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 }}
President Donald Trump before the Super Bowl.
Opinion: The world plays Two Truths and a Lie
Over his first month in office, President Donald Trump has presented a range of policy prospects as possible. He has also undertaken a wide number of presidential actions. Together, these measures have shifted the global context, leaving partners and rivals to orient to a vastly changing reality and wonder how seriously they should take him.
Trade dissonance
Despite campaigning on US trade imbalances and promising to impose global tariffs, many doggedly doubted Trump’s intentions as president. When he suggested on Truth Social last December that his administration would introduce 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico by Feb. 1, with a 10% additional tariff for China, the market held its breath. A common refrain of wait and see made the rounds. Colombia’s near-miss in late January when Trump threatened to escalate tariffs if the country did not accept military deportation flights sparked concern but felt further afield.
The mixed response to Trump’s tariff threats belies a cognitive dissonance that surrounds him and his administration. But there’s one thing anyone who’s followed Trump’s political career over the last decade should know: to believe him when he tells us what he intends to do. When he offers up an idea in a press conference, lists it on a webpage as a promise to be kept, posts about it on Truth Social, repeats it hundreds of times on the campaign trail, puts policy in place around it as president, and establishes a new governmental agency (the External Revenue Service) to execute, it is a pretty safe bet he plans to impose the tariffs.
On Feb. 1, the Trump administration formally announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, with an additional 10% tariff on imports from China. When both Canadian and Mexican leadership reached out to Trump with commitments on border safety and curbing the flow of illegal drugs, the president agreed to a 30-day tariff reprieve. China offered no such concessions, and now the two are locked in a potentially accelerating dance of trade threats and investigations. With incoming levies on steel and aluminum, the Trump administration has already shown that it plans to rely over and over on pulling the tariff lever to further its trade agenda. This is the truth.
Foreign aid dismantling
As the new administration pursued its trade plan ambitions, details of another policy shift emerged: the apparent unwinding of the US Agency for International Development. The sudden reversal in 60 years of US foreign aid policy caught many working in the agency off-guard and sent ripples across the development community. Global headlines highlighted impacts on health missions, sustainability and climate initiatives, and frontline staff in Ukraine. Long a foundational component of American soft power, a US retrenchment on foreign aid likely opens the door for other global participants like China to step through.
Even with the fallout tally still being counted, the USAID decision was a foreseeable reaction to developing facts on the ground. Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office “reevaluating and realigning US foreign aid.” According to the order, “The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.” Trump immediately implemented a 90-day pause in US foreign development assistance. Likewise, in his capacity as head of the new Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk has persistently targeted USAID as a “criminal organization” and “beyond repair.”
Drowned out by attention on some of the administration’s more headline-grabbing maneuvers like an end to “Birthright Citizenship” and an extended pause on the TikTok ban, the impact on US foreign aid was initially overlooked. But the underlying context was there. This is another truth.
Middle East dismay
Trump saved the boldest declaration of his young administration for the arena of US hard power. Last week, Trump proposed an alternative trajectory for the Middle East: He repeatedly called for Egypt, Jordan, and others to accept millions of Palestinians from Gaza. At a press conference following meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Trump took it a step further, suggesting that “The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too.”
Trump’s plan to “own” Gaza and convert it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” stunned the global audience. While Trump’s plans struck like lightning, they were not without prior seeding. According to reports, a thread of redeveloping Gaza has been woven at times throughout the Trump presidential campaign, including by the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner early last year. In response, voices ranging from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman to the French foreign ministry raised deep concerns. Even still, as farfetched as Trump’s Gaza ambitions may seem, they provide a barometer of how far the current administration is willing to push the envelope. A fabrication, for now, but with designs on converting some kernel – “a concept of a plan” – into reality.
In describing the “historic proposal” for the US to take over Gaza, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Through a breakneck pace of policy change and action, the Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to rethink the “same thing.” Everyone else is left to calibrate to the new dynamics, pondering if it just might all turn out to be truths.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
Is Trump's new approach to Putin effective?
