil unrest, gang violence, and natural disasters compound the misery of its people. These neglected spaces and people won’t pose broader geopolitical risks in 2025, but the consequences of the neglect will eventually be felt far beyond the countries directly affected.
Risk #8: AI unbound
Some notable AI governance initiatives came to fruition in 2024. Still, without strong, sustained buy-in from governments and tech companies, they will not be enough to keep pace with technological advances. The deteriorating state of global cooperation resulting from the G-Zero leadership vacuum compounds these risks.
This year will mark another period of relentless technological development unbound by adequate safeguards and governance frameworks. Given the incentives to build ever more powerful AI, meaningful constraints will likely emerge only when developers hit hard limits on data, compute, energy, or funding access. Until then, the technology’s capabilities and risks will continue to grow unchecked.
Risk #7: Beggar thy world
The US-China rivalry will export disruption to everyone else this year, short-circuiting the global recovery and accelerating geoeconomic fragmentation at a time when global growth is tepid, inflation remains sticky, and debt levels stand at historic highs.
New governments promising better times ahead will face harsh realities as global economic pressures turn political. Many emerging and frontier economies must decide between raising taxes or slashing spending. Even within the G7, budget battles toppled a French government last year, and Canada's finance minister resigned over fiscal disputes. Few countries face imminent risk of sovereign default, but cracks in government stability will undermine investor confidence.
Risk #6: Iran on the ropes
The Middle East will remain a combustible environment in 2025 for one big reason: Iran hasn’t been this weak in decades. The country’s geopolitical position has been dealt a series of devastating blows in recent months. Israel has crippled its most potent proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran’s ally, Bashar al Assad, has been driven from Syria.
Tehran is wounded, but it still has a massive missile and drone arsenal, and it could be provoked into another direct exchange of missiles with Israel. Any accident or miscalculation that kills a significant number of Israelis or Americans could trigger an escalatory spiral with material implications for the supply and price of oil.
Risk #5: Russia still rogue
Russia is now the world’s leading rogue power by a large margin, and Vladimir Putin will pursue more policies that undermine the US-led global order despite a likely ceasefire in Ukraine. Russia will take hostile action against EU countries with cyber, sabotage, and other “asymmetric attacks”; it will also build on strategic military partnerships with Iran and North Korea in 2025. Putin will continue attempts at arson and even assassination while using Telegram to propagate pro-Kremlin views across Europe. Russia will do more than any other country to subvert the global order in 2025.
Risk#4: Trumponomics
In January, Trump will inherit a robust US economy, but his policies will bring higher inflation and lower growth in 2025.
First, Trump will significantly hike tariffs to reduce America’s trade deficits, leading to fewer affordable options for many goods and increased US inflation. Higher interest rates and slower growth will result. The dollar will strengthen, making US exports less competitive. Some countries targeted by Trump will retaliate, raising the risk of disruptive trade wars. Second, the Trump administration could deport up to one million people in 2025 and up to five million over four years.
Reduced illegal immigration and mass deportations would shrink the US workforce, driving up wages and consumer prices and limiting the economy’s productive capacity.
Risk #3: US-China breakdown
Trump's return to office will unleash an unmanaged decoupling in the world’s most important geopolitical relationship. That, in turn, risks a major economic disruption and broader crisis. Trump will set new tariffs on Chinese goods to pressure Beijing for concessions on a host of issues, and China’s leaders, despite real economic weakness at home, will respond more forcefully to prove to both Trump and China’s people that they can and will fight back. Tensions over Taiwan will probably rise, though a full-blown crisis remains unlikely in 2025.
Technology policy will be the true frontline in this conflict. Battles over trade and investment in everything from semiconductors to critical minerals will erupt in 2025.
Risk #2: Rule of Don
Trump will enter office more experienced and better organized than in 2017. He will populate his administration with loyalists who better understand how the federal government works. He will have consolidated control of Congress and a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority.
From this solid foundation, Trump will purge the federal bureaucracy of professional civil servants and replace them with political loyalists, particularly at the Justice Department and the FBI. The erosion of independent checks on executive power and an active undermining of the rule of law will leave more of US policy dependent on the decisions of one powerful man rather than on established and politically impartial legal principles.
Democracy itself will not be threatened. The US isn’t Hungary. But Trump’s indifference, and in some cases hostility, to longstanding American values will set dangerous new precedents for “political vandalism” by future presidents of both parties.
