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 }}
Supreme Court orders release of foreign aid funds
The terse, unsigned ruling was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett together with the court’s three liberal justices. It upholds an earlier order by US District Judge Amir Ali, now tasked with craftingcompliance requirements for paying the money. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the dissenting justices,said he was “stunned” by the decision, arguing that it rewarded “judicial hubris” and imposed a significant financial burden on taxpayers.
What was the lawsuit about? The dispute arose from US President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order imposing a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid to ensure “alignment” with his foreign policy objectives. The orderprompted aid organizations to sue, alleging that the freeze exceeded presidential authority and violated federal law.
What could this mean for other lawsuits? Eurasia analyst Noah Daponte-Smith says, “The SCOTUS ruling yesterday was more of a procedural than a substantive matter. That said, this is the second time that the court has allowed lower-court injunctions against Trump’s actions to go into effect, which may be an indication of how it will rule once substantive issues reach the court.”
“It is also notable that Barrett — a Trump appointee — sided with Roberts and the three liberal justices, suggesting that a 6-3 conservative majority is by no means unified on the questions of executive authority that the DOGE cases involve.”
Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid, spelling potential problems for DOGE
On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court decided against the Trump administration, refusing to halt a judge’s order to resume billions in foreign aid payments.
In an unsigned 5-4 emergency ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to uphold the decision by the Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in payments from the US Agency for International Development pledged under previous administrations.
“I am stunned,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent signed by the bench’s other three conservatives.
The majority did not explain the decision. Noting that the deadline for resuming payments passed last week, it sent the case back to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to “clarify” when the Trump administration needed to comply with the order.
Dog days ahead for DOGE? USAID isn’t the onlyagency facing steep cuts mandated by White House adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The various funding slashes are facing mounting legal challenges that are winding their way through lower courts. With rulings stacking up against DOGE, conservative legal scholar John Yoo complained to Fox News last week that “activist judges” in lower courts “misunderstand their proper role,” and surmised that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Trump administration.
In a post on X, Boston University law professor Robert L. Tsai said Wednesday’s ruling represented an “important though limited brushback of DOGE and the strategy to evade constitutional constraints – though judicial battle lines are starting to be drawn.”
10 memorable quotes on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer in 2024
On our award-winning weekly global affairs show, GZERO World, Ian Bremmer explains the key global stories of the moment and sits down for in-depth conversations with the newsmakers and thought leaders shaping our world. In no particular order, here’s a look back at the 10 most quotable moments from this year’s episodes.
Adam Grant on how AI is changing the world of work

Aired on February 2, 2024
The AI revolution is coming… fast. But what does that mean for your job? Watch Ian Bremmer’s conversation with organizational psychologist Adam Grant.Yuval Noah Harari explains why the world isn't fair (but could be)

Aired on March 8, 2024
In a conversation filmed live at the historic 92nd Street Y in NYC, Yuval Noah Harari delves into the foundational role of storytelling in human civilization, the existential challenges posed by artificial intelligence, the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine war, and the most pressing questions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Watch the full episode.Thomas L. Friedman on How the Israel-Gaza war could end - if Netanyahu wants it to

Aired on April 5, 2024
Pulitzer-prize-winning author and New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman games out a possible resolution to the war in Gaza and explains why both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Hamas are obstacles to peace. Watch the full episode.
Emily Bazelon on the major Supreme Court decisions of June 2024

Aired on May 3, 2024
Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon unpacks some of the biggest cases that were on the docket this year and how the rulings will impact Americans. Watch the full episode.
Justice & peace in Gaza: The UN Palestinian ambassador's perspective with Riyad Mansour

Aired on July 5, 2024
Ian Bremmer sits down with Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour for a candid interview about his role in the UN, the war in Gaza, and how it might end. Watch the full episode.
An exclusive interview with Argentina's radical new president, Javier Milei

Aired on August 2, 2024
Argentine President Javier Milei defends his radical approach to saving Argentina’s struggling economy, his commitment to aligning with liberal democracies, and his pragmatic stance on international trade and alliances. Watch the full interview.
Why António Guterres believes the UN should lead on AI

Aired on September 20, 2024
In an exclusive interview for GZERO World, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres sat with Ian Bremmer on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to discuss his vision for the future of the UN during his last term in office. Watch the full interview.
Iran's next move: Interview with VP Javad Zarif

Aired on October 4, 2024
Ian Bremmer sits down with Iran's new Vice President for Strategic Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif just days before the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to discuss the escalating conflict in the Middle East and where Iran stands. Watch the full episode.
Roberta Metsola on whether Europe can become a global superpower

Aired on October 20, 2024
European Parliament President Roberta Metsola discusses Europe’s future amid an ongoing migrant crisis, the war in Ukraine, and an economic slowdown. Can the bloc’s 27 member states stay united? Watch the full episode.
Oren Cass on the case for Trump's tariffs