On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, Finnish President Alexander Stubb offers a cautiously optimistic outlook on US policy toward Ukraine under Trump’s leadership. Joining Bremmer on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Stubb highlights his conversations with the Trump administration, emphasizing that the president’s messaging to Putin is firm and strategic. He believes Trump is focused on securing a deal and expresses confidence that any agreement will ultimately benefit Ukraine.
On the issue of territorial concessions, Stubb draws from Finland’s own history, recalling how his country lost 10% of its land to the Soviet Union but retained its independence. While acknowledging the importance of territory, he argues that Ukraine’s priority must be securing its sovereignty and long-term stability. He sees Ukraine’s recent counteroffensive as a strategically valuable, albeit risky, move that strengthens its negotiating position. Ultimately, he insists this is a long game, and ensuring Ukraine’s security beyond the immediate conflict is the primary goal.
Watch full episode: Europe's new future with Trump 2.0
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 (🔔).
Europe's new future with Trump 2.0
As Donald Trump returns to the White House, European leaders are reassessing their reliance on the United States for security and economic stability. In a wide-ranging conversation on GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sits with Finnish President Alexander Stubb on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos. They discuss the evolving role of Europe in an era of shifting alliances, economic uncertainty, and rising geopolitical risks. In other words, Europe's role in a Trump 2.0 era. Stubb expresses cautious optimism about Trump’s approach to Russia and Ukraine but underscores the need for Europe to take greater responsibility for its defense and technological leadership.
Stubb also acknowledges that Europe is facing a moment of reckoning. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling for increased defense spending and reduced reliance on U.S. security guarantees. Stubb agrees that Europe must strengthen its strategic position but remains wary of the region’s economic competitiveness, particularly in technology, where the US holds a clear advantage.
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 (🔔).
- Envisioning Europe's path forward with European Parliament President Roberta Metsola ›
- Trump will keep supporting Ukraine but demand more of NATO: report. ›
- Europe's reaction to US election win: Gloom and despair ›
- Meloni joins Trump at Mar-a-Lago — with Europe’s economy on the line ›
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›
Opinion: The yellow brick road to a Golden Age
A week into the second Trump administration, the conviction held by many that the world was more prepared for Donald Trump in the US presidency has quickly faded. This weekend’s flare-up between Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro over tariff threats for deportation flights further strained any remaining optimism. In its place is a stark reality: Trump is back with a bang.
Trump launched an opening salvo – a campaign not of military might but of the pen. Dozens of executive orders and presidential actions have papered the field, overwhelming and scrambling forecasts of a much hoped-for manageable Trump 2.0.
Within his record-breaking number of executive actions, Trump has begun to lay out a roadmap for the “Golden Age” of America he intends to deliver.
Setting the stage
Trump held the (virtual) spotlight late last week at the World Economic Forum’s annual sessions in Davos, Switzerland, an emerald city showcasing the world’s who’s who. With the global community eager to hear him contextualize his plans, Trump featured a highlight reel of his young administration’s greatest hits including negotiating the ceasefire in Israel-Gaza, saying, “We have accomplished more in less than four days … than other administrations have accomplished in four years. And we are just getting started.”
Many of the headlines relating to these early accomplishments have been devoted to the set of Trump executive orders with clear and specific implications. The decision, for instance, to pardon or commute sentences for certain offenses relating to Jan. 6, 2021, sent ripples through the domestic political environment. As did his order to instruct the attorney general not to take action to enforce the so-called TikTok ban for 75 days. A move by a federal judge in Washington state to place a nationwide temporary restraining order on Trump’s Day 1 “Birthright Citizenship” executive order previews the court challenges ahead for the president’s targeted initiatives.
A Trump 2.0 blueprint
Yet, there is a second set of presidential actions with broader impact that deserve deeper scrutiny. In these, Trump and his team have been more open-ended, memorializing their ambitions across trade and economic policy, national security, and foreign policy for the months and years ahead.
