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 }}
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump leave after a family photo session during the G7 Summit, in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, June 16, 2025.
Was the G7 a success for host Canada? Let’s take a look!
The G7 meeting this week was always going to be a tricky one. Set against the backdrop of the picturesque mountains of the Kananaskis Range, the meeting also took place amid a much uglier global tableau of trade wars between the world’s largest economies, and ongoing actual wars between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Hamas and, on the summit’s eve, Israel’s airstrikes on Iran.
All of that was in addition to other long standing agenda items like artificial intelligence, transnational crime, and climate change. And looming over the whole gathering like Mount Galatea itself: the fact that the G7 looks ever more like a G6+1 – with Donald Trump’s US at odds with most of the others on key issues.
So now that it’s over, was it a success for host country Canada and Prime Minister Mark Carney? The report card is mixed. Here are five takeaways that tell the story:
Lapel-level diplomacy: a pin-sized win
It was the lapel pin seen ‘round the world, to paraphrase former Canadian Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole. Okay, seen ‘round Canada, at least. Arriving at the G7, Donald Trump sported a pin featuring the Canada and US flags intertwined. Although Trump was sporting a US flag pin above that, the chattering classes in Canada chose to read the hardware as a good sign that maybe the two countries are ready to go steady again after all. These days you take the wins you can get.
Trade deal pinky promise: medium-sized win with potential to upsize to large
Maybe the pin worked a little magic. After an hour-plus bilateral talk on Monday, Mark Carney announced that he and Trump had agreed to ink a trade deal within 30 days. Washington is reportedly still pressuring Canada over its dairy tariffs and digital services taxes. The president reaffirmed that he’s “a tariff person” with “a different concept” of trade from Carney, but also noted the prime minister's “more complex idea” was nonetheless “very good.”
Trump was mostly contained: big win (accomplished the near-impossible)
Avoiding any big dustup with Trump was an important goal, and that seemed to go pretty well. Despite an opening harangue from Trump about why Russia should be back in the group – Moscow was booted over its 2014 annexation of Crimea – Carney did his best, buttering up the president at a joint presser, saying “The G7 is nothing without U.S. leadership.”
It’s true that Trump left early, but it was for a good reason – to address the Israel-Iran crisis – and with no animosity. That’s an improvement from the last time Trump left a Canadian G7 meeting, splitting from at Charlevoix, Quebec in 2018 with a tweet that then-prime minister Justin Trudeau was “Very dishonest & weak.” Carney has a very different – and much better – relationship with the US president. That by itself is a W.
Resetting relations with India: a win for some a capitulation for others
Mark Carney caught a lot of flack, including protests, for inviting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the G7 meeting in the hopes of resetting Canada’s relationship with India. It was a bold move considering Canada’s intelligence agency warned just last Friday that India actively interferes in Canada’s political affairs and was involved in the 2023 murder of a Sikh Canadian in British Columbia. Nonetheless, the countries agreed to restore full diplomatic relations, including naming high commissioners, and talked about “opportunities to deepen engagement in areas such as technology, the digital transition, food security, and critical minerals.”
Working together as a group: low-hanging fruit, but little progress on the hard questions
The latter hours of the meeting produced several joint statements: members agreed on a series of measures to adopt and support artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. They also agreed to develop a critical minerals action plan, to adopt a wildfire charter, to counter migrant smuggling, and to condemn transnational repression.
But they couldn’t agree on a statement about Russia and Ukraine because of American efforts to soften the language, and had little to say on the Israel-Iran conflict beyond calling for de-escalation and re-affirming that the Iranian government mustn’t develop nuclear weapons.
Final verdict: beautiful setting, middling progress, no disasters. Overall, a qualified win for Carney, but only if he can keep the momentum up in areas that matter to Canadians.
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to attend the G7 Leaders' Summit at the Rocky Mountain resort town of Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, June 15, 2025.
The G7: Now G6 + 1?