Aired on December 6, 2024
Trump has vowed to raise tariffs, slash business regulation, and deport millions of undocumented immigrants, policies he says will put Americans first. Oren Cass outlines what that will mean practically for workers and consumers. Watch the full episode.
Don’t miss an episode in 2025!
GZERO World airs nationwide on US public television (check local listings), and new digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube.
Activists carry caricatures of Supreme Court justices Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene peaks with people outside of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 1st, as the justices began hearing oral arguments in a case that challenges abortion rights in the United States.
Tipping the scales: How the 2024 presidential election could define the future of the Supreme Court
Everyone knows a lot is at stake in next week’s election, with voters deciding between two candidates with vastly different visions for the United States. But the stakes may be highest at the Supreme Court, where the next president could determine whether the court swings back toward an ideological equilibrium or if the Republican-appointed majority gets even stronger, potentially ensuring conservative dominance for decades to come.
The Supreme Court increasingly acts like a legislative body. And with Congress riddled with partisan gridlock, it is also increasingly the most politically influential branch of the federal government, requiring only a five-person majority to make groundbreaking decisions on rights, regulations, and the rule of law.
When Donald Trump was last in office, he appointed JusticesNeil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, giving the Supreme Court its current 6-3 conservative majority. This has allowed for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the expansion of 2nd Amendment gun rights, and the limitation of federal agencies’ power to regulate the environment, public health, workplace hazards, and many other issues pertaining to their offices. It was also responsible for the landmark ruling in Trump v. United States, which gave presidents immunity from criminal prosecution.
Since then, President Joe Biden replaced Democratic-appointed Justice Stephen Breyer with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, keeping the ideological balance of the court the same.
How will the next president affect the makeup of the Supreme Court?
“I would expect at least one vacancy depending on whoever wins on either side,” predicts Emily Bazelon, a senior fellow at Yale Law School, “but possibly more because sometimes life events or health intervene.”
If Kamala Harris wins the presidency, the oldest Democratic-appointed justice, Sonia Sotomayor, would likely step down, giving the Democrats the power to replace her with someone younger. Supreme Court justices serve for life, so appointing a younger judge is a way of projecting political power, sometimes decades into the future. If a Republican-appointed judge steps down under Harris, the court would swing back towards a more even 5-4 majority.
On the other side, if Trump wins the presidency, 74-year-old Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas would be highly likely to step down, giving the conservative side of the bench four judges under the age of 60 (two of which are already 55 or younger). The second oldest justice, 72-year-old Samuel Alito, could also potentially retire.
If one of the Democratic-appointed justices were to step down under a Trump administration, that would create a rock-solid 7-2 Conservative majority, which is likely to have real policy implications. “The more people you can choose from to make a majority, the less you have to worry about internal differences,” says Bazelon. “Getting a majority vote of five just gets easier.”
She expects that a 7-2 majority may further limit states’ and cities’ abilities to restrict firearms or to provide emergency abortion services when women experience complications late in pregnancy.
“The more robustly conservative the court is, the more ambitious the right-wing agenda becomes,” Bazelon added.
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., June 27, 2024.
Please approach the bench! What’s on the Supreme Court's docket this season?
On Monday, the US Supreme Court took the bench again for a session where it will hear 40 cases, including some potentially landmark rulings on a Tennessee law outlawing hormone treatments for transgender minors; the Biden administration’s effort to ban “ghost guns,” which are assembled from kits purchased untraceably over the internet; and an Oklahoma capital punishment case where the state attorneys general have concluded the prosecutors hid evidence that could have led to an acquittal. All of these speak to culture war issues over which Americans are deeply divided – and at a time when faith in the Supreme Court is at its lowest.
What’s not on the docket? A case that could provide an answer on whether state abortion bans may conflict with federal law. The court decided not to rule on a case in Texas where the Biden administration invoked the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients regardless of their ability to pay. The administration argues this act preempts more restrictive state regulations on providing emergency abortion services.
The decision not to take up the case leaves the Texas court’s decision stopping the federal government from enforcing its mandate on emergency abortions in the state in place. It has been criticized by abortion-rights activists and physicians but also by Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two judges on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
And the election looms. Although the court’s caseload features fewer blockbuster cases than last year, when it ruled on presidential immunity, it does have one potentially huge looming responsibility: to potentially shape the outcome of the US election. Before the vote, SCOTUS could be asked to resolve last-minute disputes over ballot access or vote-counting rules. And after Nov. 5, it could be called upon to decide a winner if there is a serious dispute over the results.
U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, U.S., July 29, 2024.
Biden seeks Supreme Court reform
On Monday, President Joe Biden proposed reforms to the US Supreme Court for the first time since Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried and failed to expand the number of justices in 1937. In his address from the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, TX, Biden proposed term limits, a constitutional amendment to counteract the recent presidential immunity decision, and a binding code of conduct.
“I have great respect for our institutions and the separations of powers,” Biden said. “But extremism is undermining public confidence in the court’s decisions.”
