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 }}
Fukuyama: It’s hard to build anything in the US with so many rules
Stanford's Francis Fukuyama is no conservative. However, in a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, he argues that excessive proceduralism in the United States has made it nearly impossible to build critical infrastructure, even for projects aligned with liberal priorities like renewable energy. He warns that this gridlock erodes public trust in government and fuels frustration that can drive people toward authoritarian solutions as they seek leaders who promise decisive action over endless bureaucracy.
"You can't build anything in the United States right now because there are way too many rules... we've lost sight of the need for governments to actually deliver concrete results," Fukuyama tells Bremmer. "Part of the impulse toward more authoritarian government is that people are just fed up with all the rule-of-law constraints on doing stuff.
Watch the full episode: Francis Fukuyama on the new leaderless global order
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
- The White House sees AI clash with climate goals ›
- Can the world run on green energy yet? Author Bjorn Lomborg argues that's very far off ›
- Can we keep energy affordable, safe, and secure? ›
- Ian Bremmer: AI and clean energy are reshaping the US-China rivalry ›
- Top Risks 2025: America's role in the crumbling global order ›
- A Russian victory would end the global order, says Yuval Noah Harari ›
- How Trump won – and what it means for the world ›
- Quick Take: Trump's foreign policy legacy - the wins ›
- Exclusive: Ian Bremmer’s Top Risks for 2025 ›
What Greenlanders might want from a deal with Trump
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: a Quick Take to kick off your week.
Let's talk about Greenland. First time I ever encountered it was when I was playing Risk in school, and it was this big island between North America and Europe that connected you with Iceland. But it was part of North America, at least on the Risk map, and that's how you got your five armies if you owned the whole thing. So you always threw a couple up there, a lot of big, big territory. And now we're visiting, and Donald Trump Jr. taking Air Trump One last week and landing in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. Landed for a few hours, did some social media stuff, and then got back to Mar-a-Lago, where he's probably more comfortable. What's happening? Why do the Americans say that they are going to buy it, incoming President Trump, and what does it mean for American alliances and the future of the global order and all of that?
Well, first, let's recognize that as much as it sounds crazy, Trump is not the first president to offer to buy Greenland. He's actually the third. The first was Andrew Johnson. His Secretary of State, William Seward, who was down for Alaska, also offered 5.5 million to buy Greenland. This was back in 1868. The timing is interesting, of course. There's no historic claim on Greenland. The US troops did briefly occupy it in World War II for defensive purposes, but it's not as if the United States has any reason to believe that this should be American. It's not like, say, what the Russians say about Crimea.
And the Greenlandic government, which is itself, it represents all of 55,000 people, despite the size, is led by a separatist political party. They want independence. Independence is popular in Greenland. They've had a few polls, and people generally say that they'd like to be Greenlanders and not part of Denmark. And they are clearly leveraging all of this spotlight from Trump to advance having an independence referendum during parliamentary elections coming up real soon, like in April. And frankly, given that Denmark is a tiny country and spends about $500 million a year on Greenland, that if the Americans came over the top and said, "Well, we'd make you an ally. We'd put troops on the ground and we'd pay you more, not taking it over, Greenland would be an independent state." I think it would be much more likely that Greenland would actually vote for independence. And then, Trump would say, "We've got a new ally, and we've got everything we wanted. And we have these basing rights for the Arctic," and all of that.
It's pretty significant in terms of talking about the Nordics. Denmark has had Greenland as part of its territory since 1830. And Greenland is autonomous, they have their own parliament, which means they are right now in charge of their own domestic affairs, but not foreign or security affairs. So in that regard, also much like Crimea under Ukraine. But they have moved more towards an independence movement over the past decades. In part, self-determination is what people generally are aiming for around the world, with better understanding of others, post-colonial, being able to achieve it for themselves. Also, because there's a difficult history with Denmark. A lot of forced integration, taking Greenlanders from their homes, from their families, to put them in Danish schools and make them more Danish. Even forced birth control to reduce the Greenland explosion of population. Those things are not happening now, but that is a history that was exploitative and makes a lot of Greenlanders feel about the Danes the way that a lot of Native Americans feel about the United States. So, it's understandable why there would be an independence movement.
Now, the Danes, in addition to all the European leaders, are squashing any idea that Greenland is for sale, but that is very different from Greenland might well go independent. And there's no question that Greenland is important, particularly in terms of national security. Russia has put billions of dollars into Arctic infrastructure, including its Northern Fleet, and they're the only country in the world that's really actively trying to seize the Arctic's economic and strategic potential. That's going to become much more important as the ice cap melts, with transit routes, with exploitation of resources. The United States did have some troops on the ground, a meaningful number, in Greenland, something like 10,000. It's now down to 200. They've reduced that. They could certainly expand it with a new relationship with an independent Greenland.