On trade, there was initial relief abroad when Trump did not impose blanket tariffs on Day 1. Instead, he issued a wide-ranging action laying out an “America First Trade Policy,” which includes an instruction to the Department of Commerce, Treasury, and United States Trade Representative to undertake a host of investigations and reviews to address unfair and unbalanced trade. This includes the creation of an External Revenue Service to collect tariffs, duties, and other foreign trade-related revenues. Paraphrasing former vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz during the 2024 campaign – you don’t create a new governmental organization if you don’t plan on collecting the tariffs. Alluding to these plans in his Davos remarks, Trump suggested that if firms do not make their product in America – which is their “prerogative” – they will have to pay some tariff.
In addition to the spat with Colombia, Trump has threatened to impose 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico on Feb. 1. Trump’s near-term focus on his northern and southern borders is almost certainly to apply pressure for concessions on immigration but also ahead of forthcoming renegotiations of the USMCA agreement. And while Europe may escape the first round unscathed, it would do well to pay attention. If Trump can impose tariffs on US allies close to home, he can easily do the same across the Atlantic, where he will be looking for leverage on US LNG sales, European automotive manufacturing, NATO defense spending, and his emerging dream of bringing Greenland into the US fold.
On foreign policy, Trump has set for himselfan aspiration agenda. Gone are the days of isolationism, now replaced by eyes that roam from Canada to the Panama Canal and the “Gulf of America.” In his inaugural address, Trump suggested that the US is a nation “more ambitious than any other.” In a directive to the Secretary of State, Trump codifies this expansionist vision: “From this day forward, the foreign policy of the United States shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.” To that end, the administration placed an immediate 90-day hold on all new US foreign development assistance pending review and consistency with US foreign policy. A consequential development for US relationships and soft power worldwide.
As the conversations across Europe and the world shift from an election post-mortem to looking forward, the focus has narrowed to an essential question: What kind of America are we in for, and where do we go from here? With a flurry of activity since taking office, Trump has cast aside (misguided) expectations of restraint. His government will be busy on many fronts laying a path toward a golden age.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
At Davos, all eyes are on Trump
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Davos, Switzerland.
What’s been going on here?
It’s been Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. It’s been very much dominated by assessments, curiosity, concern about the transition in the US. A lot of businessmen are fairly, sort of, upbeat. They think there’s sort of a deregulation and lower taxes, that’s good. Economists are more worried. Debts and deficits, that’s not good. And those dealing with geopolitics, like myself, are deeply concerned.
Is he going to go to war with Denmark over Greenland? What’s going to happen with the Panama Canal? Is their Middle East policy that is credible? And what is he really up to when it comes to dealing with Mr. Putin on Ukraine? There are lots of questions, lots of concerns. But, upbeat assessment, in spite of that.
Donald Trump faces reporters in the Oval Office on Sept. 11, 2020.
Trump vs. world
The relevant foreign leaders are having none of it. Greenland remains a part of Denmark, though it has governing autonomy on many issues, and Denmark is a member of the European Union. In response to Trump’s latest salvo, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrottold French radio “there is obviously no question that the European Union would let other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders.”
Panama's Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Achasaid Tuesday that “the only hands operating the Canal are Panamanian and that is how it is going to stay.” The US managed the Panama Canal for decades until a treaty signed by the late US President Jimmy Carter in 1977 gave Panama full control in 1999.
And Canada’s outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Trump’s suggestion that the US and Canada should be part of a single country didn’t have "a snowball's chance in hell" of happening.
The odds of Trump accomplishing any of those goals is minuscule. His bargaining, in business and in politics, has always begun with startling demands meant to shock and awe the other side into concessions. But now other governments know that – and they’re more likely than during his first term as president to meet his blunt challenges with blunt responses.
What's next for Syria after Assad, with Beirut-based journalist and author Kim Ghattas
Listen: How did Syria’s government rule with an iron fist for five decades, only to collapse in two weeks? And after 14 years of bloody civil war, why was now the moment that a frozen war exploded into the global spotlight? The cost Syrians have already paid is greater than any nation could reasonably be expected to bear. Since 2011, more than 500,000 Syrians have died, including 200,000 civilians, and nearly six million refugees flooded neighboring Arab States and some European nations, most notably Germany.
