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 }}
What Canada’s main parties are running on in upcoming election
Canada’s 45th general election is less than two weeks away, and the nation faces a fraught political climate fueled by President Donald Trump’s tariffs and annexation threats towards the country. The election's outcome could have far-reaching impacts on Canada’s future and position in a fragmenting world. In an exclusive interview, GZERO’s Tasha Kheiriddin sits down with Eurasia Group‘s senior advisor John Baird and Vice Chairman Gerald Butts to unpack what’s at stake in Canada’s election, including key political players and the strategies behind their campaigns.
Butts, former principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a key Liberal strategist, says Carney is seeking a public mandate after taking over during Canada’s longest-running minority Parliament. Baird counters that Carney aims to ride early popularity and break from the Trudeau legacy.
Despite clear ideological divides, both Butts and Baird agree on one point: Canada needs a strong majority government. Baird warns that, “when you have such a small number of Members of Parliament, it’s like the tail wagging the dog,” expressing concern over the instability of minority rule. Butts echoes the sentiment, stating the country would be “far better served by a strong government of either political stripe.”
With Canadians heading to the polls, the world will be watching closely. The 2025 Canada election could determine not just the nation's economic path but its place on the global stage.
Watch full interview: Canadians head to the polls — and into the Trump vortex
Special interview: Canadians head to the polls — and into the Trump vortex
With just over a week until the Canadian election, GZERO’s Tasha Kheiriddin sat down with two senior advisors at Eurasia Group to get their take: Vice Chairman Gerald Butts, who is a former advisor to Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and John Baird, former Cabinet minister under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Here’s what they had to say:
Why is Canada in an election campaign? “The prime minister needed a mandate from the people, not just his party,” said Butts, referring to newly minted PM Mark Carney, who took over from Trudeau in March.
Baird was more blunt: “Carney wanted to separate himself from the NDP–Trudeau era.” Which he seems to be doing: Under his watch the Liberals have soared nearly 20 points in the polls and are currentlypredicted to form a government.
Who are the main players? Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, presents “a safe, fiscally responsible concept” in Butts’ view. His main rival, populist Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, brings “a fresh approach” according to Baird, who served with Poilievre in Parliament. He sees Poilievre as “best able to speak to US President Donald Trump and his administration.”
What’s really on the ballot? Themain issue is who can most effectively deal with Trump, whose tariffs and musings about making Canada the “51st state” have enraged Canadians. So far, voters givetop marks to Carney on that question. But whichever party wins, Butts and Baird agree that the next PM faces a hostile White House. “We’re starting from scratch,” warned Butts, citing the breakdown in what used to be one of the world’s closest bilateral relationships.
Minority or majority? Both men think that a minority government would be a bad outcome. “You don’t want to be checking in with a party leader with 8% in the polls before talking to the president of the United States,” said Butts, referring to Canada’s smaller parties, the NDP and Bloc Québécois. “It’s the tail wagging the dog,” added Baird.
Advice to the next PM for dealing with Trump? “Don’t get ‘Zelenskied’ — and be prepared,” they agreed. And to the victor go the spoils, even if that victor will take over at one of the most fraught moments in Canada’s history.
“The worst day in government,” Baird quipped, “is still better than the best day in opposition.”
Watch the full interview above.
Trump’s inaction on wrongful deportation may spark constitutional crisis
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
If the US won't work to return a wrongly deported man to El Salvador despite a Supreme Court ruling, are we headed towards a constitutional crisis?
It certainly appears that way, and I think this is the constitutional crisis that the Trump administration would love to have. Because wrongfully deporting someone without evidence who is in the country illegally and therefore guilty of a misdemeanor, but sending them to a max security prison, which the Supreme Court says you shouldn't do, but now is in another country. Very few Americans are sympathetic to the case of this person. And indeed, Trump won on the basis in part of being sick and tired of allowing illegal immigrants to spend enormous amounts of time in the United States without recourse.
So he's breaking the law here. He's flouting independent judiciary and their decision-making, but he's doing it on an issue that most Americans have no sympathy on the other side. So the Democrats would have to be very wary of making this a hill they want to die on, and Trump knows exactly what he's doing. It is pretty impressive playbook for undermining rule of law and checks and balances on an increasingly authoritarian leaning executive. That's where we are.