Of course, they could also expand it with a new relationship with Denmark, of which Greenland is a part, Trump not all that interested in that because it doesn't make spectacular headlines, and also because he likes real estate. Let's face it, you look at him personally, and he loves putting his names on pieces of property that are iconic and that have a large visual footprint in the minds of people. And historically, he almost lost his economic empire a few times by holding on to iconic real estate for too long. So is that a factor in how Trump thinks about Greenland? You'd have to imagine it plays a role. So I think we are going to be talking about this actually a lot more over the coming months, and it's going to have a lot more to do with what 55,000 Greenlanders decide to vote for. And then how the Americans negotiate with them.
Former (and incoming) President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy meet at Trump Tower in New York City, on Sept. 27, 2024.
Trump wants more Ukrainians drafted
President-elect Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to end the war in Ukraine “on Day One” of his administration. His supporters have long argued Trump should be taken seriously but not literally, and his team has since rolled back that expectation and insists on a 100-day ceasefire timeline instead.
That goal is still plenty ambitious, and the incoming president is already laying the groundwork for a halt to fighting. Trump will likely speak directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the coming days, and he’s already beginning to detail what he’ll ask of Ukraine.
In April 2024, Ukraine, under Biden administration pressure, lowered its conscription age from 27 to 25 to bring more soldiers to the frontlines. Incoming National Security Advisor Mike Waltz told ABC News on Sunday, that Trump wants the age lowered to 18. “If Ukrainians have asked the whole world to be all in for democracy, we need them to be all in for democracy,” said Waltz.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has resisted pressure from Washington by insisting that if his country is to remain economically viable, it can’t sacrifice so many of its young men. He also warns there aren’t enough weapons for the Ukrainian troops already in the field.
Which comes first: the soldiers or the weapons? This debate will continue once Trump is inaugurated next Monday, but Zelensky knows that the new US president will have the leverage to get most of what he wants.
Francis Fukuyama on the new leaderless global order
In a wide-ranging conversation on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Francis Fukuyama warns that the United States is losing its ability to lead globally as political polarization and a lack of bipartisan consensus undermine its long-term influence. He argues that America’s retreat from the liberal world order it once championed creates a dangerous power vacuum, inviting instability and the resurgence of the law of the jungle in international relations.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
LOS ANGELES, CA - JANUARY 07: A wind-driven fire burns on January 7, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Santa Ana wind is fueling wildfires in Los Angeles that have destroyed homes and forced the evacuation of thousands of people.
Politics inflamed amid California wildfires
As California’s most destructive wildfires continue to blaze across Los Angeles County, having killed 16 and displaced more than 166,000 residents, emergency response effortshave become politicized, both at home and abroad.
Actor James Woods, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and right-wing political commentators have accused Los Angeles Fire Department Chief Kristin Crowley of prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives over firefighting essentials. In response, Crowley citeda $17.4 million budget reduction to the LAFD in 2025, affecting overtime staffing and essential programs. Los Angeles Fire Commission President Genethia Hudley-Hayes defended Crowley, arguing that the scale of the fires, high winds, and an empty reservoir that was under repair would have overwhelmed even a fully funded department. Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has called for an independent investigation into water supply failures.
While domestic politics is bitterly divided, on the international front the story is one of unity. Mexico and Canadahave sent firefighting equipment, including water bombers and personnel, despite President-elect Donald Trump’s promises of punitive tariffs against both countries.
Will the goodwill effort change hearts and minds in the Trump administration? Alberta Premier Danielle Smithposted to X that “Good neighbours are always there for each other in times of need, and we will assist our American friends in any way they need during this crisis.” She laterposted photos of herself meeting with Trump at Mar-A-Lago at the weekend, along with Canadian businessman Kevin O’Leary.
President-elect Donald Trump appears remotely for a sentencing hearing in front of New York State Judge Juan Merchan in his hush money case at New York Criminal Court in New York City, on Jan. 10, 2025.
Trump avoids jail in hush money sentencing
Trump appeared virtually from Florida for the sentencing, maintaining his innocence and calling the case a “political witch hunt.”
Which case was this one again? It centered on payments made to Daniels to prevent her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Trump before the 2016 election. Trump denies any encounter occurred and claims the payments were legitimate legal expenses.
Why was he given a no-punishment verdict? Judge Merchan explained that the immunity protections Trump will have once he becomes president in 10 days “is a factor that overrides all others,” though he emphasized that these protections “do not erase a jury verdict.”
