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 }}
How Trump's assertive foreign policy impacts international relations
And the response by President Trump was immediately 25%, maybe 50% tariffs, and shut off visas and shut down diplomatic engagement. And there was immediate response by President Petro that was over the top, and as Trump's own responses are over the top, and going to completely hit the Americans back really hard. Now, America is Colombia's most important trade partner, and the size of these countries is a little bit different. And within a couple of hours, Petro very quietly accepted Trump's terms. The deported Colombians will be accepted back in Colombia, and the trade war with Colombia is in our rearview mirror. Not really a surprise.
So Trump is going out there, and he's saying all these extraordinary, extravagant things. Huge exaggerations about what he demands and what he wants. And if you're Colombia, the response was absolutely on par. I mean, the post that we saw from President Petro, who is also kind of a populist firebrand on the left, isn't enormously popular, frankly, and has had a lot of difficulty in passing economic policies. But he gave it a shot and it was entertaining to watch and read and a lot of Colombians responded well to it. It felt like good old nationalism. And of course, he had to back down. Why? Because you're not allowed to do the same thing that Trump is. It's not just about who's right, it's also about who's powerful. And Trump's more than happy to hit him with a stick. And so that turned out to be a loss pretty quickly for the Colombian government.
There are a lot of other countries that are working the same way. I see this happening with Mexico where the Mexican president has been incredibly careful. US is the most important relationship. Suddenly they are seizing enormous amounts of fentanyl. More in one seizure than they've done in four years under Biden and showing Trump, "Look at what we can accomplish because we know this is important to you." And working to get Chinese trade and investment that is problematic and coming through to the United States out of Mexico and willing to put more money and resources, people on Mexico's southern border to reduce the numbers of people that are coming through Mexico into the United States. They desperately don't want to fight with the Americans. They're going to make a lot of offers. Call it defense. Call it capitulation. But that's definitely what you're seeing.
I see this from Denmark, which is publicly trying to say nothing. There've been some leaks. But in general it's been very careful both from Denmark and all of the Nordic leaders I've spoken to, they've been very, very careful. Nothing public about the challenges that they're having. Of course, privately completely unacceptable that the United States would make demands of Greenland and wouldn't work through a very stalwart, though small, ally. The Danes who do everything the Americans ask in terms of coordinating on military exercises and providing multilateral support when the Americans want more participation in different wars or humanitarian support. You name it, the Danes are there. But that didn't matter to Trump. He said, "I want Greenland."
And they are privately trying really hard to get this out of the headlines to say nothing that would be provocative, not respond the way the Colombian President did, not get Trump to do anything even more angry. And instead, find a way to keep Greenland a part of Denmark, don't vote for independence and keep the alliance stable. Most places around the world, that's what they're doing. They're acting like Mark Zuckerberg and Meta and all of those tech titans that have given the money and have gone down to Mar-a-Lago and are saying, "No, we've always loved you Trump and we want to work with you and please don't hurt us."
But there are a few exceptions and I think it's worth mentioning who I think they are. Exception number one, this may surprise you: Canada. Canada is an exception not because they're unfriendly with the US, not because they don't depend on the US, but because they have an election coming up. Their government fell apart. And now everybody in Canada is angry at the United States with all of this threat of tariffs and we want more money for the Americans for security, and you guys should be a 51st state. Not only are the liberals angry, the conservatives are angry and they have to outdo each other to be tough on Trump in the United States or they think they're going to lose the election upcoming. So the fact is that Trump, I think, made a strategic mistake in going after Canada early because the Canadians are not in the position to respond well given the election.
The other two exceptions, the Europeans who want to be constructive with the US but have a stronger position if they can be collective through the EU and on some areas they can. On Russia-Ukraine, they can be collective, which has helped them bring Trump closer to the European position on Russia-Ukraine in the last three months than he was when he was initially elected. On trade, on tariffs, on China, Europe is more collective and has more regulatory force as long as they can act together. That is going to continue to happen, gives them more leverage, vis-a-vis the Americans.
And then finally the Chinese who don't act collectively, but they are stronger as an individual country. And they're going to be much tougher to engage with as we saw with the first phase one, phase two trade deal. It took a very long time to sort of come together and then they didn't actually uphold a lot of what they promised. A lot of decent conversations, but the Chinese were much more willing to lecture Marco Rubio in their first call with the US Secretary of State than anyone else he has spoken with around the world. Why is that? Because the Chinese want to show they're not going to be pushovers and that they are tougher and bigger and stronger and can hit back the way that many other countries cannot. What does that mean for US-China relationship? Probably going to get worse before it gets better. That would be my bet at this point. But we'll see how much of a deal Trump really wants.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Migrants line up to leave the United States for Mexico after being deported across the Paso del Norte international border bridge after President Donald Trump promised mass deportation operation, as seen from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, on Jan. 23, 2025.
