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 }}
Ian Bremmer on Trump second assassination attempt
Now, it's not going to have much impact on the election, in part not just because so many unprecedented things get normalized these days in U.S. politics, but also because there's no video that suddenly... The last assassination attempt you had Trump literally escaping with his life less than a fraction of a second, and the blood on him and the rest. Here, the Secret Service did what they should have. They shot at the perpetrator well before Trump was in the sights of this would-be assassin. The U.S. did what it was supposed to, and he's in custody, so one assumes that we're going to learn a lot more about him as a consequence of the interrogations and the rest. Trump can and will fundraise on the back of it, but I'd be very surprised to see any movement in the polls as a consequence or any change in policy, so really not going to move the needle on the election itself.
And yet I think we have to ask ourselves, if Trump had actually been killed, can you imagine how much different the environment today would be? The political environment, the social environment, the violence, the reprisals. This is already considered to be an illegitimate election by a lot of Americans. Many, many Americans believe shouldn't be allowed to run because he's a convicted criminal. He was twice impeached, not convicted, but impeachment is broken as part of the political process. Many of Trump's supporters, a large majority, believe he should be president now, that he won the election in 2020, and that they're going to do everything possible–them, the deep state, the political opposition, the Democrats–to prevent him from becoming President again, to jail him, and even to call for violence against him. And that means that if we did have Trump assassinated, I think it would be much worse than January 6th in the U.S. It would be much worse, more saliently perhaps, than January 8th in Brazil, where you would have George Floyd-style riots, but larger and also much better armed.
A lot of people, including militias, but even Trump supporters in police forces in low-level positions in the military and National Guard that engage in protests that could easily become very violent, certainly in red states across the country. And I think that because it hasn't happened, even though it's been very close, we're not talking about it, we're not thinking about it. But the lack of resilience, the vulnerability, the frailty of U.S. political stability in this environment, I think is remarkable and deserves more focus, more attention because it would prioritize the steps that Americans need to take and political leaders need to take to rebuild that resilience, rebuild that trust, which is nowhere on the political agenda right now. I have to say, we have to give Trump and the GOP credit in the sense that they oppose all gun restrictions as a matter of policy, and that hasn't in any way changed even after both of these assassination attempts of Americans that are unhinged, that have access to these powerful weapons.
And that doesn't happen in other countries. That is a huge difference between the U.S. There's vastly more gun violence in America, not because there's so much more mental health issues, not because there's so much more economic inequality, but because there's so much less restrictions on assault-type weapons, on military-type weapons. The United States has more guns per capita than any country in the world except for Yemen, and Yemen is in the middle of a civil war. The United States is not, and yet there is no feasible capacity politically in the near term to do anything about that. No political will. Very relieved that this series of headlines does not include an actual assassination. Very relieved that former President Trump has survived this. Deeply concerned that it continues to happen. And of course, everything about U.S. politics promises you that you're going to see a lot more of it.
That's the state of play today and this election, and in the broader context that we talk about. So I hope everyone's well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- After Trump attack, will the US unite? ›
- Trump, Reagan, Roosevelt: Does surviving an assassin’s bullet help at the polls? ›
- Breaking news: Trump shot in apparent assassination attempt ›
- Trump safe after possible assassination attempt ›
- Iran official denies Donald Trump assassination threats - GZERO Media ›
Harris wins debate
And it's not that Trump didn't have points to make, but he largely didn't make them. The only significant time that I saw a misstep that Trump was able to hit against Kamala was when she was complaining about his tariffs against China and more broadly. And, of course, these were policies that Trump put in place, which Biden stuck with and claims he's succeeded in China, and they were Trump policies and said, well, if you want to change them, why didn't you? And through the debate, his message was, well, if there are all these great things you wanted to do, you've been vice president, why haven't you done them over the last 3.5 years? But on balance, what Trump did was lose message, lose discipline, and attack Kamala Harris in ways that seemed incoherent and all over the map from the opening question when he was asked about the economy and couldn't stay on target on the economy instead immediately started talking about immigration when he threw in this nonsensical and false claim that immigrants, Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating household pets. When he was asked about foreign policy and said I'm loved around the world and used Hungary's Viktor Orban as his respected character witness on and on, he seemed defensive and angry and not on message and not disciplined and was rattled by the fact that Kamala Harris was landing punches against him.