Notably, this was the only one of Trump’s four criminal indictments to go to trial. The other cases, including federal prosecutions by special counsel Jack Smith and a Georgia election interference case, have either been closed or stalled following Trump's election victory.Opinion: After 25 years, has Putin "won"?
An aging, visibly infirm president is about to hand off power to an authoritarian-minded successor with a mandate to restore “order” and “sovereignty.”
Sound familiar? Da. It’s New Year’s Eve 1999, and a bloated, barely intelligible Boris Yeltsin is handing the Kremlin over to a shifty young spook named Vladimir Putin. “Take care of Russia,” he famously said before staggering out of the room.
When Vladimir Vladimirovich first took power 25 years ago, the world was a different place. Cell phones weren’t smart yet. Lou Bega was burning up the charts with “Mambo Number Five.” The most feared hacking group in the world wasn’t called “Fancy Bear” or “Salt Typhoon” but “Napster.”
It was also a world in which the US was at the pinnacle of its post-Cold War triumphalism. The disputed elections, disastrous wars, and crippling financial crises of the 21st century were still – just barely – in the future.
History had ended, or at least been paused. Uncle Sam had won the Cold War. Free markets, free trade, and liberal democracy were on the march globally, gloriously, and inevitably. So too, it seemed, was NATO, which began expanding eastward in the 1990s.
Putin did not like this world. From his perspective it was a world that treated Russia either as an afterthought or as a charity case. He resented the high-handed moralizing from the West about “democracy.” He dreamed of a “multipolar” world where the US couldn’t boss Russia around or humiliate the Kremlin and its friends.
Now, five US presidents, three Russian invasions, and countless predictions of his demise later, Putin is still standing. And as a result, he has lasted long enough to witness the return of Donald Trump to the White House – this time not with an asterisk but with a mandate.
In a way, Trump’s return means Putin has finally won. Not because of the silly notion that Trump is a “Russian agent” – but because it closes the door, finally and fully, on the post-Cold War era that Putin confronted when he first came to power.
Trumpism is, at its core, a rebuke to all the pieties of that era: that globalism would trump nationalism, that free trade and open societies had an inherent appeal, and that there were international “norms” that the US was responsible for policing.
Trump, whether you like him or not, isn’t interested in a high-handed foreign policy based on abstract “values.” He doesn’t care whether Russia is a democracy or an empire. He questions the net benefit of decades-old US alliances like NATO. He has already blown apart what Robert Lighthizer, his first-term trade czar, calls the “free trade theology” that held sway in Washington for decades.
His worldview is a zero-sum, mercantilist, hyper-nationalistic one. Putin, in many ways, can relate. When Trump talks about using force to take over the Panama Canal, Greenland, or Canada because these things would be in America’s national interest as a hemispheric power, for example, he is speaking a political language from before the “end of history.” This is a language Putin speaks fluently. Panama isn’t quite Crimea, but you get the idea.
At his annual marathon press conference a few weeks ago, Putin reflected on the past quarter century, telling BBC’s journalist Steve Rosenberg that he was proud to have “pulled Russia back from the abyss,” after inheriting a deeply indebted, politically fragmented, and listless country from Yeltsin.
Perhaps that’s true, but Russia today is a country locked in a costly conflict of Putin’s choosing, with a shrinking and aging population, a war-warped economy, and a flagging technological base. Shorn of its traditional partners in Europe, Moscow is increasingly dependent either on rogue pariahs like North Korea and Iran, or a superpower China that dwarfs Russia in economic and military capacity.
Over the past 25 years, Putin outlasted the “post-Cold War” world that he resented. But it’s less obvious that he has “taken care of Russia” well enough for it to thrive and prosper over the next quarter century of whatever comes next.
51st or Fight: Trudeau leaves, Trump Arrives
Justin Trudeau is leaving you, Donald Trump is coming for you.
The timing couldn’t be worse. The threat couldn’t be bigger. The solutions couldn’t be more elusive.
Canada and the US are headed for a serious and economically dangerous trade war in less than two weeks, and President-elect Donald Trump, seeing Canada in a vulnerable leadership moment, smells blood.
In politics, as in most things, there is no opponent more powerful than time and, after nine years in power, time crushed Justin Trudeau’s political career. The “Sunny Ways” majority government of 2015 for Trudeau gave way to the medieval darkness of his current minority government, beset by dire polls, recurring scandals, and painful internal betrayals. What happened?