How Mexico is preparing for Trump’s mass deportations
The initiative, called “Mexico Embraces You,” aims to build nine migrant reception centers along the US border, and employ all 34 federal agencies and 16 state governments to repatriate and resettle returnees. The program intends to enroll people in pensions, paid apprenticeships, and other social welfare initiatives, and to distribute cash cards worth about $100 each. It will also bus people back to their hometowns.
Critics say Mexico is ill-equipped to handle the influx and accuse it of benefiting from migrant remittances, which boost foreign exchange, domestic incomes, and economic growth, while lacking a system to support repatriation. Some wonder what migrants will do once they return since many fled because of violence or lack of opportunity.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has expressed disagreement with Trump’s “unilateral” mass deportation decision, but with the US planning to implement 25% tariffs to force Mexico to crack down on the border, and the flood of migrants seemingly on their way back regardless, she has little choice but to prepare her country to receive them.
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.
People attend an anti-immigration protest, in London, Britain, October 26, 2024.
UK prime minister promises border crackdown
The UK Labour Party, as the expression goes, hits different now. At least when it comes to immigration.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the party’s leader, lambasted what he called the UK’s post-Brexit “open borders” policies and promised a comprehensive crackdown on immigration.
This capped a sea change in the party’s views under Starmer, who took over from his (much) further left and more pro-immigration predecessor Jeremy Corbyn in 2020, and led the party back to power for the first time in 14 years in July.
The context: Since the UK “Brexited” from the EU, immigration numbers have soared under successive Conservative governments. Last year, net migration hit a record high of 906,000 people. Immigration debates have roiled the country with particular fury in recent months. August saw violent clashes between xenophobic mobs and immigrant gangs, stoked in part by online misinformation. The government's response, which included the arrests of several people for stoking anti-immigrant violence online, drew harsh criticism from anti-immigration groups and free speech activists.
The bigger story: Across the continent, just as across the pond, backlashes against mass immigration are a defining feature of politics. No longer solely a right-wing issue, parties from all points on the political spectrum must find a politically tenable position on the issue.
Ukraine fires US missiles into Russia. What's next?
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Ukraine has launched US-made long-range missiles into Russia for the first time. Will this change the course of the war?
I don't think so. First of all, the reason the Americans were dragging their feet for so long is because they didn't believe it would have any strategic impact in the war to give that permissioning to the Ukrainians and they were worried that it might lead to Russian escalation. That escalation is less likely given that Trump has been elected and he's going to be in power in just a couple of months, so the Russians basically have to deal with it, and they'll probably end up hitting more Ukrainian sites in the next couple of months. But I don't think it's really going to help the Ukrainians. I don't think it's going to hurt the Russians that much. What I do think is that the Russians are more likely to give better weapons, more capable weapons, to the Houthis, for example. So, if the Americans are going to arm proxies better, then the Russians will arm proxies better, and that could lead to bigger problems in the Gulf.
How likely will Trump be able to carry out mass deportations when he's in office?
I think he will be capable. He certainly was elected in part on that intention, on that promise. This is something that Biden really did not pay attention to until way too late and he lost a lot of votes in blue cities where people felt like there were just far too many illegal immigrants and the costs were great, and the security concerns were real. And so, the fact that he says he's going to use the military, that's potentially a Supreme Court question, but especially when you talk about people that have committed crimes in the United States, why they should still be in the US is a very serious question. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if 300,000, 500,000 deported in the first year. In other words, a hell of a lot higher than you've seen under Biden. There will be an inflation cost there, but it's one that I don't think Trump is going to take a big hit for.
Will there be political fallout from Hong Kong's decision to jail pro-democracy activists?
Not really, because China has changed the national security law. They've completely integrated Hong Kong into the Chinese political system and the pro-democracy activists don't have anyone that's willing to support them, not the UK, not the United States. I mean, they're human rights organizations, and you'll see members of Congress on the Democrat and Republican side that'll complain about it, but they won't do anything. So on balance, I don't think it matters, and that means, or I should say, it doesn't matter for China, which means very little blowback.
