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 }}
Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaks during a press conference in Toronto, Canada, on May 30, 2024.
Three amigos, or two?
Ford called on Mexico to match Canadian and American tariffs on Chinese imports to stop it being a “backdoor for Chinese cars, auto parts, and other products."
Ford’s province depends on the CA$11.6 billion auto industry, with integrated supply chains across the border. Any threat to that could cause an economic meltdown.
During the negotiations of the new NAFTA — the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement — in 2019, some Conservative critics of Justin Trudeau’s government faulted the Canadians for making common cause with Mexico in resisting US demands. They are getting an early start this time ahead of the deal’s review in 2026.
“If Mexico won’t fight transshipment by, at the very least, matching Canadian and American tariffs on Chinese imports, they shouldn’t have a seat at the table or enjoy access to the largest economy in the world,” Ford said.
Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who played the pivotal role in negotiating USMCA withUS Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, has repeatedly emphasized that Canada and the United States are in lockstep on tariffs on China.
Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group's global macro-geopolitics practice, says it is hard to know if they will remain in lockstep if Donald Trump’s tariffs on China get too high.
“Given Canada’s dependence on the US market, I think Ottawa will be tempted to do things that only a few years ago would have seemed impossible – including imposing significant new tariffs on China and abandoning Mexico if necessary to preserve its trade and security relationships with Washington.”
Lighthizer, who is expected to return to his job under Trump 2.0, is laying the groundwork for a new tariff policy that would include a 20% tariff on all goods coming into the US.
If there is no exemption for Canada, the policy would also lead to a sudden and dramatic slowdown in the Canadian economy.
Expect the Canadians to remind the Americans that Canada exported $124 billion of oil to the United States last year. Any new tariffs on that trade would increase prices at the pump for Americans, which Trump’s party would pay for in the 2026 midterms.
The tariffs strike back: Is this the end of globalization?
My political compass has been spinning lately, and not just because Robert F. Kennedy Jr. admitted to ditching a bear corpse in Central Park before finally endorsing Donald J. Trump (that one caused a bit of political vertigo). My deeper confusion stems from the political debate about protecting our jobs.
It used to be, reliably, that the conservative right supported free trade and globalization, while the progressive left wanted protectionism for local industries.
Elections were fought on this, libraries were filled with studies on it.
For Republicans, Ronald Reagan’s 1988 Thanksgiving address was considered economic theology. “One of the key factors behind our nation’s great prosperity is the open trade policy that allows the American people to freely exchange goods and services with free people around the world,” the Gipper said.
That era ended under Trump’s first administration when he used two tools to impose tariffs on a wide-ranging series of goods: Section 301 (tariffs that combat unfair trade practices) and Section 232 (tariffs that protect national security). These tariffs hit almost $280 billion of goods and, according to the American Action Forum, increased consumer costs by over $51 billion a year. By the way, Joe Biden kept most of these in place. Recently, Biden went even further, slapping $18 billion worth of tariffs on Chinese-produced EVs, semiconductors, and critical minerals, among other things. This is all part of the industrial policy he ushered in under the Inflation Reduction Act. So both sides love a good tariff.
But in this campaign cycle — it’s as if a sequel titled “The Tariffs Strike Back” has been released — we must wonder: Is this the beginning of the end of globalization and the rise of a new age of tariffs?
Both Republicans and Democrats are making tariff-happy promises. Trump has mused on the campaign trail that he would like to impose a 10% tariff on all goods coming into the US.
“When companies come in and they dump their products in the United States, they should pay automatically, let’s say, a 10% tax … I do like the 10% for everybody,” the former president explained.
And it is not just in the US. Tariffs are being used everywhere.This week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau aligned with the US andannounced tariffs on Chinese-made EVs starting Oct. 1, and another 25% tariff on Chinese steel and aluminum.
“Actors like China have chosen to give themselves an unfair advantage in the global marketplace,” Trudeau said, “compromising the security of our critical industries and displacing dedicated Canadian auto and metal workers.”
He’s not wrong. China does have widespread, unfair trading practices. Using tariffs to rebalance against factors like low-wage workers or weak environmental standards is useful, as they can be to deal with trade imbalances. But it’s a slippery slope. Tariffs beget tariffs, and that starts a trade war where everyone loses.
Tariffs were critical to Trump’s first administration, especially as he renegotiated the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada. But economists at places like the CATO Institute concluded that tariffs cost taxpayers anywhere from $50 to $80 billion in higher prices. “American consumers (both firms and individuals), not foreigners, paid for — and continue to pay for — the tariffs,” the experts wrote.