Risk #1: The G-Zero wins
The 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 lived with this lack of international leadership for nearly a decade now, but in 2025, the problem will get much worse.
Expect new and expanding power vacuums, emboldened rogue actors, and a heightened risk of dangerous accidents, miscalculations, and conflict. The risk of a geopolitical crisis is now higher than at any point since the 1930s or the early Cold War.
Russia and China remain challengers to the Western-led security order, though in very different ways. Rising inequality, shifting demographics, and warp-speed technological change have persuaded a growing number of citizens in advanced industrial democracies that “globalism” hasn’t worked in their favor. And the world’s military superpower will again be led by the only post-WWII president who rejects the assumption that a US global leadership role serves the American people.
This Top Risk is not a single event. It’s the cumulative impact of the deepening G-Zero leadership deficit.
Meta scraps fact-checking program: What next?
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What do you make of Meta ending its fact-checking program?
Well, it's a direct response to Trump's victory and a little late. They probably could have done it a few weeks ago, but they wanted to line up their new board members with people that are more aligned with Trump and also their new head of public policy. Now that Nick Clegg, who was much more oriented to Harris, is gone. So, they're like everybody else, heading to Mar-a-Lago and wanting to get on board with the new administration. That is what's happening. And of course, it means implications for those concerned about safety features on social media are going to grow. This is a complete shift of the pendulum in the other direction.
What is the fallout from Justin Trudeau's resignation?
It's not surprising. He's been there for 10 years. His popularity had really fallen off a cliff. And that was even before Chrystia Freeland, his deputy prime minister, shot him in the face a few weeks ago. So, it was clear that he was going to go. The most important implication is that after elections coming up, you're likely to have a conservative government run by Pierre Poilievre, which will be much more aligned with Trump. I don't consider Poilievre's policies to be very America First-ish for Canada. He's not quite that kind of a politician. But he will be, I think, very supported by Trump, Elon Musk and right-wing populists in the United States.
So, in that regard, as you think about re-upping the US-Mexico-Canada relationship, agreement-trade relationship, you talk about tariffs and all the rest, I suspect that relationship will be more normalized and more stable for the Canadians going forward.
As Trump is about to kick off his second term, who are his friends around the world?
A lot more than he had last time around. I mean, you could focus on Argentina and President Milei. In the recent G20 Summit, Trump wasn't there yet, but Milei was. And I mean his talking points were as if Trump was in the room. Of course, Giorgia Meloni, who just made her trip to Mar-a-Lago, she's very strongly pro-EU. But she's also very aligned personally with Trump. And that is going to be a strong relationship for them.
Germans are going to have their election shortly. Friedrich Merz is likely to win. And I suspect he's going to be much closer to Trump, certainly than outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been. The Gulf States, Israel, that was Trump's first trip as president back in 2017, will be his early trip. I am very sure in this presidency, very strong relations. Don't sleep on Narendra Modi in India either. That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Exclusive: Ian Bremmer’s Top Risks for 2025
Every January, Eurasia Group, our parent company, produces a report with its forecast for the Top 10 Risks for the world in the year ahead. Its authors are EG President Ian Bremmer and EG Chairman Cliff Kupchan.
Here are brief summaries of the most important risks that will preoccupy world leaders, business decision-makers, and the rest of us in 2025, according to Bremmer and Kupchan. You can read the full report here.
1. The G-Zero wins
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.
Bremmer and Kupchan argue that we should expect new and expanding power vacuums, emboldened rogue actors, and a heightened risk of dangerous accidents, miscalculations, and conflict. The risk of a geopolitical crisis, they warn, “is higher than at any point in our lifetimes.”
Russia and China remain challengers to the Western-led security order, though in very different ways. Rising inequality, shifting demographics, and warp-speed technological change have persuaded a growing number of citizens in advanced industrial democracies that “globalism” hasn’t worked in their favor. And the world’s military superpower will again be led by the only post-World War II president who rejects the assumption that a US global leadership role serves the American people.
Bremmer and Kupchan detail three ways out of what they call a “geopolitical recession.” One, reform existing institutions like the UN, IMF, and others to operate more effectively and command broad legitimacy. Two, build replacement institutions that better reflect the underlying balance of power. Three, impose a new set of rules by force. Different actors are pursuing all three of these strategies. But in 2025, it’s the third option where challengers to the system are devoting their attention, time, and resources.
This Top Risk is not a single event, the authors suggest. It’s the cumulative impact of the intensifying G-Zero leadership deficit and the deepening geopolitical recession on the breakdown of the global order. The result is a uniquely dangerous period of world history on par with the 1930s or the early Cold War.
