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 }}
Why cutting USAID will hurt American foreign policy
Ian's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take for today on USAID, the US Agency for International Development, which is in the process of being shut down. Nearly all Washington staff have been put on leave, they're closing missions abroad, the State Department moving to evacuate all staff around the world. Why should we care? Does this matter? This agency was set up back over 50 years ago, 1961, by then President John F. Kennedy, and it was meant to coordinate the distribution of foreign aid for the United States all over the world and differentiate that from military support that was provided by the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the US isn't providing charity, that's not what foreign aid is, that it should be providing support for US national interests. And I agree that it should be providing support for US national interest, but it is important to recognize that actually when USAID was set up, it was set up in part as charity, that President Kennedy's position was that the United States had a moral obligation to support poorer people, and poorer countries around the world. They are fellow human beings, after all, and the United States has historically benefited massively from developing resources all around the world, and frequently, the people that lived in those countries didn't get very much as a consequence, and the US has benefited massively, as have other wealthy countries, from industrialization, and putting carbon into the atmosphere that now poor countries can't do because of climate change, and we're saying, "We need to transition," but the US, of course, has gotten the benefits of that historically.
You know, my view is, I'm okay with charity. I actually think that helping save lives with food and medicine for millions of people and especially babies and children. I mean, even if it did nothing for the United States directly, I would be okay with spending some of the money of American taxpayers on that, especially as opposed to say a war in Afghanistan or the latest sort of bomber program that is expensive and more than the Americans need. So, I push back on the US should never do charity argument. But leaving that aside, you don't need that argument to focus on the importance of USAID.
And I want to, before I get into the national interest side, I do want to say I am empathetic with why it is unpopular. Because at a moment when so many average Americans feel like the US government has not taken care of them, and this is why you see so much backlash against all of the illegal immigrants that have not been addressed by administrations for many years, and why there's so much backlash against the US establishment, whether it's Democrat or Republican, in saying, "What about the average working American? What about our healthcare? What about our public school system? What about things that you should care a lot more about than sending aid to brown people around the world?" Which is essentially what USAID is mostly doing. I get that. And in that regard, it's an easy target for Trump. It's a particularly easy target for Elon Musk. I would ask first, "Why tax cuts for and regulations written by billionaires in the United States before poor people and Americans?" That would be my higher priority if I was really, really angry and antagonized by how badly money is being spent in the US. But that's a different story.
The point is you don't need to make the argument of charity. It is very clear that US foreign aid supports America's economic and national security interests. It is growing markets for consumers, for American businesses and products all over the world. The US has the biggest businesses. It has the biggest market. It benefits the most from other countries around the world having more capacity to sustainably consume and engage with those businesses. America benefits in having more health security by containing disease and pandemics because those diseases and pandemics don't suddenly stop at the American border. The US benefits from aid that reduces insurgencies creating instability that leads to more illegal migration all over the world, many of whom ultimately end up in the United States. It creates more economic opportunity and safety and security in origin countries. And that is a carrot that matters. It's not just about sticks. It's a carrot for economic statecraft that gives the Americans more influence as opposed to say the Russians, or more importantly the Chinese.
Because getting rid of USAID and cutting back on all these programs creates a vacuum. And that is an opportunity for adversaries. I've already seen ministers from large African countries who have their American programs getting cut off, reaching out immediately to their counterparts, ministers in China saying, "Are you willing to send in the programs to replace the Americans that are leaving?" And China doesn't have the economic wherewithal, the Americans do, but they certainly will seize opportunities that are economically useful to them, long-term, because they have a much longer-term perspective on these things than a US administration that's gone in four years. So I worry about that.
I think that USAID has been America's principle interlocutor with civil society in developing countries. And to the extent that we care about those countries having systems that are more aligned with the values and standards that the United States has historically promoted, then you don't want to undermine that and allow the Chinese to come in, which has very little interest in civil society, indifferent to civil society. It's a source of intelligence for the United States. And we've seen that even if it's sometimes uncomfortable for the local governments who aren't necessarily in favor of that. It is true that all USAID projects are probably not going to ultimately be killed, that the State Department is going to take it over and Marco Rubio has said that, "There's a lot of corruption in USAID, and a lot of this money is misspent, and is spent badly, and breaks executive orders," and I am sure that is true, and I am sure that that corruption needs to be addressed. It wouldn't surprise me. The US is an incredibly bloated government system. But shooting first and asking questions later tends to kill innocencts. And that is of course the approach here. And the reality is, that Elon and Trump and their ability to act and be destructive is much greater than the damage control that the secretary of state can do at this moment. And the State Department just does not have the people or the infrastructure to execute on a lot of these programs once USAID is shut down.