The G7 is no longer setting the table; it’s struggling to hold the cutlery. Once a pillar of the post-war world order, the group today is splitbetween the US and the rest, casting about for common ground. Before this week’s summit even kicked off in Kananaskis, Canada, host Prime Minister Mark Carney warned there would beno final joint communique. So what’s up for discussion - and what could be achieved?
The official agenda: Trade, defense, and AI
Trade trumps climate change. With US President Donald Trump back on the scene,tariffs are huge, while climate action takes a backseat. Leaders will try to defend existing net-zero goals, update plans to tackle wildfires, and boost clean tech cooperation. But the meetings’first focus is on trade, and striking deals. Countries will seek to defend themselves against Trump’s protectionist policies by both expanding trade with each other and getting Trump to lift tariffs on their countries.
Defense and Industry. Whilethe Iran-Israel war now overshadows existing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, support for Kyiv is still on the menu. The tone is shifting, however, to talk of pan-European defense against Russian aggression. Carney, French president Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz are expected to push fora “defense-industrial pact,” a long-term commitment to arms production and supply chains to “Re-Arm Europe”.
Artificial Intelligence and Misinformation Leaders are lookingat baseline safeguards around algorithmic transparency and deepfake detection, given the worldwide rise in election interference, cybercrime and cyberwarfare. While global AI regulation is unlikely, the G7 may commit to coordinating digital watchdogs and fighting cross-border disinformation campaigns.
The backstory: America alone
All these items are dominated by a larger issue: the widening gap between the US and its allies. Trump’s view of the world order diverges starkly from that of the other members of the group. His thin skin and volatility could also compromise the outcome of the talks, especially if hestorms out like he did at the infamous 2018 Charlevoix summit. Carney’smain tasks include preventing Trump from feeling disrespected, and navigating the divide between G6 goals and US ambitions such as Trump’s takedown of China.
What can this meeting achieve, then?
Expect no joint statement, but lots of bilateral action, with both Trump and other world leaders. On Sunday, for example, Carney and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a strengthened partnership on a range of issues including trade and defense. Carney has also invited a slew of non-G7 leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, arguing thatthey are key to solving major questions such as energy security and AI. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will also be present, as willthe leaders of Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea and South Africa. In the end, the biggest achievement may simply be keeping the group alive to meet another day.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a discussion on the subject of hostages kidnapped during the deadly October 7, 2023 attack, in Israel's parliament, the Knesset, in Jerusalem, November 18, 2024.
What We’re Watching: Bibi on the brink, US-China truce, Elon-Trump detente
Will Israel’s government be dissolved?
The warning signs are flashing for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the Knesset prepares to vote later today on whether to dissolve his government. The crisis was triggered when a pair of ultra-Orthodox parties in Bibi’s coalition signaled last week they would ditch the coalition over plans to end certain military exemptions. For more on what the collapse of Netanyahu’s government could mean, see here.
US and China reach tariff ceasefire
The United States and China reportedly agreed to a trade truce Wednesday, with US President Donald Trump saying Chinese imports will now face a 55% tariff while Beijing keeps a 10% levy on US products. Importantly, China has restarted its exports of high-tech magnets and rare earth minerals, and the White House reaffirmed Chinese students’ access to US colleges. Still, details of any larger deal covering broader issues of market access and technological competition are far from being ironed out.
Musk v Trump: Is it too late now to say sorry?
Elon Musk appears to be tapping out in his highly-public feud with US President Donald Trump, posting on X (early) this morning that he “regrets” the insults he’s hurled at the president.We’ll be watching to see if the detente holds between these two famously volatile figures. With midterms on the horizon, it matters: Musk’s financial firepower is significant, as we saw here.
For more:Ian Bremmersat down with Semafor Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith to discuss the Musk-Trump beef and what it tells us about political power in America today.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa gestures during the opening of the U.S.-sub-Saharan Africa trade forum to discuss the future of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), at the NASREC conference center in Johannesburg, South Africa, on November 3, 2023.