And just when we were celebrating the end of 2024.
2. Rule of Don
Donald Trump’s second term will not be like his first, Bremmer and Kupchan predict. Emboldened by the scale of his 2024 election victory and the support of a unified Republican Party, Trump will enter office more experienced and better organized than in 2017. He will populate his administration with loyalists who now have a better understanding of how the federal government works. His consolidated control over Republicans in Congress, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, and a friendlier media environment will help him advance his agenda.
From this solid foundation, Trump will work to purge the federal bureaucracy of professional civil servants and replace them with political loyalists, particularly at the Justice Department and the FBI. This consolidation of power will “stretch the norms of Washington to their breaking point,” according to Bremmer and Kupchan. The erosion of independent checks on executive power and an active undermining of the rule of law, they argue, will leave more of US policy dependent on the arbitrary decisions and personal whims of one powerful man in Washington rather than on established and politically impartial legal principles.
Democracy itself, the report cautions, will not be threatened. The US isn’t Hungary. But Trump’s indifference, in some cases hostility, to longstanding American values will set dangerous new precedents in “political vandalism” for future presidents of both parties.
3. US-China breakdown
The détente established by Joe Biden and Xi Jinping at Woodside in November 2023 kept US-China tensions reasonably contained in 2024. But Trump’s return to office will unleash an “unmanaged decoupling in the world’s most important geopolitical relationship.” That, in turn, risks a major economic disruption and a broader crisis.
Trump will set new tariffs on Chinese goods to pressure Beijing for concessions on a host of issues, and China’s leaders, despite real economic weakness at home, will respond more forcefully to prove to both Trump and China’s people that they can and will fight back.
Tensions over Taiwan will likely rise, though a true crisis remains unlikely in 2025. But Trump administration actions targeting the Chinese Communist Party's legitimacy and visas for Chinese students will further inflame tensions.
Technology policy will be the true frontline in this conflict, Bremmer and Kupchan assert. China’s leaders insist that Washington wants to stunt China’s technological growth to protect the US position as world No. 1. Battles over trade and investment in everything from semiconductors to critical minerals will erupt in 2025.
4. Trumponomics
In January, Trump will inherit a robust US economy. Output has risen above pre-pandemic trends, unemployment remains near 4%, and an inflation rate nearing the Federal Reserve’s 2% target encourages investors to expect interest rate cuts. But Bremmer and Kupchan warn that Trump’s policies will bring higher inflation and lower growth in 2025.
First, Trump will significantly hike tariffs to correct “unfair” practices and reduce America’s trade deficit, which he views as intrinsically bad for the country. When US consumers face fewer affordable options on many goods, inflation will rise again, leaving interest rates higher and slowing growth. The dollar will strengthen, the report forecasts, making US exports less competitive. Some countries targeted by Trump will retaliate with measures that hurt American exporters and raise the risk of a disruptive global trade war.
Second, there is Trump’s immigration policy, which could deport up to 1 million people in 2025, Bremmer and Kupchan argue, and as many as five million over the course of his four-year term. Reduced illegal immigration and mass deportations will shrink the US workforce, drive up wages and consumer prices, and reduce the productive capacity of the economy, they insist, and legal immigration won’t fill the gap.
5. Russia still rogue
Russia is now the world’s leading rogue power by a large margin, the report’s authors argue, and Vladimir Putin will pursue more policies that undermine the US-led global order, despite a likely ceasefire in Ukraine. Russia will take hostile action against EU countries with cyber, sabotage, and other “asymmetric attacks,” and will build on its strategic military partnership with Iran and North Korea in 2025.
Donald Trump will likely achieve the ceasefire in Ukraine he has promised, and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky needs a halt to a war his country is slowly losing. Russia is advancing on the battlefield, but 600,000 Russian casualties and three years of sanctions give Putin good reason to cut a ceasefire deal with Trump. The agreement's terms, Bremmer and Kupchan predict, will freeze forces in place and leave Russia in de facto control of conquered territory. Both sides will rearm, and sporadic fighting will continue along the line of control, the report forecasts. The fragile ceasefire will probably continue through 2025, “but not much longer.”