I don't think she was fantastic, but she was good. And good is a significant accomplishment given the fact that coming into this, she was not taking interviews, one exception over the last six weeks with the media. Certainly, nothing that was confrontational or hostile, that she's frequently spoken in abstractions and generalities, and not shown policy chops on a range of issues with depth and detail, that she frequently laughs a lot, you know, sort of out of timing and in ways that seems not to make sense, and out of defensiveness. None of that happened this evening. Today, Harris was responding coherently, not always with every fact at her fingertips, but certainly seemed to be a normal politician with a message to put across. Was particularly strong on issues like abortion, where she has that capacity, and on pieces of economic policy. Also, in being able to land blows against Trump and his unfitness, inconsistency, lack of support for democracy, other related issues.
Now, ABC is going to come into the crosshairs here because certainly the questions that they asked, and the follow-ups, were more hostile towards Trump than they were towards Harris. Would you say that they were biased against Trump? Well, I would say that they were more focused on fact-finding, and Trump, more frequently than Harris and more frequently than any politician at that level, is making up his own facts. And they were doing a fair amount of fact-checking in real time. I would say there was a little bit of bias in the sense that there were a couple of places they could have been fact-checking Kamala Harris, and they didn't. And I think they could have done a better job of that. I also think that they gave Trump much more time to follow up when he wanted to, and they typically cut off Harris at the end of her time. You could say that that's bias in favor of Trump, except it didn't help Trump. It actually hurt Trump because the longer he was speaking, the more rattled and unhinged he appeared to be.
So, I'd certainly say if you were looking at this debate, in terms of who you thought actually came across as a winner, and you had uncertainty as a potential voter, in the way that Biden/Trump would have been 95%, Trump, Harris/Trump would be 80% Harris. Now, if you're a partisan on the Harris or Trump side, it didn't matter what was going to happen, and you're going to say that your side won, no matter what. If you're trying to defend Trump tomorrow on air, you're going to say, “This was three-on-one. This was an ABC dogpile. They're the fake news. They should be shut down.” And I suspect Trump will be saying that, both directly and with his proxies tomorrow.
But the fact is, he did not perform, and he is a 78-year-old man. He has not been particularly on point or on message in lots of his rallies recently, if you've watched them, or at the Economics Club in New York last week, if you watch that speech, he has vulnerabilities. And Kamala Harris, who had not been tested at this level before, this is, you know, a presidential debate, she's the nominee., it's the biggest spot of her life, and she gave the best performance of her vice presidency, in my view. Was she, you know, Obama in terms of masterful and soaring rhetoric? No. was she Reagan? Same, no. But was she capable of sounding presidential, sounding like a leader, and thumping Trump pretty hard? Absolutely, yes. I think this is an incredibly tight race. It's essentially a coin flip. I think this will probably give Harris a little bit more momentum that had tapped out after the convention. But it's probably not going to move her 2 or 3 points. It might move her half a point or a point.
It's very, very tight. And I still think this election is very much open over the next couple months. But Harris did herself significant favors, Trump did himself none, over the last couple of hours, and that's the news going into tomorrow. That's my view. Best I can do. You can disagree with it, but you know, I at least try to tell you what I think is going on honestly, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- How Harris and Trump plan to tackle America’s housing crisis ›
- Trump vs. Harris: A high-stakes election and its risks to democracy ›
- GZERO presidential debate scorecard: Rate the debate! ›
- Trump-Harris debate: What to expect ›
- Muted mics, amplified impact: Harris and Trump debate for razor-thin margins ›
- Debate Bingo, VP edition: Tim Walz v. JD Vance - GZERO Media ›
Starmer's plan to boost UK economy will take some time
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from the Adriatic Sea.
How is Europe’s policy on Ukraine going to change if Trump arrives in the White House?