- No, the US didn’t “provoke” the war in Ukraine ›
- Russia cares more about Ukraine than the US does ›
- US compared to Russia after tanking UN resolution on Gaza ›
- The future of war: James Stavridis on China, Russia, and the biggest security threats to the US ›
- Can the US stay ahead of Russia & China in the space race? ›
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks to members of the press after a weekend in Delaware, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 19, 2024.
Judge blocks Biden policy for undocumented spouses
A Texas judge on Monday temporarily blocked the Biden administration from granting legal status to unauthorized immigrants married to American citizens following a challenge by 16 Republican-led states.
The policy allows unauthorized immigrants and their children to apply for temporary work permits and deportation protections if they are married to US citizens, have lived in the country for at least 10 years, and pass background checks.
The coalition of red states said the policy incentivizes illegal immigration, and the judge agreed the states raised legitimate questions about the authority of the executive branch to bypass Congress and set immigration policy.
One week after taking effect, the judge halted the program estimated to affect half a million immigrants living in the US without legal status, disrupting a major move taken by President Joe Biden in June on immigration, a top campaign issue in the 2024 race for president. The policy was popular among the 22 million people living in mixed-status households and was one of the most sweeping moves to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship since Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was enacted in 2012 to protect immigrants who came to the United States as children.
A Canadian flag waves beside McDonalds fast food restaurant in Toronto, May 1, 2014. Canada's foreign worker's program has expanded to lower-skilled jobs, especially at restaurant chains such as McDonald's Corp and Tim Hortons Inc.
Is there “slavery” in Canada?
Another week, another black eye for Justin Trudeau’s increasingly unpopular immigration policy. This time the punch came from the United Nations, which released a scathing report alleging that Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program is a “breeding ground for contemporary slavery.”
The program — which the Liberals have greatly expanded to fill pandemic-related job vacancies — allows foreigners to work temporarily in Canada in industries like agriculture, fisheries, and food service, often for low wages.
But the UN says the program makes workers vulnerable to abuse, since they can be deported if they are fired. The minister responsible for the program, Marc Miller, has acknowledged the need for reforms.
Immigration has historically not been a hot-button political issue in Canada, where there’s been a nonpartisan consensus about its societal and economic benefits. But the Liberals’ massive expansion of immigrant visas in recent years has contributed to a housing shortage, while economists say the temporary worker programs suppress wages for Canadians. As a result, the pro-immigration consensus has collapsed.Miller has been scrambling to make fixes to the system, but so far the Conservatives are making hay out of a popular demand to slow immigration. The Liberals, meanwhile, may be wary of cutting immigration too swiftly, for fear of the economic fallout and potential blowback from some in ethnic communities they rely on at the ballot box.
Will Biden's immigration order help border control...and his campaign?
Jon Lieber, Eurasia Group's head of research and managing director for the firm's coverage of United States political and policy developments, shares his perspective on US politics from Washington, DC.
What we're watching in US Politics this week? It’s immigration.
This is a big political liability for President Biden. It shows up as one of the top 2 or 3 issues, most of the big polls. And Donald Trump has a big advantage over him right now if you believed polls. So what Biden did this week is announced an emergency order that would restrict the number of people who would come to the United States seeking asylum in cases where border crossings breach over 2500 a day. This has been a pretty common occurrence, with border crossings at that level for the last several years. Last year there were over 3 million people who entered the country from abroad, both legally and illegally.
And it’s the illegal border crossings that's gotten Biden really in the most political trouble and has been at the heart of President Trump's political campaign since he first came down the golden escalator in 2015. So the big question is, does this hold and will it make any difference? And, you know, this is likely to be challenged in court by immigration advocates who want the number of asylum seekers to stay high so that people can get refuge in the United States.
But if the courts do uphold this, it should make a significant difference in the number of people crossing the border. The question is, does it come in time to help Joe Biden make a case that he's actually doing something about immigration in a way the American people want to see? Interestingly, this action is very similar to a deal that the Democrats struck with Republicans in the Senate earlier in the year, which was, of course, struck down when President Trump said he didn't really want to do anything to help Biden's reelection campaign.
So immigration is going to be an ongoing theme with this campaign. Biden took big action this week, and the numbers should help us see whether or not this makes any difference.
- Border disorder: Why Capitol Hill lawmakers disagree on the US immigration crisis ›
- US immigration policy: The unfixable political gift that keeps on giving for the GOP ›
- The New York migrant crisis up close ›
- Graphic Truth: The immigration waves that made America ›
- Putin's rare North Korea visit will deepen ties - GZERO Media ›