Yet, the ceasefire itself will create new problems beyond Ukraine. The Nordics, the Baltic countries, and Poland will support a Ukrainian military buildup during the ceasefire. France, Germany, Italy, and others will likely provide security guarantees to Ukraine and bolster Ukrainian and EU defenses. EU sanctions on Russia will remain in place, giving Putin more reason to interfere in their domestic politics, just as they used cyber and other tools to interfere in Romania’s election in November 2024 and in the US too, according to US officials. Bremmer and Kupchan predict Putin will continue attempts at sabotage and even assassination in many Western countries, and continue to use Telegram to instill pro-Kremlin views in citizens of European countries.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in December that Moscow was “preparing for long-term confrontation, with Ukraine and with us.” Russia will do more than any other country to subvert the global order in 2025.
For the rest of the Top Risks 2025, read the full report here.
Disclaimer: Willis Sparks has contributed to these Top Risks reports for the past 20 years.
- Ian Bremmer explains the 10 Top Risks of 2025 - GZERO Media ›
- Unpacking the biggest global threats of 2025 - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The Top Geopolitical Risks of 2025, a live conversation with Ian Bremmer and global experts - GZERO Media ›
- What happens when no one’s in charge - GZERO Media ›
- Top Risks 2025: America's role in the crumbling global order - GZERO Media ›
New Year's Day terror attacks highlight America's divisions
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take for you, a happy New Year, I wish that I could say that 2025 was getting off to a smoother start, clearly not the case, certainly not in my country.
Two terrorist attacks in the early hours of the first day of the year, in New Orleans, back where I went to school, Tulane University. 14 dead, dozens injured in a terrorist attack right on Bourbon Street, as all the revelers were celebrating. And then, hours later, Las Vegas, the Trump International Hotel, a Cybertruck carrying fireworks and gas canisters, essentially a bomb, a driver killed himself before blowing up his truck. Nobody else killed, lots of injuries, could have been a lot worse. Everyone's talking about potential connections, they use the same app to rent the vehicles, they're both US citizens, one's a veteran, one's active, one was active in the US Forces, both served in Afghanistan, were even on the same base.
No evidence at all that they knew each other, and certainly no evidence that the attacks were in any way coordinated. In fact, if you look at some of the posts and other things made by the New Orleans bomber, out of Texas, was thinking about attacking friends and family before he was worried about the media receptivity on that. Far more likely both of these were lone wolf attacks. But there are some important things to point out, like if you're angry and disillusioned with the US, its system, its leaders, its values or lack thereof, and you want to attack the excesses of it, decadence of the United States in your view, and you want to have great symbolism, January 1 gets you there, Bourbon Street in New Orleans, and Las Vegas are pretty much ground zero, so in that regard, not a coincidence at all.
A couple of lone wolves with the same sort of animus, in terms of why they would take their grievances out in the most public way, going after Trump and Elon, ditto, and of course, we've already seen a bunch of this in the most disastrous potential ways with the attempted assassinations against now President-elect Trump, one of which was this close, and almost happened, could easily have happened, and we'd be having very different conversations if that were the case right now. I'm thinking a lot about the symbolism, a lot about the impact, because the coverage in the media and on social media about these terrorist attacks is so overwhelmingly about trying to figure out who's to blame, which team, who's responsible? Is this on the right or on the left? Were these people outraged with Trump or were they Trump supporters? Were they white nationalists? Were they Americans? Were they not Americans? Were they Muslim extremists? All of that.
When, of course, the most important thing to focus on are the victims. The most important thing to focus on is the outrage that these attacks are occurring, and that innocent citizens, civilians are getting killed, are getting injured, that their families are suffering, that the impact on the communities, and that we're not apparently able to prevent them. That is the focus that we should have, and it couldn't be more different in that regard from 911, where the response was to rally around the flag. The response was to rally around the president, who had over 90% approval ratings in the weeks after those attacks, wasn't particularly popular beforehand. And what changed between those days, well, what changed was that the average American felt very patriotic and felt that all Americans were ultimately on the same side, on the same team.
And that is not where we are right now. Right now, the average American feels that the primary enemies are inside the country, supporting their political enemies, whoever they happen to be. And we are seeing this especially on social media, we're seeing this with so much disinformation, we're also seeing it, frankly, with President-elect Trump, who was immediately talking about, well, this was a threat from outside the country, and it's because we're not defending the border, and it's Biden, and he's the biggest disaster, and he's not protecting, as opposed to Biden is the American president, Trump is about to be the American president, they're both the leaders that deserve to be listened to, and need to be rallied behind in a time of crisis. Very far from that, you can't imagine a US really getting over 50% approval right now, with a good percentage of the remaining 50% thinking that that president is a core part of the problem.