Well first, it is not going to change its fundamentals. You should know that the very first thing done by the newly elected European Parliament was to take a very strong and very broadly supportive resolution with very strong support for Ukraine. So what's going to happen is that, yes, Europe will continue that particular line, that it might be necessary. I think it will be necessary to further increase the financial support, the support that Europeans is already substantially higher than the Americans. But if the Americans diminish, reduce, stop, whatever Trump is going to do, then Europe clearly would have to step up even more.
How does Prime Minister Starmer's “renewal plan” make it possible to sort of make Britain great again?
Well, it's early days. It's clearly going to be economic policy that is somewhat more sort of interventionist in different ways. I think the important thing is that he wants to have a new start relationship with Europe. I think that's going to take some time, but I think it's going to have some effect. But, I don't think we will see any dramatic steps in the next few months anyhow. So it's early days.
Why Trump really wanted JD Vance as running mate
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How did JD Vance, who once called Trump “America's Hitler,” become his VP pick?
Well, of course, that isn't exactly what he said. He said that he goes back and forth between thinking that Trump is either a cynical asshole like Richard Nixon, who could actually be good for the country, or he could be America's Hitler. How come no one's actually reporting the actual quote? And it's because the media's freaking horrible is why. And because the algorithms promote stupidity and fake news, and disinformation. But the answer to the question is because Vance is really smart, very aligned with Trump. He's very, let's say, situationally ideological and wants to win, doesn't bring a lot of votes for Trump, but Trump doesn’t think he needs them. Last time around, when Trump was running and picked Mike Pence, he was looking for an establishment figure that would get him more votes and that would make Trump seem more approachable and attractive to a larger group of voters. Trump now thinks he can win the election either way, so he's picking the person he really wants. That's what's going on.
Will the EU reelect Ursula von der Leyen as president?
Almost certainly, yes. There are still questions about where exactly she's getting the votes for. She can't afford to lose a lot of people from the parties that, in principle, support her in a secret ballot. But there aren't good options for her, and everyone I talk to in positions of leadership in the EU thinks that she is a layup there.
Why did Orbán choose to visit Russia and China despite knowing it would upset EU leaders?
Well, mostly because he wants to portray himself and not just in the six-month rotating chair of the European Union, but more broadly as the person who can represent the Chinese and the Russian view, that gives him more leverage, especially if Trump becomes president. That’s why he went to Mar-a-Lago right after NATO, saying, I'm the one in the EU that knows what these people are saying. I'm the person that can connect with you. It's not like he's trying to leave the European Union. He needs their money, but he wants to position himself more strongly and as the outlier, that's the easiest way for him to do it.
That's it for me and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Trump's pick for VP: JD Vance ›
- Who is JD Vance, Trump’s VP pick? ›
- Ian Explains: Why Biden is the focus of the NATO Summit ›
- Biden and his allies dig in as he delivers forceful NATO speech ›
- Biden’s NATO presser moves things ... sideways ›
- Trump, Biden & the US election: What could be next? - GZERO Media ›
Election 2024: Are American allies worried about the US presidential election?
What do NATO allies think of conversations among US voters about President Biden’s age and ability to serve a second term? Are they worried a second Trump presidency will negatively impact the war in Ukraine? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sat with Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski on the sidelines of NATO’s 75th-anniversary summit in DC for his take on a potential second Biden or Trump administration. Sikorksi says Poland will have a partner and ally in whoever ends up in the Oval Office.
“Once you start interfering in the internal party, political affairs of other countries, you’re on a very slippery slope,” Sikorski warns, “Poland wants to have the best possible relations with the US, whoever is your president goes without saying.”
Despite concerns from Democratic voters about Biden’s stamina and cognitive abilities, Sikorski says that at a recent summit, he found Biden “focused, strategic, and actually quite amusing.” He also notes that the Polish government has good relations with both candidates and disputes the idea that a second Trump term would limit further US aid to Ukraine. He concedes that Donald Trump was right on many issues, like the necessity of all NATO members to meet requirements for defense spending. Ultimately, Trump responds to strength and power, and accepting defeat or a settlement on Putin’s terms in Ukraine may not align with the image he wants to project on the global stage.