The nitty-gritty: Biden proposed 18-year term limits, enabling a president to appoint a new justice every two years. He also wants an enforcement mechanism added to the voluntary ethics code the court adopted in November, echoing Justice Elena Kagan’s support for an enforcement mechanism. Biden also called for a constitutional amendment to make clear that former presidents are not immune to federal criminal indictments.
“I thank President Biden for highlighting the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis,” said Dick Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But any legislation would need the support of a majority in the Republican-led house where Speaker Mike Johnson has called the proposal a “dangerous gambit” that would be “dead on arrival,” and accused the Democrats of delegitimizing the courts “simply because they disagree with some of its recent decisions.”
Biden has expressed disagreement with many of SCOTUS’s recent decisions, but this address marked a shift toward the progressive flank in his party, which has called for reforms even amid fears it would politicize the court. The proposals also come as Biden’s time in office draws to a close, and he made the announcement without reaching out to the Senate judiciary committee, signaling that is likely pre-election messaging, not a legislative priority.
However, presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris notably said she supports the reforms, which, if the Democrats manage to win the House in November, could potentially lead to some portion of them being implemented.
How the Supreme Court immunity ruling changes presidential power
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
What does the Supreme Court's immunity decision mean for Trump and the future of presidential power?
Well, for Trump, the first thing it means is that you're not going to be hearing about on the case of his involvement in January 6th. All of that gets punted until after the election earliest, assuming Biden wins and more likely these days, Trump. The case is kind of a dead letter. More broadly for presidential power. We're talking about immunity for all official acts that are engaged in during the course of a person's presidency. Now, in dissent, Justice Sotomayor, who's pretty far left on the court, has said that this doesn't prevent a president from engaging in treasonous acts and makes the president a king. Most jurists don't accept that, but it certainly does lead to huge questions about what is and what is not an official act. And of course, presidents would be inclined to argue that very broadly to be able to avoid the potential at any cases against them. So this is a pretty significant, not necessary momentous, but certainly very significant decision by the court.
With the far-right surging in the French elections, what would a caretaker government in France mean for Europe?
Well, it is more likely that we see a caretaker government than we see a far-right majority. And the efforts by President Macron and the left to ensure that they are not running against each other in the second round, triangular three-person elections make it more likely that you have a hung parliament. Then you have the far right in a cohabitation of this very unusual situation where the prime minister is opposition to the president. But what's going to happen is that you have a very, very weak French government and that almost nothing can pass in the next 12 months until another election would occur. It certainly makes Le Pen stronger. It makes it more likely that the far right is eventually able to defeat a Macron successor from the center in 2027.
And it also makes it more likely that the French budget is out of whack with the EU. They're not able to pass anything that looks like a balanced budget, that more parliamentary approvals for things like, additional support for Ukraine or training troops on the ground, would have a hard time getting through the French parliament if it requires such a vote. So it's a real challenge for the EU. It's a challenge for France.
Does the West have any concerns with Modi's upcoming visit to Russia?
Not really. The West relationship with Prime Minister Modi is very strong. Modi is increasingly decoupling the defense relationship between India and Russia. They buy a lot from Russia. No Indian technology goes to Russia the way that it does from China, for example. So you don't have that dual use problem. And India buys an awful lot of oil from Russia, at a discount. But that is in line with American and the West's policies, because they don't want a global recession. Modi and Putin, in principle, are supposed to visit each other every year. That hasn't happened. And so this is sort of getting that relationship in that regard on track. But I think there's not a lot strategically that the West is worried about near term here.
A view of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S. June 29, 2024.
SCOTUS muddies the AI regulation waters with Chevron decision
On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down a landmark ruling on federal agencies’ power, known as “Chevron deference,” that required courts to defer to the agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” federal legislation.
This means federal regulations – from telecom and environmental rules to work safety and AI regulation – could now face increased legal challenges, which is a big win for conservatives looking to rein in the executive.
The case: While it sounds like an obscure chess gambit, “Chevron deference” was a pretty straightforward legal doctrine. It held that federal agencies could make their own rules when Congress left aspects of law ambiguous – which they often do – and that courts should defer to the expertise of each agency. But Friday’s ruling held that the executive branch was essentially carrying out lawmaking responsibilities that should be left to Congress.
The AI upshot? The immediate impacts on AI regulation will be limited because there isn’t much on the books yet. To get future regulations to stick under the new ruling, however, Congress will likely have to lay out regulations in minute detail or write laws specifically empowering agencies to cover certain aspects of regulation. Given how slowly Congress moves, the extra legwork could put regulation perpetually behind the pace of innovation. And Congress isn’t known for its tech expertise. Remember when Mark Zuckerberg had to remind one member how social media companies make money: “Senator, we run ads”? Or when another senator asked if the company would “end finsta”?
The danger here is that, depending on how the ruling is interpreted, Congress may have to be overly prescriptive about AI – “if itcan get a law passed at all,” says Eurasia Group’s Scott Bade. “Given how slowly Congress acts, the question then is whether laws can be written in a way that keeps up with the rapid evolution of AI technology.”