And that means, number one, that these attacks are likely to do more to drive Americans apart than to bring them together. Secondly, that there's going to be much more politicization that comes on the back of these attacks, and talking about how certain parts of the US public is not patriotic. So, for example, when the first New Orleans attacks occurred, in New York City, there were some significant demonstrations, obviously completely unrelated, that were pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the US. A lot of response to that was these people need to be surveilled, they're calling for intifada, they are a part of the problem. When, in reality, they're American citizens expressing freedom of speech, just like Trump supporters or American citizens expressing freedom of speech, and they're all the same Americans. But a lot of Americans don't feel that way. And that, I think, is being maximized, it's being, the algorithms are driving more of that hate, more of that anger, more of that anxiety.
And the media coverage, which is so divided, is also driving that, depending on what and who you're watching and focusing on ensuring that the views that you bring into this are only going to be strengthened, and the enemy's views are going to be disparaged. That's where we are, that's how we're responding to tragedies, two tragedies, as we kick off 2025. I'd like to believe that these are solvable, addressable problems, and that we can create more of a community, create more of a civil society in the United States, but in the near term, the trend is not in that direction, the trend is indeed very far in the other direction.
And that's something that I think we're going to be paying attention to and talking about for some time to come. So, I hope that you and your families had a restful and peaceful and Happy New Year, but we've got a lot of work to do, and we'll do our best to honestly and without fear or favor, continue to analyze that for you, and talk about it, and focus over the course of the year. And that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
A look back at the Top Risks of 2024
Every January, Eurasia Group, our parent company, produces a report with its forecast for the top 10 geopolitical risks for the world in the year ahead. Its authors are EG PresidentIan Bremmerand EG ChairmanCliff Kupchan. The 2025 report will drop on Jan. 6.
But first, let’s look back at the 2024 Top Risks report – you can read the full report here –to see where Bremmer and Kupchan hit or missed the mark.
1. The United States vs. itself
The argument: The US political system has become more dysfunctional than that of any other advanced industrial democracy. In 2024, the presidential election will deepen the country’s political divisions, testing American democracy to a degree the nation hasn’t experienced in 150 years and undermining US credibility internationally. With the election outcome close to a coin toss, the only certainty is damage to America’s social fabric, political institutions, and international standing.
The verdict: The election certainly further polarized the electorate, and President-elect Donald Trump survived two assassination attempts, the first by a frighteningly narrow margin. Fortunately, we’ll never know how chaotic and potentially violent the election season might have turned had Trump not turned his head at just the right moment during that rally in Pennsylvania. This risk might also have inflicted more damage had Trump not won by a clear enough margin that Democrats accepted the results.
2. Middle East on the brink
The argument: The fighting in Gaza will expand in 2024, with several pathways for escalation into a broader regional war. Some could draw the US and Iran more directly into the fighting. The conflict will pose risks to the global economy, widen geopolitical and political divisions, and stoke global extremism. No country involved in the Gaza conflict wants a regional conflict to erupt. But the powder is dry, and the number of players carrying matches makes the risk of escalation high.
The verdict: Here’s another risk that was dead-on but could have been much more destructive than it turned out to be.The war in Gaza expanded into the West Bank, Lebanon, and the shipping lanes of the Red Sea. Israel and Iran traded direct strikes, though Israel sustained little damage, and the US remained largely on the sidelines. Few predicted Israel would score such a decisive win over Hamas and Hezbollah in 2024, and no one foresaw the fall of Bashar Assad.
3. Partitioned Ukraine
The argument: Ukraine will be de facto partitioned this year, and Russia now has the battlefield initiative and a material advantage. 2024 is an inflection point in the war, and if Ukraine doesn't solve its manpower problems, increase weapons production, and set a realistic military strategy soon, its territorial losses could prove permanent and may well expand. Kyiv will take bigger military risks this year, including strikes on more targets inside Russia that provoke unprecedented Russian responses and could pull NATO into the conflict.
The verdict: Another strong call for Bremmer and Kupchan. The Russians still have the battlefield initiative, though it has come with an estimated 600,000 Russian casualties. And, as the report predicted, Ukraine also became more aggressive as the mood across the country soured. The report foresaw more Ukrainian strikes deeper into Russian territory, but it certainly didn’t predict a Ukrainian invasion of Russia’s Kursk region that continues to embarrass the Kremlin.
4. Ungoverned AI
The argument: Technology will outstrip AI governance in 2024 as regulatory efforts falter, tech companies remain largely unconstrained, and far more powerful AI models and tools spread beyond the control of governments.