Watch the full episode: Ukraine can still win this war, says Poland's FM
Season 7 of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, launches nationwide on 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 on debate: A big loss for Biden ›
- Ukraine accepts EU trade restrictions to appease Poland ›
- Biden vs Trump foreign policy: Political scientist Stephen Walt weighs in ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Biden's second foreign policy crisis ›
- US election security and the threats of foreign interference: CISA Director Jen Easterly discusses - GZERO Media ›
The Veepstakes: Who will be Donald Trump's VP pick?
With Donald Trump set to announce his vice presidential running mate in the coming days, we explore the possible contenders — and their viability.
Tim Scott
Tim Scott
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, who withdrew from the race for the Republican nomination last November, has been campaigning hard for Donald Trump – and he has his eye on becoming vice president. But will the GOP’s only Black senator get Trump’s VP nod?
Raised by a single mom in Charleston, South Carolina, Scott became the first Black Republican elected to any office in the Palmetto State since the 19th century when he won his 1995 Charleston city council race. In 2008, he won a seat in the statehouse and went on to the House of Representatives in 2010. After one term, then-South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley appointed him to fill a vacant Senate seat, and he has easily won reelection three times. He is arguably the most recognizable elected Black Republican in office today. (Could Tim Scott become Trump's No. 2? Continue to read here.)
Elise Stefanik
Elise Stefanik
Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, a rising star of the GOP, is one of the few women on former President Donald Trump’s vice president shortlist.
When Stefanik first entered the national political scene in 2014, she was considered the new face of the Republican Party. At the time, she was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and widely considered a moderate. Fast-forward to 2024, and Stefanik has drastically shifted to the right. She’s a full-blown MAGA Republican, routinely defending Trump and echoing his talking points – including the white nationalist “great replacement” conspiracy theory. (Could Stefanik, now a full-blown MAGA Republican, become Trump's running mate? Continue to read here.)
JD Vance
JD Vance
CNP/INSTARimages.com via Reuters
From holler to white collar. That’s the unusual life arc of J.D. Vance, the 39-year-old junior senator from Ohio.
Born into extreme poverty in rural southern Ohio, he grew up in the holler – “the hollow” – surrounded by abuse, addiction, and despair. But he made it out: He joined the Marines, graduated from Yale Law School, and became a successful tech venture capitalist.
He recounted all of this in his bestselling 2016 memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” which became required reading after Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton spurred interest in the disaffection of white working-class America. In the book, Vance criticized a culture of victimhood and dependency among poor whites while also blasting the establishment’s condescension and neglect. (Could Vance make it to the very top? Continue to read here.)
Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio
Mariana Robertson via Reuters
Florida’s senior senator earned the nickname “Lil’ Marco” for challenging Donald Trump during the 2016 primaries, but he has since forged a close alliance with the former president – so much so that some believe he could be tapped for No. 2.
Rubio was born in Miami to Cuban immigrants who arrived before the 1959 communist revolution — contrary to claims he had long made of them fleeing from Fidel Castro. He speaks fluent Spanish and got his start in politics in 1998 as a city commissioner in West Miami, where the 2000 census showed 87% of residents spoke Spanish as a first language. (Could Rubio stand a chance of becoming the first Latino VP? Find out more here.)
Doug Burgum
Doug Burgum
When Doug Burgum launched a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination focused on economic growth, energy production, and national security, few Americans outside of the Flickertail State had heard of the former software CEO turned governor of North Dakota. Just to get the 40,000 unique donors needed to make the debate stage, he had to give out $20 gift cards in return for $1 campaign donations. While he’s still far from a household name, he has emerged as a dark horse favorite to become Donald Trump’s vice presidential running mate.
Who is he? The67-year-old Burgum hails from Arthur, North Dakota — a town of roughly 300 residents — and worked as a consultant at McKinsey & Co before leveraging his family farm to start an accounting software company called Great Plains Software, which he sold to Microsoft for $1.1 billion in 2001. (Would Trump fancy a biz-savvy VP pick? Find out more here.)
Wildcards: Could Trump surprise us with his VP running mate?