So why are they back? If Trump 1.0 taught politicians across the spectrum anything, it's that there are no votes in supporting globalization. Most states and provinces have lost jobs and plants to cheap labor in places like China and Mexico, and protecting jobs wins elections today, even if it means higher prices tomorrow.
And that’s exactly what it means. According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, if Trump were to impose the across-the-board 10% tariff, it “would amount to a roughly $1,500 annual tax increase for the typical household, including a $90 tax increase on food, a $90 tax increase on prescription drugs, and a $120 tax increase on oil and petroleum products.” And there is a real debate as to whether higher tariffs, which aim to create jobs, actually do so.
A study from the US Department of Agriculture revealed that Trump’s 2018 tariffs on major trading partners like China, Canada, and Mexico cost billions due to retaliation. “From mid-2018 to the end of 2019, this study estimates that retaliatory tariffs caused a reduction of more than $27 billion (or annualized losses of $13.2 billion) in US agricultural exports,” the study said.
This is a case of Hobson’s choice: Keep some manufacturing jobs in your community, but face higher prices, lower productivity, and retaliation from other countries. After all, one tariff begets another, and the costs pile up. But the political gains are real, so protectionism is on the march again.
Trump’s VP running mate, Sen. JD Vance, recently defended tariffs and, to be fair, many countries have massive exceptions to free trade that include cutouts to protect certain industries with subsidies and quotas. In the US, national security is used extensively as a form of industrial policy — Trump, for example, imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, citing national security concerns. And in Canada, banks and milk and cheese farmers in Quebec are protected.
But Vance has gone further, arguing that tariffs in principle are a net economic gain. A tariff “causes this dynamic effect where more jobs come into the country,” Vance recently said on “Meet the Press.” “Anything that you lose on the tariff from the perspective of the consumer, you gain in higher wages, so you’re ultimately much better off. You have more take-home pay, you have better jobs,” he added.
By that logic, more tariffs would keep growing the economy, so where will they stop? That is the road to end any form of free trade and globalization.
Strangely, Vance’s argument not only flies against the conventional wisdom of his own party — the GOP has long advocated for free trade and open markets — but it also parrots what the left argued for decades as they fought free trade and globalization even as they were ridiculed by people like Reagan.
During Trump’s first term, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation published a piece called “Is the GOP Still the Party of Free Trade?” and concluded that they are not, especially after Trump took the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That was a multilateral trade agreement with Asian countries meant to keep a strong US presence in Asia as a hedge against China. While 191 Republicans originally voted for it, that Republican Party no longer exists. “The effective abandonment of its free trade credentials sets the Republican Party on a perilous path,” wrote Phil Levy of the Reagan Foundation.
Democrats must be delighted that an argument they once lost so publicly is being relitigated. Now, both sides are arguing for the same thing and trying to outdo each other. It will be interesting to hear what Kamala Harris says about this as she finally reveals some policy.
We have now gone from embracing concepts like “nearshoring” and “friendshoring” for critical supply chain products like medicine and AI chips to picking winners and losers across the economy. This is 1970s industrial policy, and the distinction between the left and the right on this has become minimal.
Is this how globalization dies, one tariff at a time, in a series of trade wars and spats, Brexits and exits, until finally, the trade walls are back up, productivity plummets, and prices rise? Or is there a happy medium, where these global fights lead to a rise in both labor and environmental standards in places like China and Mexico and the cliched expression “fair trade, not free trade” actually becomes a reality?
Either way, it won’t be quick and, in the meantime, brace yourself for higher prices as your political compass keeps spinning wildly out of control.
What country will win the AI race?
Art: Courtesy of Midjourney
Savvy startups, tech giants, and research labs woo the best engineers and financing to fuel technological breakthroughs. But the battle for AI supremacy is much bigger than the industry itself – it's a global contest, pitting nations against each other.
Many of the world’s most powerful governments are flexing their muscles to build a competitive edge by cultivating robust domestic AI sectors. Don’t be fooled into thinking that recent efforts to legislatively rein in AI models and the companies behind them are signs of governments hitting the brakes – it’s quite the opposite.
Why, you ask? Because it’s a boon for any country to attract top talent and spur economic activity, says Valerie Wirtschafter, a fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology Initiative. Hosting top AI companies also “inevitably catapults host countries to the forefront of conversations around standards and governance, both domestically and internationally.”
Beyond that, a thriving AI sector can do wonders for national security. That’s true not only for military and intelligence applications or research-and-development, but also for ensuring that standards of development “do not pose an inherent risk and are developed with a certain set of values in mind,” Wirtschafter says.