In short, there were no new policy ideas to bring back the light. The list of victories that Trudeau mentioned in his resignation speech (some genuinely transformative, others still deeply divisive) — the Canada Child Benefit that lifted over 300,000 children out of poverty (child poverty rates in Canada are now going back up), the first G7 country to put a price on carbon, renegotiating NAFTA, leading the country through the pandemic, legalizing cannabis and medically assisted dying, negotiating a health accord with the provinces, bringing in universal daycare — all these were, in the end, not nearly enough. Politics is all about tomorrow, not yesterday, and the tomorrow promise of Trudeau, once his brand, was gone.
Since the pandemic, Trudeau has been, like incumbents around the world, on his back foot on the trinity of core issues galvanizing populist support: inflation, immigration, and housing prices. His policies to address these were reactive, well behind the instincts of the leader of the official opposition, Pierre Poilievre. It didn’t help that the fiscal guardrails Trudeau had set up were blown. The Liberals were more than CA$20 billion past their target ahead of the fall fiscal update, an update his finance minister was set to give on Dec. 16. Instead, she dropped a radioactive resignation letter that very morning, pointing to Trudeau’s fiscal strategies as “costly political gimmicks” — and laying bare the internal divisions within the Cabinet. He was out of supporters, out of ideas, and looked out of touch.
It finally ended on Monday, an icy Ottawa day with the kind of cold that you can almost grab with a gloved hand and snap over your knee. The prime minister stood alone in front of the cottage where he had done so many press conferences during the pandemic and where I recall sitting to interview a gray-bearded version of him on a similarly frigid winter day back in 2020. Now, he was notably different. Stripped of the pretense and dramatics that sometimes characterized his tenure, he presented a more authentic version of the man most Canadians had long ago lost sight of, telling them that he was resigning as leader and prime minister.
For a boy born on Christmas Day, the pathetic fallacies that marked Justin Trudeau’s life had one last small signal to send. Just before he left the shelter of the cottage to make his resignation announcement, a gust of wind suddenly blew his speech off the podium, papers scattering into the January air. It was over.
For his party, Trudeau’s departure could not come soon enough, and while Liberal Party leaders are still dithering on the rules for a leadership race, the math is cruel. Parliament is prorogued — suspended — until March 24, on Trudeau’s orders. There will be a confidence vote soon after, so expect a Canadian federal election to kick off immediately and run into May. In other words, Trudeau gave the next leader a short runway — more like a cliff. The next PM will barely have time to find the bathrooms and grab a cup of coffee before they will have to hit the hustings and try to climb out of the political hole that finds them 25 points behind the Conservatives.
For Canada, this could not come at a worse time. In less than two weeks, Trump will be sworn in as US president, and he has promised to slap Canada with 25% tariffs and use “economic force” to try to absorb the country as the 51st state.
As I wrote last year, Trump’s threat to absorb Canada as the 51st state has gone from a joke to a trial balloon — and it is quickly becoming a policy goal.
Trump the Isolationist has looped inside out and become Trump the Expansionist, with designs on Greenland, Canada, and Panama. His foreign policy for Central America is basically now the famous palindrome: a man, a plan, a canal, Panama.
Is he serious?
Yes.
Always take the president of the United States seriously, especially when he says he’s being serious. He may be using aggressive rhetoric as a negotiating tool to get better deals, but the threats are very real. Trump believes in tariffs like a priest believes in God.
When Trump threatens to beggar Canada with the economic force of 25% tariffs, it is the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
Canadian industry is bracing for a dramatic, painful economic shock. From. Its. Closest. Biggest. Trading. Partner.
All this lines up perfectly with the Top Risks of 2025 that our parent company, Eurasia Group, released this week, as you have read about. Risks such as Trumponomics — high tariffs on all allies and foes — mixed with the risk of The Rule of Don, a mercurial leader who has destroyed norms and wants the rule of the jungle over the rule law, is a lethal combination for a middle power country like Canada.
The rules-based international order is the architecture of the multilateral world, one that the US built in its own image after World War II and, until now, has been the backstop. This order has led to incredible prosperity for both the US and Canada, and billions of others. It is now disappearing faster than the fact-checkers at Meta.
As Trump throws economic bombs, Canada will have to muddle through the next three to five months without a leader who has a national mandate, leaving premiers like Ontario’s Doug Ford to lead the fight. And credit to him: Ford, so far, has done a superb job defending his province and speaking out.
Trump is coming for Canada and wants it to be the 51st state, in part or in whole — and if there was ever a time for someone to prove they have the stuff for leadership in a time of crisis, it is now. To twist an old expression, it is the 51st or fight.
Canadians better be up for a fight.