Wildcards: Could Trump surprise us with his VP running mate? Vivek Ramaswamy, Ivanka Trump, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard & Byron Donalds
Luisa Vieira/GZERO Media
Donald Trump has been teasing his vice presidential pick for weeks, but with the Republican National Convention kicking off next week, he’s likely to make it official — and soon.
Right now, the front-runners appear to be Sens. Marco Rubio and JD Vance, along with North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum. But what about the contenders who aren’t grabbing headlines yet remain on Trump’s radar? Here is everything you need to know about the dark-horse candidates.
Nikki Haley: We know, we know, the former governor of South Carolina and Trump’s former ambassador to the UN fired shots at the former president as his main opponent in the primary. But just because she once challenged him doesn’t mean she wouldn’t be a valuable running mate. (Could Trump surprise us with his VP running mate? Find out more about his wildcard prospects here.)
- Could Doug Burgum be a biz-savvy VP pick for Trump? ›
- JD Vance: Started from the bottom, now he’s here ›
- Trump gambles to woo Black voters ›
- Trump's VP pick remains a secret ›
- Wildcards: Could Trump surprise us with his VP running mate? ›
- Trump's VP pick: The short list ›
- Trump's pick for VP: JD Vance - GZERO Media ›
Why replacing Biden would be a challenge
Jon Lieber, Eurasia Group's head of research and managing director for the firm's coverage of United States political and policy developments, shares his perspective on US politics from Washington, DC.
What we're watching in US Politics this week. The big question is, will the Democrats replace Joe Biden after a disastrous debate performance?
Biden was not sharp in Thursday night's debate, seeming every bit of his 81-year-old. Slurring his speech at times, rambling, making confusing comments about what he was going to do to Medicare. And Donald Trump was able to exploit that, having being high energy, his normal blustery self. Biden was unable to push back against any of the outright lies that Trump was telling and was unable to land any punches, even on Biden's best issues, which include Donald Trump's personal character. So now there's a panic setting in among Democrats, and the question is, can they replace Biden and how would they do so?
It's going to be very tough to push aside the sitting president of the United States and leader of the Democratic Party. Probably what has to happen is that Biden himself has to make the choice that he's too old and can't do the job and makes a decision sometime in the next 3 or 4 weeks that he is going to step aside as the presidential candidate the way Lyndon Johnson did in the 60s to help the Democrats avoid a contested convention. In the wake of that, he probably would have to endorse a successor.
The most likely successor is Vice President Kamala Harris, who's the first African-American and first female vice president in US history. But she's not much more popular than Biden is, which leaves him with a number of untested options of sitting governors, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who did not perform that well in a debate against Ron DeSantis late last year and has the baggage of being a very liberal governor of the most liberal state. And Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan, who has low name recognition among the public but is considered a moderate Democrat in a swing state who can appeal to moderate voters. There's probably other governors that would be in contention, like Governor Pritzker from Chicago, Jared Polis from Colorado, Andy Beshear from Kentucky.
But they also face the challenge of not being very nationally known, not having great fundraising networks, and never having done the grueling challenge of running for president of the United States. When you are under scrutiny 24 hours a day, every aspect of your background is going to be looked into. You've got to be a good retail politician, a good public speaker, and have the ability to consolidate Democrats and tap into the massive fundraising networks that are necessary to run as the president.
So not a lot of great options for Democrats right now. Former President Donald Trump remains ahead in most swing state polls and suggesting he probably should be considered the frontrunner in the race for now. But this question of the pressure that's going to be on Biden over the next several weeks is not going to go away until Biden has a very strong public appearance that makes people less worried about his age. Lots of baggage going into the August conventions for Biden and a real headwind for his campaign.
Do Donald Trump’s criminal convictions put American democracy at risk?
“Having crossed the Rubicon [of January 6],” Glasser says, “I think that the idea that we’re just treating this as a normal election between two warring tribes with different ideologies is really what history is going to remember about this moment, unfortunately.”
“We’ve grown accustomed to the luxury of repeated, peaceful transfers of power,” Bharara adds, “There’s nothing that guarantees that just because the US has been a great democracy, it will persist in being democratic.”