Trump claims China-Vietnam talks are intended to "screw" the US. Does this run the risk of pushing Vietnam to China?
Certainly, most Vietnamese now are more well-disposed towards China than the US. First time we've seen that since the war. It's not true across Southeast Asia. Philippines, about 80% still pro-US, not pro-China. But it is a problem, and Xi Jinping understands that. And that's why he went in and was received directly by the president as opposed to the prime minister last time who met him at the airport. 45 big deals that they're signing on trying to improve economic coordination. Clearly a bit of a surprise to Trump, just as the direct retaliation from the Chinese, even though the Americans warned them, "Negotiate, don't retaliate." But that's exactly what China did, and Trump frankly should have expected that was coming. Now he looks a little bit weaker in the way he's backing down and creating exemptions for a lot of people in this space.
Saudi Arabia plans to pay off Syria's World Bank debt. Could this be a major turning point for Syria's future and its ties with regional allies?
It certainly helps. We've also seen the Qataris already say they're going to offer gas through Jordan into Syria. I think that this is all promising. The Saudis were never going to do that, provide any support as long as Assad was in place. Now they are. The Americans are pulling troops out, and Turkey is going to be the most important country on the ground. But economically, it's going to be the Gulf States, and that gives this new Syrian regime a better chance to succeed. Something we all clearly are rooting for in terms of one of the places that we'd like to see a little more stability from. Anyway, that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Zelensky snubs China’s peace push, Trump vows to end war “very quickly” ›
- China’s vows to pump up its economy — with one eye on Trump’s tariffs ›
- El Salvador's president wins big. What does this mean for the country and its neighbors? ›
- El Salvador's Bukele refuses to return wrongly-deported Maryland man, and offers to jail US citizens too ›
"We've lost enormous credibility around the world" because of tariffs - Summers
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, economist Larry Summers slams the Trump administration’s trade war as “the worst, most consequential, self-inflicted wound in US economic policy since the Second World War.” He says there’s still time to limit the damage—if the tariffs are walked back quickly—but warns that the global fallout is already underway. “Even in the best imaginable place, we have lost enormous credibility in the world,” Summers says, adding that the unpredictability rattles everything from debt markets to US alliances.
When Bremmer asks what the Trump administration is actually trying to accomplish, Summers is at a loss. "I don't see this as a rational way of either pursuing the objective of strengthening US manufacturing or the objective of reducing other countries' trade barriers." And the damage, Summers adds, will be extensive and long-lasting.
"We have lost enormous credibility in the world. We've created a large uncertainty premium about what we're going to do next, and we're going to be seen as a less reliable country...this kind of truculence does not go unnoticed, and it is not immediately forgotten."
Watch full episode: Larry Summers: Trump's trade war the "worst self-inflicted wound since WWII"
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Larry Summers: Trump's trade war the "worst self-inflicted wound since WWII"
On a scale of 1-10, how irritated is former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers by the Trump administration's escalating trade war? He's at an 11. On a special edition of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Summers says he is highly concerned with the White House's ad hoc and escalating imposition of tariffs, which he describes as the "worst, most consequential, self-inflicted wound in US economic policy since the Second World War." He believes that even if the tariffs are reversed, the US has already lost significant credibility globally, which will have long-term consequences for the country's ability to sell debt, form security alliances, and conduct economic and foreign policy.
Summers, formerly the president of Harvard University, also tells Ian that he's more than a little disappointed by the lack of public pushback from US institutions and business leaders, though he understands the complexities they face in speaking out against the administration. But economics aside, Summers is more worried about the threat to American democracy and the rule of law than the health of the US and global economy. Economic damage can be reversed but erosion of democratic norms is harder to recover from.