Since Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI call America home, Washington has the ultimate power play. It can better control these tech giants and set the vibe for worldwide AI regulation.
Such control sets governments an inch closer to technological sovereignty, says Nick Reiners, a senior analyst for geotechnology at Eurasia Group: “Having these companies in your country means you’re not dependent on another country.”
Governments can boost their AI sectors in numerous ways — through subsidies, research funding, infrastructure investment, and government contracts.
“Defense spending and government R&D has always been a big stimulus for civilian and commercial research and product development,” says Scott Wallsten, president and senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank. “You can be sure the DOD is working on these tools for their own purposes because they’re in an arms race with potential adversaries.”
Who’s ahead? The US and China are way out in front. “While in the US, these advances have been primarily driven by the private sector, in China they have been shaped more by government support,” says Wirtschafter. But she notes that the US CHIPS Act is a sign that America is trying to boost its strategic advantage.
Stanford University’s annual AI Index report found the US and China leading in many different ways, including private investment and newly funded AI firms. (The UK, EU, Israel, India, and Canada also rank highly in many of the report’s metrics.)
While it’s unlikely that anyone will challenge the US and China, and the US is ahead, Wirtschafter notes that China is powerful on facial recognition technology.
Could governments get possessive? Yep, this is a high-stakes game, and Washington and Beijing, among others, could increasingly opt for protectionist measures to keep powerful AI models in their grasp.
The US is already doing this with chips, the underlying technology for AI. Washington exerts strict export controls over any semiconductor-related equipment, lest it get into enemy hands – meaning China. It has also blocked corporate takeovers that could shift the balance of power with chips, including a 2018 deal involving US chipmaker Qualcomm (keeping it from a Singapore-based company’s grasp). And a new report indicates the Biden administration forced a Saudi firm to divest from a US chipmaker linked to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
If the US and other governments determine that protecting powerful AI models is key to their national security, they could take similarly drastic measures to keep them domestic — or at least in the hands of allies. Just last week, Bloomberg reported that the London-based AI startup Stability AI, known for its Stable Diffusion image generator, is exploring a sale amid internal turmoil. The company reportedly reached out to two startups — the Canadian company Cohere and the US-based Jasper — to gauge their interest in a sale. There’s no indication yet that regulators are worried, but the potential corporate shakeup comes as British politicians have been desperately trying to make the UK a friendly place for AI firms.
The last thing the UK wants is to get burned again – like it did with DeepMind and Arm, two promising British AI companies that were acquired by US and Japanese firms in 2014 and 2016, respectively. In a recent interview with the BBC, Ian Hogarth, who is leading the UK’s AI taskforce, spoke of the need to boost European technology companies instead of allowing them to be sold. “We've had some great tech companies and some of them got bought early, you know – Skype got bought by eBay, DeepMind got bought by Google,” Hogarth said. “I think really our ecosystem needs to rise to the next level of the challenge.”
British lawmakers passed the National Security and Investment Act in 2022, granting the government new national-security powers to intervene in the foreign acquisition of domestic companies. “The pace of change has been really significant since that period,” Wirtschafter said of the DeepMind acquisition, “and the desire to maintain a competitive national position in this space would be central to any potential sale.” The UK’s National AI Strategy, published in 2021, says that the government will “protect national security” and protect against “potentially hostile foreign investment.”
But ministers are now considering rolling back those new rules to appear more business-friendly. And that’s the central tension that all AI-hungry countries face: They need to appear AI-friendly while trying to be forceful with regulation. The battle for AI supremacy is on the line.USMCA faces its biggest test
Mexico’s protectionist energy policies have caused a spat with its closest trade partners — the US and Canada — that appears to be heading into a high-stakes arbitration process.
The dispute represents the biggest challenge yet for the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which tightly binds the economies of the three countries. Though no one believes the USMCA is headed for a break-up, the conflict could discourage talk of moving more supply chains to Mexico as the US seeks to reduce its reliance on China. And a likely arbitration ruling against Mexico could be highly damaging – economically and politically – for the country.
How protectionist is Mexico? Since coming to office in 2018, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has tried to reassert national control over Mexico’s energy sector, which he sees as an important source of national wealth.
His administration has rolled out a series of policies designed to favor Pemex, the state-owned oil firm, and the Federal Electricity Commission, the state-owned electricity company – and to slowly squeeze out the competition. It has also erected new regulatory hurdles to investment by private companies in Mexico’s energy sector and given the national electricity company priority access to low-cost power generation.
Most experts agree these measures violate the anti-monopoly, equal treatment, and energy chapters of the USMCA, the trade agreement that succeeded NAFTA in 2020. They have prompted protests from powerful US and Canadian firms invested in Mexico’s energy sector, which have urged their governments to intervene on their behalf.
