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 }}
How Trump is remaking US public health, with NY Times reporter Apoorva Mandavilli
Listen: In President Trump’s short time in office, he’s already made sweeping changes to US public health policy—from RFK Jr.’s nomination to lead the health department to withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization. On the GZERO World Podcast, New York Times science and global health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli joins Ian Bremmer for an in-depth look at health policy in the Trump administration, and what it could mean, not just for the US, but for the rest of the world. President Trump has made it clear: he wants to slash government spending and remake institutions like the CDC, NIH, and FDA. But are those plans a much-needed correction to an overly bureaucratic system or prescription for the next pandemic? What do we need to know about bird flu and changes to USAID? Bremmer and Mandavilli discuss RFK Jr.’s influence in Trump’s second term and what the future of health and medical policy in America could look like.
- The Disinformation Election: Will the wildfire of ... - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer: American democracy at risk thanks to conspiracy theories ›
- What would it mean for the US to leave the World Health Organization? ›
- What can RFK Jr. do for Donald Trump? ›
- Senate hearings: Gabbard and RFK Jr. make it out of committee ›
- Senate grills RFK Jr. on healthcare policy and vaccine statements ›
Trump's health agenda—from RFK Jr. to leaving WHO
From RFK Jr.’s nomination to lead the health department to an executive order withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization, President Trump has already made sweeping changes to public health policy, and this may be just the beginning. On GZERO World, New York Times Science and Global Health Reporter Apoorva Mandavilli joins Ian Bremmer for an in-depth look at health and medicine in the second Trump administration—and what it could mean, not just for the US, but for the rest of the world. With bird flu numbers rising in the US and a noted vaccine skeptic poised to become the country's most powerful public health official, should we be worried about potential new pandemics or cuts at the CDC and NIH? Will the FDA endorse RFK’s ideas about raw milk and unfluoridated water? RFK gets a lot right about the need to focus on disease prevention and remove toxins fom our food and environment, but many of his ideas are at odds with mainstream medical science, posing a risk to public health. Bremmer and Mandavilli break down the big stories in healthcare right now, and what the future of the US medical establishment could look like.
"We have a huge problem with trust in this country, and that predates RFK Jr.," Mandavilli says, "Now when you have somebody who has made those comments very openly about the CDC not being trustworthy or the FDA not being trustworthy, and that's who's leading the health department, I think we are in real danger of people [not trusting] anything."
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 (🔔).
- Ian Bremmer: American democracy at risk thanks to conspiracy theories ›
- The Disinformation Election: Will the wildfire of ... - GZERO Media ›
- Trump’s rockiest Cabinet picks get spicy hearings ›
- What would it mean for the US to leave the World Health Organization? ›
- What can RFK Jr. do for Donald Trump? ›
- Senate hearings: Gabbard and RFK Jr. make it out of committee ›
- Senate grills RFK Jr. on healthcare policy and vaccine statements ›
The rise of a leaderless world: Why 2025 marks a turning point, with Francis Fukuyama
Listen: On the GZERO World Podcast, we’re taking a look at some of the top geopolitical risks of 2025. This looks to be the year that the G-Zero wins. As longtime listeners will know, a G-Zero world is an era when no one power or group of powers is both willing and able to drive a global agenda and maintain international order. We’ve been living with this lack of international leadership for nearly a decade now. But in 2025, the problem will get a lot worse. We are heading back to the law of the jungle. A world where the strongest do what they can while the weakest are condemned to suffer what they must. And the former—whether states, companies, or individuals—can't be trusted to act in the interest of those they have power over. It's not a sustainable trajectory. But it’s the one we’re on. Joining Ian Bremmer to peer into this cloudy crystal ball is renowned Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Podcast: The Top Geopolitical Risks of 2025, a live conversation with Ian Bremmer and global experts
Listen: It's officially the new year, and 2025 will bring a whole new set of challenges as governments react to the shifting policies of the incoming Trump administration, instability in the Middle East, China’s economic weakness, and a world where the global order feels increasingly tenuous. 2025 will be a year of heightened geopolitical risks and global disorder, with the world no longer aligned with the balance of power. So what should we be paying attention to, and what’s the world’s #1 concern for the year ahead? Each year, The Eurasia Group, GZERO’s parent company, forecasts the top political risks most likely to play out over the year. On this special edition of the GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer analyzes the Eurasia Group's Top Risks of 2025 report with Cliff Kupchan, Eurasia Group’s chairman and a leader of the firm’s global macro coverage; Susan Glasser, staff writer at the New Yorker; and Jon Lieber, Eurasia Group’s head of research and managing director, United States. The conversation is moderated by Evan Solomon, GZERO Media’s publisher.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
- Foreign policy in a fractured world: US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on global threats and Joe Biden's legacy ›
- Podcast: Trouble ahead: The top global risks of 2024 ›
- A look back at the Top Risks of 2024 ›
- Exclusive: Ian Bremmer’s Top Risks for 2025 ›
- Top Risks 2025: America's role in the crumbling global order - GZERO Media ›
A smooth Biden-Trump transition is vital to protect US interests, says Jake Sullivan
At a live event hosted by the 92nd Street Y in New York City, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan sat down with Ian Bremmer for GZERO World, Bremmer’s PBS global affairs TV series. Reflecting on the challenges of transitioning between administrations, Sullivan provided a rare behind-the-scenes look at how the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration are working together to safeguard US interests during this critical period.