And the message that this is really sending to allies is that the United States is an unreliable partner. You cannot count on it. That what they say to you in one administration is not going to be consistent in a second administration, in a way that is not true with other countries, most other countries, around the world. And so I continue to believe, as I did before Trump was inaugurated, that the US is going to see a lot of wins. A lot of countries are going to bend to his will because he's more powerful and he's willing to use that power directly. But that does not mean that the United States will long-term succeed in a law of the jungle approach, an approach which is all stick and no carrot, even when the stick is very, very big, but you can't wield it effectively for a long period of time. And other countries are learning that carrots are kind of smart. I mean, the Chinese originally perfected the all stick and no carrot approach and then saw that the United States was more effective in a lot of countries because they also had economic statecraft. They also had these commercial levers, and so the Chinese started saying, "Oh, we need to figure out how to deliver aid to a lot of these countries, doesn't have to be transparent, can work right with the governments, but ultimately that's going to give us more influence in these countries." And that is something that President Trump and his administration in the early weeks at least seemed to be jettisoning.
So I think this is Pennywise pound foolish. I think it is short-term beneficial to Trump and will look like a win for him and his base and long-term will undermine US power around the world and will of course make the world a less stable place. So on balance, I think this is a problem. It's not something that I think is going to go well. I would love to be proven wrong. I'll be watching it carefully and I think it's a good thing to be debating.
So that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
A person holds a placard on the day justices hear oral arguments in a bid by TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, to block a law intended to force the sale of the short-video app by Jan. 19 or face a ban on national security grounds, outside the U.S. Supreme Court, in Washington, U.S., January 10, 2025.
TikTok ban likely to be upheld
On Friday, the Supreme Court appeared poised to uphold the TikTok ban, largely dismissing the app’s argument that it should be able to exist in the US under the First Amendment’s free speech protections and favoring the government's concerns that it poses a national security threat.
Put simply, they see it as an issue of national security, not free speech.
“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok. They don’t care about the expression,” claimed Chief Justice John Roberts during questioning, clarifying “That’s shown by the remedy. They’re not saying TikTok has to stop. They’re saying the Chinese have to stop controlling TikTok.”
What’s the threat? US lawmakers are concerned about the Chinese government having access to enormous amounts of Americans’ data – and fear the app could be used to spread Beijing’s agenda. Facebook and other American social media platforms are notably banned in China – with Beijing taking a similar view to that of the US government. The justices seemed worried that TikTok could be used for espionage or even blackmail.
What does upholding the ban mean for the app? If the court rules against the app, it would mean that Bytedance, Tiktok’s parent company, must divest from the company before Jan. 19 or face a national ban on national security grounds. The app would no longer be available on the Google or Apple app stores.
But it won’t disappear from your phone if you already have it downloaded. The ban would only affect future downloads. Without the ability to update the app, however, it will likely degrade, and TikTok may block US users before that happens to avoid further legal issues. Incoming President Donald Trump has pledged to save the app, but there is no clear legal method to do so.
The decision could be an early reflection of one of this year’s Top Risks 2025 from our parent company, Eurasia Group: the breakdown of the US-China relationship. The world’s biggest superpowers increasingly distrust one another, and Trump’s return to office is likely to exacerbate the decoupling — increasing the risk of instability and crisis.
People are passing by an AT&T Inc store in Manhattan, New York City in the US with the company's logo and inscription visible. AT&T Inc. the American Telephone and Telegraph Company is an American multinational telecommunications holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, USA. As of March 2024 there was a data breach with leaks of personal data of 73 million customers in the dark web according to the media. NYC, United States of America on May 2023
Chinese telecom hack sparks national security fears
A group of hackers with backing from the Chinese government broke past the security of multiple US telecom firms, including AT&T and Verizon, and potentially accessed data used by law enforcement officials. Specifically, the hackers appear to have targeted information about court-authorized wiretaps, which could be related to multiple ongoing cases in the US concerning Chinese government agents intimidating and harassing people in the US.
The hack was carried out by a group known as Salt Typhoon, one of many such units used by the Chinese government to infiltrate overseas networks. Investigators from Microsoft and a Google subsidiary have been helping investigate the breach alongside the FBI, whose cybersecurity agents are reportedly outnumbered by their Chinese opponents 50:1.
Will the hack undermine US-China relations? Both sides have been trying to keep tensions under control — largely successfully — all year, but this incident may be too awkward to smooth over. China’s Embassy in Washington, DC, denied the hack and accused the US of “politicizing cybersecurity issues to smear China,” and the FBI and DOJ have not commented. We’re watching how the fallout might affect a notional Biden-Xi phone call the White House has reportedly been attempting to arrange.