After months of informal talks with Mexican officials that failed to find a resolution, the US and Canada triggered the USMCA’s dispute resolution mechanism in late July. That launched a 75-day period of formal consultations that recently ended after failing to reach an agreement. Talks may continue, but the US and Canada are now entitled to request a hearing on the issue by a USMCA arbitration panel made up of members chosen by each of the three countries.
Previous USMCA arbitration proceedings have gone amicably and smoothly, without significant negative fallout (political or economic) for the countries involved. The ruling in one case – a US-Canada dispute over Canadian rules on dairy imports – even allowed both sides to declare victory.
The situation is different from Mexico’s energy policies. López Obrador regards his efforts to reshape the sector as a key part of his agenda, raising the stakes of an arbitration ruling against them. In the talks so far on the issue, his administration has tried to delay and obstruct, offering token concessions while proceeding full speed ahead with its plans. In the run-up to Mexico’s independence-day celebrations on Sept. 15, the president planned to make a fiery speech defending Mexico’s right to make its own decisions, though he then decided to bite his tongue.
A recent shakeup at the economy ministry signals the administration is not likely to waver from its hardline approach to the dispute. Deputy Trade Minister Luz Maria de la Mora, a respected technocrat responsible for implementing the USMCA and most of the country’s trade negotiations, was replaced by Alejandro Encinas Jr., an official known for his headstrong approach to negotiations and loyalty to López Obrador.
On the other side of the conflict, US President Joe Biden has been prioritizing other issues in the bilateral relationship with Mexico that resonates more with voters, such as immigration and drug trafficking, especially ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections. In the interest of maintaining collaboration with Mexico on those issues, he appears to have been soft-pedaling on disagreements in other areas.
But the pressure is mounting on Biden to address the complaints of US energy firms. Triggering the USMCA arbitration process would be welcomed by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are set to visit Mexico City in December or January for the North American Leaders Summit. López Obrador has touted their visit as evidence of a solid working relationship, and a sign that an arbitration process is unlikely. But there doesn’t seem to be any other way of resolving the dispute.
An arbitration ruling against Mexico could allow the US and Canada to impose damaging tariffs on Mexican imports. López Obrador knows this but is probably counting on the process dragging out long enough so that the economic fallout is not felt by voters until he leaves office in 2024. Until then, he will be able to preserve his image as the proud Mexican president who was willing to challenge the mighty US.
How to consolidate power by creating an enemy
As things become more unstable in the world with inflation and rising food prices, and commodity prices, there is going to be more and more appetite with strong leadership.
Part of the pushback against globalization has been led by autocrats who reject things like free trade and the liberal international order. For them, globalization means losing control.
But the world today remains more interconnected than ever. So, do they want less globalization, or rather a version that fits their narrative? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist for the Financial Times, who wrote a book about the rise of the age of the strongmen.
A modern example of the strongman appeal are resentment at minority groups and how strongman leaders exploit that. Autocrats are generally not fond of minorities, yet resentment against them is always a good pitch to fire up the base, says Rachman.
Good examples are India's Narendra Modi, China's Xi Jinping, or the European far right with Muslims. But the European strongmen have not behaved the same way with Ukrainian migrants.
"It's pointless to deny that people are more likely to feel compassion for people who maybe look a bit like them," Rachman tells Ian Bremmer.
Countries representing more than half of the world's population — including China and India — are not on the anti-Russia bandwagon.
Why? For one thing, US hypocrisy after the war in Iraq. For another, many countries "simply don't want to return to a unipolar world.
Your global guide to America’s baby formula shortage
America is the richest country in the world, so it is perplexing that parents nationwide are currently faced with shortages of a crucial food staple: baby formula.
It is nothing short of catastrophic. The share of baby formula across the country is down 40%, forcing distressed parents to drive across state lines to secure formula – only to be faced, in some cases, with more naked shelves.
How did we get here? The immediate trigger for the crisis was a recall of products made by Abbott Laboratories after four infants – two of whom died – contracted bacterial infections linked to a pathogen called Cronobacter sakazakii. Abbott has since shut down its sprawling Michigan plant while the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention investigate claims of unsanitary conditions. (This week, Abbott reached an agreement with the FDA to reopen the plant, but it could take two months to resume a regular supply cadence.)
So, what does it feel like to be a formula-reliant parent in America right now? In short, it’s a nightmare.
“As someone who opted not to breastfeed, formula is how I feed my daughter,” says Jennifer Lemon, 35, a New Jersey based mom. “I literally wake up in the middle of the night sometimes to check online to see if stocks have replenished to hopefully pick up one tin,” she says.