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Who benefits from Trump's tariff wall?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take to kick off your week and what a week it is going to be. An extraordinary downturn in US and global markets. The reaction to 'Liberation Day' where American citizens will be liberated from the highest performing economy in the world. Now, globalization, of course, is what is being undone here by the United States. The US benefited massively from globalization, from cheaper goods and services and capital and people moving more easily across borders all over the world. But the fact that the United States economy as a whole benefited did not mean that the average American benefited. They did not. And indeed, while the top 10% did much, much better in the US over the last 40 years, the top 1% even better, the top 0.001%, not only extraordinarily well, world leading well, but also had the money to capture the US political system and ensure that the policies were exactly what they wanted.
And that has led to a massive backlash in the United States where most voters no longer support free trade. Most voters no longer support collective security. Most voters no longer support US leadership on the global stage. They voted in Trump, and Trump is giving them what they voted for, which is a "tariff wall" around the United States that at least for the first few days, he is not backing down. And the implications of that are going to be significant destruction of wealth in the United States and in markets all over the world. And you saw it this morning, Hong Kong, Hang Seng down 13%. Other markets across Asia down 6%, 7& to 10%. The Europeans now following suit, though not quite as dramatic and same in the United States with the opening for the Dow and the Nasdaq. Now, look, I'm not a market watcher. I'm a political scientist.
As a political scientist, what I find very interesting here is this fight between "Deep MAGA" and "Dark MAGA." And Deep MAGA being the people that really do believe that the US has not represented them for a very long time. And what they want is a fair shake from people that are more representative. They want the ability for working and middle class to have better lives and not be taken advantage of. They want non-predatory policy domestically. Dark MAGA, globalism, free trade, and capturing the policies of a smaller state that do their bidding. And this last weekend has been a repudiation, at least tactically of Dark maga by Deep MAGA. This was the fight you saw between Elon Musk and who runs DOGE, and this happens to be the richest man in the world and the second most powerful heretofore in the Trump administration. And Peter Navarro, who is trade and manufacturing counselor for the White House and nowhere near as powerful as Elon, and yet told Elon to stay in his lane, said, "You're interested in selling cars, and what we are doing is making America great again."
Navarro's not in a fight with Elon to be clear. Navarro is supporting a policy that he knows Trump wants. And so Trump has decided that on this one, which is the most impactful policy he's put in place globally in this or in his previous administration, that he is decisively going against the globalists and he's going in favor of using American power to have manufacturing and capital in the US. Now, nevermind the fact that this is going to take a long time. That if it were to work, and if it were to work, you'd want it to be consistent. You'd want to build up American reputational capital. You'd want rule of law to be strong. You'd want people to think that they could come to US universities and prosper, that the US would be the most attractive place to send their kids to have jobs, and Trump isn't doing any of those things, so that's a problem, right?
The fact that the US is making itself less attractive as a destination and less predictable as a destination really undermines US putting massive tariffs on highest you've seen in over a hundred years to make other countries pay. But politically, what Trump could benefit from doing here is actually leaning in against the globalists. In other words, if he were to say, "Yes, this hit to the markets is a feature, it's not a bug. Portfolios, they're going to get hit. And the rich people that have benefited on the backs of the average Americans, I don't care if they don't make a lot of money. Just like the foreign governments that have been taking advantage of American free trade policy," which is overstated. But nonetheless, the politically smart thing for Trump to do domestically would be to then say, "I'm going to snap back the tax breaks that I gave to the highest bracket.
You guys are going to start paying again, and I'm going to take the money from the tariffs. Take these effectively a sales tax, all the money that the US government will be collecting from these higher goods, and I'm going to redistribute it to the average American. I'm going to give that money to the workers so that they can deal with the fact that their pensions have just blown up by 10%, by 20% or more over the coming weeks. I'm going to give them an opportunity because they're going to have to pay higher prices in a more inflationary environment where you can't actually substitute away from imports because all goods are so interconnected, whether it's automotive or it's a plane ticket or it's just a cup of coffee at your local Starbucks."
All of those things, Trump has the opportunity to lean in to the Republican base, which is also a lot of the former progressive base among Democrats who they have lost, in part because they have moved away from policies that have very popular under Trump in firming up the border against illegal immigrants, and also in opposing overly progressive woke policies that are very unpopular across the United States. Having said that, I don't think that's what he's going to do. And the reason for it is because I think that ultimately Trump is more interested in kleptocracy than he is in taking power for himself. I think he's much more transactional. He's much easier to buy off as an individual. If you give him money, he will give you the policies he wants. He's not going to throw Elon away.