The real reason South Africa’s president is coming to Washington
If recent headlines are anything to go by, you’d think that South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s visit to Washington, D.C. this week is an effort to rebut US President Donald Trump’s belief that white South Africans are suffering a genocide.
In reality, that’s way down the priority list.
“The most important thing [for Ramaphosa] is to show that South Africa is interested in a trade relationship with the United States,” said Johann Kotzé, CEO of the South African agricultural advocacy group AgriSA.
With unemployment soaring past 30% and the economy’s growth rate averaging less than 1% over the last decade, economic issues trump the political ones for Ramaphosa as he spends the week in the US capital.
Like so many leaders who visit the White House these days, the former anti-apartheid activist will hope to reach a trade truce with Trump after the White House came down hard on South African exports with his “reciprocal” tariffs, imposing a 30% duty on the country’s products. It’s not the only trade item on the agenda: The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is set to expire in September, and Ramaphosa will be desperate to renew it.
Strike a deal now, or else. Though Trump has temporarily cut the levy on South African products to 10% until July 8, Ramaphosa will seek a longer-lasting reprieve. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that individual country rates – the 30% tariff, in this case – represent a ceiling, but also reiterated last weekend that countries must strike a deal or else face higher levies again.
What about AGOA? And what is it? This trade deal between the United States and sub-Suharan states, originally signed in 2000, is set to expire in September. The treaty grants more than 30 countries in the region tariff-free access to US markets for many of their goods, and South Africa has been the principal beneficiary.
What does the United States get in return? If you ask Trump:Nothing! The pact doesn’t require African countries to lower their trade barriers. Former President Bill Clinton, who first signed the deal, saw it as a way to boost growth and spread democratic ideals in Africa.
The political barriers to a deal. Trump’s return to office has created further challenges for Pretoria, both economically and politically. There have been various diplomatic disputes over a controversial South African program to redistribute unused farmland, in many cases owned by white farmers, leading to the expulsion of the South African ambassador to the United States and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s decisionto skip the G20 foreign ministers’ summit in Johannesburg in February.
The arrow in South Africa’s quiver. The Rainbow Nation still has something to offer Washington, Kotzé notes. It provides Americans with citrus fruits in the winter months, it’s a source of scarce minerals like platinum – which is vital for the auto industry – and 600 US firms operate in South Africa. What’s more, Pretoria holds significant geopolitical importance in Sub-Saharan Africa, acting as a peace broker or peace keeper in major conflicts in Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
“I don’t want to sound arrogant,” said Kotzé, “but South Africa is strategically well positioned in Africa.”
Tread carefully. When announcing his meeting with Trump, Ramaphosa called for a “reset” in the relationship, an acknowledgement of how the relationship has soured ever since their first beef over South African land use laws in 2018. Unless the South African can sidestep this debate, then it’s more likely that pigs will fly than he escapes Washington with a deal.Graphic charting the strength of the dollar overtime.
Graphic Truth: The almighty, ever-strengthening dollar
The US dollar is the most widely used currency in the world, underpinning the vast majority of global finance and trade.
And the fact that America’s own currency is the lifeblood of the world economy — a function of US economic strength, military power, and political stability — gives the US what has been called an “exorbitant privilege.” That is, the US gets to borrow at lower rates than anyone else with its level of debt, and the country can exert tremendous power over global financial flows.
But huge demand for the US dollar has also helped to boost its value over the years, in ways some economists — particularly those close to Donald Trump — say has been harmful to the US.
After all, a stronger dollar fuels cheap imports while making America’s exports less competitive. The global greenback, they say, has been better for Wall Street than for Main Street, and some want Trump to use America’s economic and military power to force other countries to reset and reduce the value of the dollar. A narrower version of this was done in 1985 with the so-called Plaza Accord. (You can learn more about that here.)
For historical perspective, here’s a look at the dollar’s value over the half-century since US President Richard Nixon removed the currency from the gold standard, allowing it to float freely.