“If anyone has formula fed, they know how important it is to stick to the same brand because babies have such sensitive digestive systems … it is the difference between a calm, happy baby, and a baby in pain,” Lemon says.
Similarly, Paige Dawes, 33, who lives in New York City, says this issue “has been the bane of my life for the last three months,” adding that last week she went to seven different stores to try and find formula. “I have now figured out which day the local supermarket gets their stock in and make sure I go first thing in the morning.” Still, because of rationing, Dawes can only get two tubs at a time, which doesn’t last very long. “It’s a nightmare,” Dawes says.
The shutdown has caused shortages at a time when inflationary pressures and pandemic-related supply-chain disruptions were already leading to spotty formula supply. But this isn’t the full story. Drugs and foods are recalled all the time for various reasons, and they don’t usually result in post-apocalyptic scenes at Walmart.
Formula is big business. Part of the problem is rooted in good old corporate monopolization. Four corporate behemoths – Abbott, Gerber, Mead Johnson, and Perrigo Nutritionals – control 90% of the infant formula supply in the US, meaning there’s little resilience in the system to weather big shocks, such as a nationwide recall.
What’s more, the aftershocks aren't being felt equally. This crisis is even more acute for poor Americans who buy baby formula through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Recipients of the program – which includes 1.2 million infants – are only allowed to buy formula manufactured by select companies that have negotiated government contracts. Therefore, even if they find a rare baby formula tin sitting on a dusty Target shelf, they often can’t use their WIC card to purchase it.
The baby formula shortage isn’t just about corporate greed. The current calamity – which has given rise to some previously unthinkable rationing resembling Cuba’s food rationing system – can also be directly attributed to (misguided) US trade policy.
Milk melodrama. The US and Canada, whose trade relationship topped a whopping $615 billion in 2020, have long been at loggerheads over agricultural exchanges, with both trying to exploit the benefits of free trade while also trying to protect the distinct interests of their farming sectors.
Things came to a head during the Trump administration’s painstaking renegotiation of the NAFTA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in 2018, when disagreements over dairy proved a major sticking point that threatened to derail the 24-year trade pact.
Perturbed by a Canadian policy known as “supply management ” that dates back to the 1960s – where the government has played a role in stabilizing agricultural pricing so that farmers only produce quantities reflecting expected demand – American farming lobbies had long pushed for their own protections.
As a result, the Trump administration – in a bid to win over the country’s influential farming sector – insisted on a provision in the revised trade pact making it all but impossible for Canada to export baby formula to the United States. Remarkably, it also imposed limits on the amount of baby formula Canada could produce for exports to other markets. But US-imposed trade barriers aren't just for Canada. In other instances, the US has put in place tariffs on baby formulas as high as 17.5%, an insurmountable restriction for manufacturers wanting to enter the US market.
What’s more, the Food and Drug Administration has also been accused of imposing overly stringent regulations (at best), and politically motivated decision-making (at worst) that prevents imports of European baby formula. The FDA says this is because of insufficient labeling and health concerns. But some analysts say this justification is risible because baby formula manufactured in the US often contains less-than-ideal ingredients – such as corn syrup – that are banned in the EU.
To be sure, Donald Trump is not the only one with protectionist proclivities. Joe Biden, who boasted to allies last year that “America is Back,” has also pursued protectionist trade policies in the hopes of wooing unions and the broader working class. Notably, the Biden administration infuriated Canada with its proposal to roll out financial incentives for Americans to buy US-made electric vehicles, a move Ottawa says will hurt the auto industry, one of its largest manufacturing sectors.
“The viewpoint from Canada is that Americans need to treat their friends better,” says Eurasia Group’s vice chairman Gerry Butts, who previously served as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s advisor. “There was a lot of misguided hope that a lot would change on the trade front with the change in administrations, but the Democrats can be just as protectionist as the Republicans,” Butts says.
But Canada clearly does it, too. As part of its “supply management” scheme, Ottawa maintains sky-high tariffs on dairy goods; US cheese exports, for instance, can be hit with a whopping 300% levy.
How should we understand this crisis in the context of an otherwise thriving, interconnected economy? “This is what happens when general agreement on trade rules starts to break down,” says Butts.
Whether it's India banning wheat exports to save domestic supplies amid a heat wave, or the US buffering its dairy sector, it is all part of the same theme: protectionism. Canada's supply management system is decades old, but it could certainly be a sign of what's to come globally: “We just don’t have general agreement on how we are going to trade with each other,” says Butts, “regardless of what trade agreements say.”