"The next 50 years belong to Alaska" — An interview with Gov. Mike Dunleavy
Listen: On the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer sits with Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy to explore the state’s pivotal role in America’s energy, technology, and national security. Alaska sits at the heart of some of America's thorniest geopolitical challenges. Its renewable resources, natural gas, rare earth minerals, and freshwater make it a critical part of the country's energy and technology futures, while its strategic location near Russia and China underscores its geopolitical importance. No one understands better than Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy, who drills into Alaska's energy and economic potential and discusses US national security concerns within a melting Arctic on the GZERO World Podcast.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.How the Department of Homeland Security’s WMD office sees the AI threat
The US Department of Homeland Security is preparing for the worst possible outcomes from the rapid progression of artificial intelligence technology technology. What if powerful AI models are used to help foreign adversaries or terror groups build chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons?
The department’s Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office, led by Assistant Secretary Mary Ellen Callahan, issued a report to President Joe Biden that was released to the public in June, with recommendations about how to rein in the worst threats from AI. Among other things, the report recommends building consensus across agencies, developing safe harbor measures to incentivize reporting vulnerabilities to the government without fear of prosecution, and developing new guidelines for handling sensitive scientific data.
We spoke to Callahan about the report, how concerned she actually is, and how her office is using AI to further its own goals while trying to outline the risks of the technology.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
GZERO: We profile a lot of AI tools – some benign, some very scary from a privacy or disinformation perspective. But when it comes to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons, what do you see as the main threats?
Mary Ellen Callahan: AI is going to lower barriers to entry for all actors, including malign actors. The crux of this report is to look for ways to increase the promise of artificial intelligence, particularly with chemical and biological innovation, while limiting the perils, finding that kind of right balance between the containment of risk and fostering innovation.
We’re talking in one breath about chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats — they’re all very different. Is there one that you’re most concerned about or see as most urgent?
I don’t want to give away too many secrets in terms of where the threats are. Although the task from the president was chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats, we focus primarily on chemical and biological threats for two reasons: One, chemical and biological innovation that is fostered by artificial intelligence is further along, and two, chemical and biological formulas and opportunities have already been included in some AI models.
And also because relatedly, the Department of Energy, which has a specialization in radiological and nuclear threats, is doing a separate classified report.
So, that’s less about the severity of the problem and more about what we’ll face soonest, right?
Well, anything that’s a WMD threat is low probability, but high impact. So we’re concerned about these at all times, but in terms of the AI implementation, the chemical and biological are more mature, I’d say.
How has the rise of AI changed the focus of your job? And is there anything about AI that keeps you up at night?
I would actually say that I am more sanguine now, having done a deeper dive into AI. One, we’re early in the stages of artificial intelligence development, and so we can catch this wave earlier. Two, there is a lot of interest and encouragement with regard to the model developers working with us proactively. There are chokepoints: The physical creation of these threats remains hard. How do you take it from ideation to execution? And there are a lot of steps between now and then.
And so what we’re trying to build into this guidance for AI model developers and others is pathway defeat — to try to develop off-ramps where we can defeat the adversaries, maybe early in their stage, maybe early as they are dealing with the ideation, [so they’re] not even able to get a new formula, or maybe at different stages of the development of a threat.
How are you thinking about the threat of open-source AI models that are published online for anyone to access?
We talked a little bit about open-source, but that wasn’t the focus of the report. But, I think that the more important thing to focus on is the sources of the ingestion of the data – as I mentioned, there is already public source data related to biology and to chemistry. And so whether or not it is an open-source model or not, it's the content of the models that I'm more focused on.
How do you feel about the pace of regulation in this country versus the pace of innovation?
We’re not looking at regulations to be a panacea here. What we’re trying to do right now is to make sure that everyone understands they have a stake in making artificial intelligence as safe as possible, and really to develop a culture of responsibility throughout this whole process — using a bunch of different levers. One lever is the voluntary commitments.
Another lever is the current laws. The current US regime between export controls, privacy, technology transfer, intellectual property, all of those can be levers and can be used in different ways. Obviously, we need to work with our international allies and make sure that we are working together on this. I don’t want to reveal too much, but there is interest that there can be some allied response in terms of establishing best practices.
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has noted that regulation can be backward-looking and reactive and might not keep up with the pace of technology. So, therefore, we’re not suggesting or asking for any new authorities or regulations in the first instance. But if we identify gaps, we may revisit whether new authorities or laws are needed.
In terms of legislation, do you think you have what you need to do your job? Or are there clear gaps in what’s on the books?
I actually think that the diverse nature of our laws is actually a benefit and we can really leverage and make a lot of progress with even what we have on the books now — export controls, technology transfers, intellectual property, criminal behavior, and obviously if we have CFATS on the books, that would be great — the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards from my friends at CISA. But we do have a lot of robust levers that we can use now. And even those voluntary commitments with the model developers saying they want to do it — if they don’t comply with that, there could even be civil penalties related to that.