The verdict: We did see AI distort politics in places like Romania, South Korea, and Pakistan this year, but these technologies remain in their infancy, and far greater disruptions are surely still ahead of us. The extraordinary influence on Donald Trump of Elon Musk, who owns his own AI company, makes that even more likely.
5. Axis of rogues (and America’s dangerous friends)
The argument: In 2024, Russia, North Korea, and Iran will boost one another’s capabilities and act in increasingly coordinated and disruptive ways on the global stage. Meanwhile, even Washington’s friends — the leaders of Ukraine, Israel, and (potentially) Taiwan — will pull the US into confrontations it wants to avoid.
The verdict: This was another solid prediction, though the report may have overestimated the impact of Iran, which now finds itself backed into a corner by Israel with its most important proxies – Hezbollah, Hamas, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels – reeling and Syria’s ousted president Bashar Assad now sharing a small one-bedroom apartment in Moscow with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (kidding). The report underestimated North Korea’s willingness to support Russia, including by sending un-battle-tested NK troops to the Ukraine war’s front lines.
6. No China recovery
The argument: Absent an unlikely loosening of President Xi Jinping’s grip on power or a radical pivot toward large-scale consumer stimulus and structural reform, China’s economy will underperform throughout 2024. Beijing’s failure to reform the country’s sputtering economic growth model, the country’s financial fragilities, and a crisis of public confidence will expose gaps in the Chinese Communist Party’s leadership capabilities and increase the risk of social instability.
The verdict: As predicted, China’s stagnant economy had both political and economic impacts in 2024. Politically, it revealed once again that Xi is not Vladimir Putin, a leader who responds to his country’s weakness by becoming more belligerent. Instead, China mainly kept to pragmatically managed relations with the US this year and worked to solidify and extend relations with Europe, India, and others. Economically, China’s slow recovery kept global growth below hoped-for, post-COVID benchmarks. Given its importance for other risks, this one could have been #4 on the list rather than #6.
7. The fight for critical minerals
The argument: In 2024, governments around the world will intensify their use of industrial policies and trade restrictions that disrupt the flow of critical minerals, crucial components in virtually every sector that will drive growth, innovation, and national security in the 21st century, from clean energy to advanced computing, biotechnology, transportation, and defense.
The verdict: Politically motivatedrestrictions on trade in critical minerals among the US, China, and Europe were certainly on the rise in 2024, but this risk is much more likely to deserve mention in a Top 10 report over the next two to three years, particularly as Trump’s aggressive approach toward China removes some of the relationship’s guardrails.
8. No room for error
The argument: The global inflation shock that began in 2021 will continue to exert an economic and political drag in 2024. High interest rates caused by stubborn inflation will slow growth around the world, and governments will have little scope to stimulate growth or respond to shocks, heightening the risk of financial stress, social unrest, and political instability.
The verdict: Stubbornly high prices and slow growthcertainly played a featured role in anti-incumbentelection results in India, South Africa, France, the UK, Japan, and the US. Bremmer and Kupchan were wise to keep this risk low on this year’s list given that we didn’t see the developing world debt defaults — or the large-scale social unrest in multiple countries that would surely have followed.
9. El Nino is back
The argument: After a four-year absence, a powerful El Nino climate pattern will peak in the first half of this year, bringing extreme weather events that trigger food insecurity, increase water stress, disrupt logistics, spread disease, and foment migration and political instability.
The verdict: El Nino did help the planet set a heat record in 2024. It also triggered severe droughts, water shortages, and crop failures with predictable economic fallout. But the worst of the damage was limited to southern Africa, helping to avert much broader disruption in Asia and the Americas.
10. Risky business
The argument: Customers, employees, and investors — mostly on the progressive side — have brought the US culture wars to corporate offices, and now courts, state legislatures, governors, and activist groups — mostly conservative ones — will hit back. Companies caught in the political and legal crossfire will face higher uncertainty and costs.
The verdict: Given the Trump victory in the US, American companies generally fared poorly with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; environmental, social, and governance standards; and other “woke” corporate messaging. But this risk could be even higher in 2025 as more companies find themselves caught between a Trump-inspired re-evaluation of the commercial impact of these campaigns and the inevitable anti-Trump backlash among his critics on the left. #FirstDoNoPolitics
Disclaimer: Willis Sparks has contributed to these Eurasia Group Top Risks reports for the past 20 years.