Sullivan highlighted the importance of a seamless handoff to prevent adversaries from exploiting the transition: “Other actors, particularly our enemies, look at transitions as moments of opportunity… the imperative on us is to lash up more tightly than is typical and send a common, clear message to both friends and adversaries.” This bipartisan collaboration includes close coordination with his successor, Mike Waltz, ensuring continuity in U.S. foreign policy even amid profound ideological differences.
Acknowledging the challenges of transitions, Sullivan praised the cooperative spirit between the two administrations, even after years of mutual criticism. “For this moment, what we are trying to do on behalf of the national interest of the United States is extremely important despite the deep differences that do exist between the outgoing and incoming administrations,” he said. This rare alignment, Sullivan noted, is essential to addressing pressing global risks and maintaining America’s leadership abroad.
Watch the full interview with Jake Sullivan on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television beginning Friday, December 20. Check local listings.
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 (🔔).
- Putin isn't winning in Ukraine, says US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan ›
- Saving US hostages in Gaza: Use Egypt as intermediary, urges Rep. Mike Waltz ›
- Speakerless House shows weakness to US adversaries, says Rep. Mike Waltz ›
- Trump taps hardliners and loyalists for key positions ›
- What Trump’s cabinet picks reveal so far ›
- EXCLUSIVE: An Interview with outgoing US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan ›
- Will Trump reverse Biden’s move on long-range missiles for Ukraine? ›
Foreign policy in a fractured world: US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on global threats and Joe Biden's legacy
Listen: Outgoing US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan joins Ian Bremmer in front of a live audience at the 92nd Street Y in New York City for a rare and wide-ranging GZERO World interview about the biggest geopolitical threats facing the United States, Joe Biden’s foreign policy legacy, and how much will (or won’t) change when the Trump administration takes office in 2025. The world has changed dramatically since Biden entered the White House in 2021, and Sullivan has been the driving force behind some of the administration’s most consequential–and controversial–decisions over the past four years. The outgoing National Security Advisor reflects on his time in office, from managing strategic competition with China to supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s invasion to navigating the US-Israel relationship. He warns that bad actors see presidential transitions as moments of opportunity, so it’s imperative that we send a “clear and common message” to both friends and adversaries during what he calls “a huge, plastic moment of turbulence and transition” in global politics.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Kimberly Guilfoyle attends the Trumpets Gala at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday, February 10, 2024 in Palm Beach.
Trump may get his way on appointments
President-elect Donald Trumpannounced Tuesday that he will appoint his son Don Jr.’s ex, Kimberly Guilfoyle, as ambassador to Greece — the same day the New York Post reported that the younger Trump has taken up with a glamorous Palm Beach socialite.
Guilfoyle, a former Fox News broadcaster, was the Trump campaign's finance chair during his 2020 run and has remained a strong supporter. She started dating Don Jr. in 2018 and the two became engaged in 2020.
Trump earlier announced appointments for two other relatives — the fathers-in-law of his two daughters.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheungsaid suggestions that Guilfoyle’s appointment was related to her relationship with Don Jr. were “very sexist.”
Before she can take up her post in Athens, Guilfoyle must be confirmed by the Senate. Her appointment is unlikely to be as difficult as more high-profile picks, such as anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, maverick former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence, outspoken lawyer Kash Patel as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and former Fox News broadcaster Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary.
All of those controversial nominees were expected to run into difficulties winning the approval of senators skeptical of their qualifications, but pressure from Trump may bend senators to his will, as seems to have happened in the case of Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, who was persuaded to back Hegseth after first expressing reluctance.
“At this point, it looks like all will be confirmed,” says Eurasia Group’s US Managing Director Jon Lieber, “with the National security roles being the most on the rocks, and Hegseth most of all because of the allegations of mistreatment of women.”
How will Trump 2.0 impact AI?