Can you tell me about the safe harbor measure that your report recommends and how you want that to work?
There are two aspects to the safe harbor. One is having an “if you see something, say something” aspect. So that means people in labs, people who are selling products, people who say stuff like, “that doesn’t ring true.” This standard can be used as a culture of responsibility.
And if somebody does report, then there could be a safe harbor reporting element — whether they’ve done something inadvertently to create a new novel threat, or they’ve noticed something in the pipeline. The safe harbor for abstaining from civil or criminal prosecution — that may need regulation.
Are you using AI at all in your office?
Yep. Actually, we are using AI on a couple of different detection platforms. The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office has the subject matter expertise for CBRN threats here in the department and we provide training, technology, equipment, and detection capability. So we’ve been using algorithms and AI to help refine our algorithms with regard to identifying radiological, nuclear, chemical, and biological threats. And we’re going to continue to use that. We also are using AI as part of our biosurveillance program as well, both in trying to identify if there is a biodetection threat out there, but also if there is information that would indicate a biological threat out there in the country, and we’re trying to use AI to look for that in content.
Let’s end on an optimistic note. Is there anything else that gives you hope about AI factoring into your work?
The promise of AI is extraordinary. It really is going to be a watershed moment for us, and I'm really excited about this. I think thinking about the safety and security of the chemical and biological threats at this moment is exactly the right time. We’ve got to get in there early enough to establish these standards, these protocols, to share guidance, to fold in risk assessments into these calculations for the model developers, but also for the public at large. So I’m fairly bullish on this now.
Hong Kong Chief Executive John Lee, government officials and lawmakers pose for a group photo, after the Safeguarding National Security Bill, also referred to as Basic Law Article 23, was passed at the Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, in Hong Kong, China March 19, 2024.
Hong Kong passes harsh national security law
Letter of the law. It allows authorities to detain people without charge for up to 16 days, conduct closed-door trials, and ban companies found to be “working for foreign forces.” But the devil is in the (lack of) details: The bill closely imitates Beijing’s state secrets law, with a broad definition of what might constitute theft or espionage.
It also introduces the new offense of “external interference.” Anyone found collaborating with loosely defined “external forces” could face charges.
What does it mean for Hong Kong? Chief Executive John Lee said the law – set to go into effect on Saturday – was necessary to halt unrest and root out “espionage activities.” He said passing it quickly will now allow his government to focus on economic growth, a key concern.
Hong Kong has long been known for an open business climate, but the laissez-faire vibes are fading after the harsh crackdowns on protests that broke out over an extradition law in 2019. Many of the city’s best and brightest have gone abroad, and multinationals worry about the risks of operating under the new rules. Lee bets that a booming economy might put minds at ease.
US Government information: What's the threshold for "classified"?
There are many reasons for a government to classify information. The US does not want Vladimir Putin getting his hands on our nuclear codes, for example. An estimated 50 million documents are classified every year, though the exact number is unknown—not because it’s classified, but because the government just can’t keep track of it all. But in the words of the former US Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, some “secrets are not worth keeping.”
This week on GZERO World, former Congresswoman Jane Harman argues that America has had for decades an over-classification problem. Harman mentions the findings by the 9/11 Commission, which concluded that a lack of information-sharing between agencies like the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA prevented the US government from foiling the largest terrorist attack ever on American soil. A key reason for that failure: the over-classification of information.
It’s difficult for Americans to understand the actions of their government if much of its work is classified. It also forces journalists to weigh the risks of disclosing information to the public against the possibility of prosecution under the Espionage Act.
Beyond national security concerns, over-classification is also driven by incentives. If you’re a government employee, the risk of classifying something that doesn’t need to be classified is low. But if you un-classify something that you shouldn’t, you're in trouble.
Tune in to “GZERO World with Ian Bremmer” on US public television to watch the full interview. Check local listings.
Is it time for the US government to rethink how it keeps its secrets?
Here’s one of the United States' worst-kept secrets: its flawed classification process. Whether it’s the unnecessary classification of material or the storage of top-secret documents behind a flimsy shower curtain in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom, it’s crucial to address our approach to confidentiality. Joining GZERO World to discuss all things classified, including those documents in Trump’s bathroom, is former Congresswoman Jane Harman. As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee after 9/11, the nine-term congresswoman has insider knowledge of the matter.
According to Harman, “The only good reason to classify documents is to protect our sources and methods, how we got information.” The 9/11 Commission identified a lack of information-sharing among agencies such as the CIA, the FBI, and NSA as a key reason the government was unable to stop the attacks. Over-classification of information played a significant role in this failure. Approximately 50 million documents are estimated to be classified each year, although the exact number remains unknown—not due to classification, but because the government struggles to keep track of it all. In the words of former US Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, some “secrets are not worth keeping.”
To see the full interview with Jane Harman, watch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.