Elon's already given over $250 million to the campaign, and we'll give a lot more and we'll find ways to benefit Trump and his family. A lot of people like that, that want lower taxes for the rich. A lot of people like that, that want lower regulations that allow their companies to benefit more, that ultimately screw the average person in the United States. And I think Trump is more interested in that. If you really wanted to ensure that you could benefit the poor people, you wouldn't be taking away so many of the capacities of the IRS for example. You'd want audits on wealthy people instead of wealthy people being able to avoid taxes because the IRS doesn't even have the capacity to do the most complicated audits out there.
You would have a group of policies that would be much more focused towards ensuring that the wealthy actually pay their fair share, that legal and tax policies are not buyable by special interests, and ultimately that the swamp could be drained. And that just, even though I think that's where JD Vance is more oriented, and I think that's where increasingly house Republicans are more oriented. Lord knows that's the Republican base, which today are less educated men, working class and middle class. The Democrats have lost almost all those voters, but that's not where Trump is. And I think as a consequence, the political opportunity that he has will be constrained.
That ultimately also means that there'll be more of a balance and probably more of a snap back eventually in reducing these tariffs and finding deals earlier than you would otherwise expect. So maybe the market hit long-term is not as bad as it could be in a full-on anti-globalist push by the Trump administration. But ultimately, one thing we've learned by Trump, who again used to be a Democrat before he was Republican, he's fundamentally not ideological. He's fundamentally about Trump. And here navigating that probably means less pain as opposed to more. Even though in the near term today, this week, there's going to be plenty of carnage in the United States and around the world. That's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Trump's tariffs & the end of globalization
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: It is the day after 'Liberation Day,' April 2nd. I'm not sure that day is going to stick. It was good not to do on April 1st. Not only because it's April Fools, but also because you had a couple of key elections in the US, in Florida and in Wisconsin. And Trump clearly wanted to go after that because he knew that these weren't going to be super popular. And yet, this is exactly what he was promising.
He has been promising tariffs. He's been promising securing American borders, securing borders from people coming into the US illegally, also securing US borders from unfair trade practices. And that is precisely what we're seeing right now. Overnight, the United States is moving to having the highest tariffs against countries of any major economy in the world by a very long margin, and also the largest average trade tariff in over a hundred years.
This is a new era. It's a post globalization era. It's a post post-war era. It's kind of the equivalent of what the Brits did with Brexit just on a global scale. Now, why these tariffs and what's behind the percentages? Because Trump's been talking about reciprocal tariffs for a very long time, and yet these aren't reciprocal. There are no countries that have the percentage tariffs on the US that the US is now putting on them in terms of goods. So how did they do that? That's the extraordinary thing, is the calculation wasn't based on the tariffs that are imposed on US goods. Rather, it was a look at the trade deficit that the US runs against those countries and taking the percentage of what the trade deficit is and applying a tariff that would get you to parity. In other words, what reciprocal from Trump's perspective is whatever would actually bring that trade deficit into trade neutrality and then just impose half of that, which makes no sense economically whatsoever.
Why not? Well, first of all, because there are a lot of poor countries around the world that have trade deficits with the US because they can't afford American goods, and the US wants to buy commodities, for example, from those countries or low tech manufacturer like from Bangladesh. And are you angry because the Bengalis aren't capable of buying Teslas from the US or buying smartphones? And the answer is, of course not. And all that's going to be is a tax. The US government will pick up revenue and the Americans will have to pay more for inexpensive goods that the US isn't going to produce. Some cases, these are goods that the Americans not only wouldn't want to produce because the labor quality and cost is really, really low and no one's going to do that work, especially when you're closing borders and taking illegals out of the population. But also, because the US economy couldn't produce them.