In this episode of GZERO AI, Taylor Owen, host of the Machines Like Us podcast, reflects on the five broad worries of the implication of the US election on artificial intelligence.
I spent the past week in the UK and Europe talking to a ton of people in the tech and democracy community. And of course, everybody just wanted to talk about the implications of the US election. It's safe to say that there's some pretty grave concerns, so I thought I could spend a few minutes, a few more than I usually do in these videos outlining the nature and type of these concerns, particularly amongst those who are concerned about the conflation of power between national governments and tech companies. In short, I heard five broad worries.
First, that we're going to see an unprecedented confluence of tech power and political power. In short, the influence of US tech money is going to be turbocharged. This, of course, always existed, but the two are now far more fully joined. This means that the interests of a small number of companies will be one in the same as the interests of the US government. Musk's interests, Tesla, Starlink, Neuralink are sure to be front and center. But also companies like Peter Thiel's Palantir and Palmer Luckey's Anduril are likely to get massive new defense contracts. And the crypto investments of some of Silicon Valley's biggest VCs are sure to be boosted and supported.
The flip side of this concentrated power to some of Silicon Valley's more libertarian conservatives is that tech companies on the wrong side of this realignment might find trouble. Musk adding Microsoft to his OpenAI lawsuit is an early tell of this. It'll be interesting to see where Zuckerberg and Bezos land given Trump's animosity to both.
Second, for democratic countries outside of the US, we're going to see a severe erosion of digital governance sovereignty. Simply put, it's going to become tremendously hard for countries to govern digital technologies including online platforms, AI, biotech, and crypto in ways that aren't aligned with US interests. The main lever that the Trump administration has to pull in this regard are bilateral trade agreements. These are going to be the big international sticks that are likely to overwhelm tech policy enforcement and new tech policy itself.
In Canada, for example, our News Media Bargaining Code, our Online Streaming Act and our Digital Services Tax are all already under fire by US trade disputes. When the USMCA is likely reopened, expect for these all to be on the table, and for the Canadian government, whoever is in power to fold, putting our reliance on US trade policy over our digital policy agenda. The broader spillover effect of this trade pressure is that countries are unlikely to develop new digital policies over the time of the Trump term. And for those policies that aren't repealed, enforcement of existing laws are likely to be slowed down or halted entirely. Europe, for example, is very unlikely to enforce Digital Services Act provisions against X.
Third, we're likely to see the silencing of US researchers and civil society groups working in the tech and democracy space. This will be done ironically in the name of free speech. Early attacks from Jim Jordan against disinformation researchers at US universities are only going to be ramped up. Marc Andreessen and Musk have both called for researchers working on election interference and misinformation to be prosecuted. And Trump has called for the suspension of nonprofit status to universities that have housed this work.
Faced with this kind of existential threat, universities are very likely to abandon these scholars and their labs entirely. Civil society groups working on these same issues are going to be targeted and many are sure to close under this pressure. It's simply tragic that efforts to better understand how information flows through our digital media ecosystem will be rendered impossible right at the time when they're needed the most. At a time when the health and the integrity of our ecosystem is under attack. All in the name of protecting free speech. this is Kafka-esque to say the least.
Fourth, and in part as a result of all of the above, internationally, we may see new political space opened up for conversations about national communications infrastructure. For decades, the driving force in the media policy debate has been one of globalization and the adoption of largely US-based platforms. This argument has provided real headwind to those who, like in previous generations, urged for the development of national capacities and have protectionist media policy. But I wonder how long the status quo is tenable in a world where the richest person in the world owns a major social media platform and dominates global low-orbit broadband.
Does a country like Canada, for example, want to hand our media infrastructure over to a single individual? One who has shown careless disregard for the one media platform he already controls and shapes? Will other countries follow America's lead if Trump sells US broadcast licenses and targets American journalism? Will killing Section 230 as Trump has said to want to do, and the limits that that will place on platforms moderating even the worst online abuse, further hasten the enforcement of national digital borders?
Fifth and finally, how things play out for AI is actually a bit of a mystery, but I'm sure will likely err on the side of unregulated markets. While Musk may have at once been a champion of AI regulation and had legitimate concerns about unchecked AGI, he now seems more concerned about the political bias of AI than about any sort of existential risk. As the head of a new government agency mandated to cut a third of the federal government budget, Musk is more likely to see AI as a cheap replacement for human labor than as a threat that needs a new agency to regulate.
In all of this, one thing is for certain, we really are in for a bumpy ride. For those that have been concerned about the relationship between political and tech power for well over a decade, our work has only just begun. I'm Taylor Owen and thanks for watching.