We’ve used a flexible, trade-weighted index, which measures the dollar against the currencies of countries with which the US trades most.
Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks with members of the media as he walks into his office after the Liberal Party staged a major political comeback to retain power in parliamentary elections, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on April 29, 2025.
Carney wins power, but showdown with Trump looms over Canada’s future
Prime Minister Mark Carney may have won the battle for power in Canada, but his country’s war of words with US President Donald Trump is only just beginning. And before that all begins, the Liberal leader must form a government.
Carney has options. The Liberal Party is projected to fall just three seats shy of a majority. Even so, the former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor is unlikely to seek a confidence-and-supply agreement, according to Eurasia Group senior analyst Graeme Thompson, even though Bloc Quebecois offered him a “truce.”
“If the Liberals fall short of a bare majority, they will be in a strong enough position to govern with a minority government, seeking ad hoc support from the NDP and Bloc Quebecois on specific issues,” Thompson said.
The elephant in the room. Once Carney forms a government, his principal test will be dealing with Trump. The aim for Carney, per Thompson, will be “to secure tariff-free (or at least low-tariff) access to the US market,” and the White House’s more dovish tone on trade over the last week suggests there might be an opening. The pair agreed to meet in person some time in the near future, according to a readout from the prime minister’s office, which comes after Carney insisted on Monday that he would only visit Washington to discuss trade agreements when there was a “serious discussion to be had.”
Ian Bremmer examines the future of the US-Canada relationship in his latest World in:60 here.
What’s next for Pierre Poilievre? The Conservative leader lost his own seat – a verdict that would consign you to reality television if you were in the United Kingdom. But he also led the Tories to their largest popular vote share since 1988, and expanded the right-wing coalition, so his political future may not be dead yet.
“He’s humbled,” Thompson said, “but likely to stay on to fight another day.”
President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as he returns to the White House on Feb. 22, 2025.
Opinion: 100 days of promises kept
World leaders and the global audience are trying to adjust to so much change in such little time, but the dominant thread has been the surprises hidden in plain sight throughout these last three months.
Border security & budget cuts take center stage
At home, the administration immediately got to work on commitments made on the campaign trail and in the latest Republican platform. Atop the list was a mandate to reverse “open-border” immigration policies and secure the US frontier. In its “Protecting the American People against Invasion” presidential action, one of a flurry of Day 1 executive orders, Trump established the groundwork for a multipronged policy, which has included detentions and mass deportations, designating MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization, and court battles over the protected status of Venezuelan migrants as well as birthright citizenship. The approach has had a chilling effect on immigration, with southwest land-border encounters down more than 90% year-on-year, according to the latest March data.
Trump’s other major domestic campaign priorities, deregulation and reigning in federal spending, have spawned a similar pace of action. Elon Musk’s work overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency has come to symbolize how the contours and shape of the US federal government have been redrawn. Last week’s announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that his department will also be overhauled – reducing jobs, shuttering “redundant” offices, and reprioritizing departmental focus – is just the latest example of a campaign throughline to reevaluate federal government spending and structure. The news comes as local governments and populations are still adapting to the shuttering of USAID, a key lever of US soft power abroad.
On domestic policy, there have been few surprises. Trump’s 2024 campaign commitments have become Trump 2.0 administration policy. Despite efforts last fall by the Trump campaign to distance itself from Project 2025, co-author Russell Vought’s selection to lead the Office of Management and Budget was a clear and present signal to all market players of how expansively the plans currently unfolding had been laid.
Remaking America’s role abroad
Turning to the global stage, Trump 2.0’s America First foreign policy has not been the “Make America Great Again” isolationism of Trump 1.0. Instead, from Canada to Mexico, Greenland, and Yemen, no stone is being left unconsidered or unturned. Global expectations set by the first Trump administration that foreign policy would only play second fiddle to a brighter spotlight on the domestic agenda are being updated. Trump has begun to remake America’s role in the world in his image, sowing a geopolitical unsettling but being transparent about the administration’s intentions – as peacemakers and trade disrupters.