I mean, your tropical fruits, I mean some of them can be in the United States, but most of them need to come from other places. Coffee beans, I mean all sorts of things that the Americans are just not going to be substitution effect producing that now are just going to be higher costs for the United States, for average Americans. And then in places where the US was not in deficit, then you're just throwing a 10% tariff against. Why? Is that about fair trade? No, that's just about the Americans wanting to ensure that there are tariffs on absolutely everyone. It reminds me of the January 6th conversation where originally Trump was talking about, "Well, maybe we've got to look more carefully at all the really violent types and we're not going to want to give them amnesty. But there are a lot of people that were treated very badly, very unfairly, and so they should have amnesty and they should be pardoned."
And as the details and the debates on who should and shouldn't get a pardon came out, Trump got sick of the debate, got sick of the nuance, and said, "I'm just giving it to everybody." And I think that's what happened with tariffs. There were debates going on with large numbers of advisors around Trump, right until the last minute and he just said, "Ah, I'm just putting tariffs on everybody." And that's what's happened. And now there will be individual deals that will be cut with a bunch of countries to try to get out of that. But the reality is that the biggest trade partners of the United States, there's no quick fix. Not with Europe, not with Mexico, not with Canada, not with China. And given that, we are clearly not only out of a US-driven globalization era... That's been gone for some time now. Globalization has been moving apace, but the US has not been driving it.
The US had been kind of standing on the sidelines and pushing their own industrial policy. But now you have the United States actively unwinding globalization. And the question will be how effective will other countries be in playing defense, in hedging, and in bringing some production, more production to the United States? Because in the near-term, you expect to see a lot of countries will try to limit the damage that's being done. And the US economy is, of course, stronger and more powerful. So that will mean that a lot of countries won't immediately do reciprocal tariffs, but will try to cut deals with the Americans. A lot of companies will try to find ways to manufacture more in the US. That's near-term.
In the medium and long-term, there will be hedging. There will be efforts to find ways to de-risk their economies from the United States, from the uncertainty, the volatility, the high costs. And sure, you'll want to produce things in the US for US consumers, but most things are not being consumed by Americans. And that is increasingly true around the world. And therefore you wouldn't want to produce most things in the US in that environment. So you'll see more hedging of the Europeans towards other countries, including in some non-AI fields towards China. And I think you'll see that in bigger ways in the Global South who already have their principal trade partners as China anyway.
And then final point is keep in mind that the Americans are not really good at being patient. And Trump has been talking the entire way, not one of the most patient people in the world that, "Look, I mean, yeah, they're going to be costing in the near-term, and I don't care if the cost of cars go up. But long-term, this is good for Americans." And certainly near-term there's going to be a significant economic hit, not just in the stock market, but also in US GDP and also in inflation. And Americans, I suspect are going to be pretty angry about that because Americans are very short-term in orientation. It's a nature of free market capitalism, kleptocratic or not in the US and it's also the nature of the political system.
So that's where we are. A lot to think about on the back of these unprecedented policy moves. And remember, it is a marathon, not a sprint. We are only a couple months in. Trump has four full years, and a lot is going to happen over the course of that administration. And I'll be here to talk to you about it. Thanks a lot, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
How Europe might respond to Trump's tariffs
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Stockholm, Sweden.
What's going to be the reaction to the Trump trade war against Europe but also against the rest of the world?
Well, it was worse than expected. What you will hear coming out of Brussels is strong words, but also saying, "Well, let's try and see if we can mitigate, if we can negotiate, if we can have some changes in this." That's going to take some time. Not much hope that that will produce anything. But anyhow, the attempt will be made. And then I would expect fairly strong European countermeasures.
But then, I think the global impact of it is really astonishing. Key US allies and partners in Asia have been hit much harder, even harder than Europe. So, we see the US in terms of economy retreating from the world, and trying to build its own small fortress there behind its oceans. For us, Europeans, the conclusion must be to do the opposite, to reach out to the world. 87% of global imports are not in the US. Two thirds of the growth of the global economy is going to be in Asia-Pacific in the years to come. So, Europe, well, US is doing its own thing, can't do very much about that. But we must be even more strategic, offensive, forward-looking in reaching out to the rest of the world. Develop and preserve as much as we can of an open global trading system. That is the way to prosperity in the future.