As a would-be peacemaker, the president had hoped to bring an efficient closure to the war in Ukraine, an ambition welcomed by those sitting in European capitals. He committed initially to ending the conflict on his first day in office but later extended the timeline to within six months. Last week’s decision by lead attaché Steve Witkoff and Rubio to pull out of peace talks in London is telling. With remaining wide gulfs between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump (even after their 15-minute tête-à-tête at the pope’s funeral this weekend), and likewise, between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the US administration is quickly discovering that intractability is in the details. European leadership has yet to identify an offramp to the conflict that does not include the US administration’s stewardship.
As a quick resolution does not appear imminent, the Trump administration may soon look to quietly back out and close the door on its peace negotiation efforts. Rubio acknowledged as much over the weekend, saying that “we cannot continue … to dedicate time and resources to this effort if it is not going to come to fruition.”
Any reduction in attention on Ukraine and Europe would almost certainly coincide with a ramp-up toward the Middle East, where the administration has historically had more success (e.g. Trump 1.0’s Abraham Accords).
While being a peacemaker remains a work in progress, the president has exceeded expectations as a trade disrupter over the first 100 days. Despite Trump’s constant refrain of tariffs and a four-decade commitment to seeing the US not get “ripped off,” the markets and global leadership still held their breath for a targeted, gradual installation of levies. Instead, April 2, aka “Liberation Day,” introduced the world to one man’s concept of “kind reciprocity,” a benign phrase that has the potential to reshape the global trading system, financial markets, and international relationships.
The accompanying executive order provided for a 10% flat tariff on all trading partners, which went into effect earlier this month. The additional “discounted” reciprocal tariff rates to be imposed on certain trading partners were postponed for 90 days until July 9 for all except the People’s Republic of China. In the intervening weeks, markets have wobbled but are holding onto hope.
The dominant question now is what lies ahead for the next 100 days and beyond. As the “Liberation Day” announcements and maneuvers clarify, there will be more volatility to come. Even with the policy priorities and details beginning to be filled in, this is not the finishing line; it is merely the starting gun. Trump has 90% of the race still to run.
Still, the Trump administration will be pleased with the scorecard of promises kept thus far. It has planted seeds across the domestic and global landscape and will now step back to watch the garden grow. On trade, the ambition is 90 deals in 90 days. And with it, Trump assumes his most preferred role: dealmaker-in-chief.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
Workers' Party (WP) supporters wave party flags as they cheer their candidates at the nomination center ahead of the general election in Singapore, on April 23, 2025.
Singapore’s opposition hopes to make major gains as election campaign begins
Singapore kicked off a lightning-fast, nine-day campaign on Wednesday for its May 3 election. The vote promises to be the most contested since independence, as the ruling People’s Action Party sweats a strong challenge amid weak economic forecasts.
Elections in Singapore are usually dull affairs: The PAP has utterly dominated all contests since 1965, with members of the founding Lee family serving as PM for 45 years combined, and as recently as 2024. During one of its worst performances in 2020, the PAP won 89% of seats in parliament – even though it won just 61% of the vote. Such disproportionate electoral results, along with systematic repression of opposition figures, have led to accusations that Singapore is ade facto one-party state.
What’s different this time? First off, the Lion City is facing grim economic prospects. Growth projections have been revised to 0-2% for the year, down from 1-3%, and the heavily trade-dependent economy is reeling from global 10% tariffs imposed by the United States.
Secondly, the PAP’s long time in office contrasts sharply with a slate of newer candidates from the opposition Worker’s Party. PM Lawrence Wong has introduced 32 new candidates in an effort to shed the old guard image, casting off many long-serving stalwarts. A YouGov survey showed that only about 40% of voters would support the PAP if the election were held today, while a 43% plurality either don’t know or wouldn’t say who they will support.
The WP is still fighting uphill. Its leaders hope to take a third of seats in parliament, far from a majority – but perhaps enough to change the political dynamic permanently.