But what comes next? Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does geopolitics. Iran, Russia, Israel, the Gulf states, and the United States all have vested interests in Syria's future, a country that this week's GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast guest calls "the crown jewel" of proxy influence in the Middle East. Here to help make sense of these shocking past few weeks and the potential power vacuum to come is Kim Ghattas, a contributing editor at the Financial Times and author of Black Wave.
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.
A Politically Game-Changing Year for Better or Worse
This week we rolled out GZERO’s Top 10 Political Game Changers of the Year, which you can check out here.
Just hours ago, we named Donald Trump our No. 1 political game changer of the year. Elon Musk, whose net worth just topped a record-breaking $400 billion, is No. 2.
Let’s do a quick detour on that just to get some sense of proportionality: How much is $400 billion? It’s bigger than the nominal GDP of Musk’s birth country, South Africa, as well as countries like Belgium, Portugal, New Zealand, and Qatar (net worth and nominal GDP, of course, are not directly comparable measures but are used here to illustrated the scale of Musk’s wealth).In fact, his net worth is higher than the nominal GDP of all but about 40 countries in the world, but that’s not even why we chose him as a top game changer of the year. Musk’s crucial help in electing Trump, the influence of his social media platform, X, in the culture and political wars around the world, and his breathtaking innovations in space, electric cars, tech, and AI were all factors.
But something both Trump and Musk said this week about foreign aid merits inclusion in our game-changer discussions.
As the Assad regime dramatically fell this week, President-elect Trump declared, “THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT.” An aversion to foreign intervention and an America-first isolationism is not a surprising stance from Trump, and it’s one many Americans support. But Musk, who Trump tapped to lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, went even further: He expressed support for former Rep. Ron Paul’s desire to eliminate all US foreign aid. “Here’s an easy one for @DOGE !” Paul posted on X. “ELIMINATE foreign aid!”
Musk posted a reply: “Ron is not wrong.”
Musk’s partner in DOGE, Vivek Ramaswamy, picked up the baton, saying: “It’s an oxymoron that represents a waste of taxpayer dollars, but the real problem runs deeper: Americans deserve transparency on opaque foreign aid.”
There is a big difference between transparency in foreign aid and the elimination of it.
Transparency on all government spending is a net good, especially when it comes to foreign aid, so no issue there. But would eliminating foreign aid really save US taxpayers a material amount of money and make the world a safer place?
Again, some proportionality is in order.
The US budget in 2024 was about $6.75 trillion — roughly $1.8 trillion more than it collected in revenue, which is why there is such a structural deficit problem. But how much does foreign aid contribute to that? Only about $70 billion. That is less than 1% of the budget.
Some more perspective. After World War II, the US spent about 3% on the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe, which led to the longest era of peace and prosperity in world history.
That’s important because Musk and Ramaswamy are playing off the perception that foreign aid is a major drain on the US taxpayer. The truth is, if you run the newly minted DOGE and are looking for savings, foreign aid amounts to the old pennies you find between your couch cushions.
Where does US foreign aid money go?
According to a Brookings report, the US spends about 25% on humanitarian aid, like helping countries during earthquakes and disasters, and 65% on development aid, like food, education, and medical programs to stop the spread of disease. The smallest part is spent on security and helping governments in allied countries stay stable. It is one of the United States’ most fundamental expressions of soft power, and in a global world where viruses, climate change, and migration issues are all serious cross-border threats, this is a low-cost insurance policy.
Foreign aid is distributed mainly to US government agencies and nonprofit organizations. About 20% goes to multilateral organizations like, say, the UN. Some does go to foreign governments like Ukraine, and there is waste and some corruption, but overall, it is highly regulated, especially when dealing with a country with high levels of corruption.
“Accountability of U.S. economic assistance is high — the U.S. imposes stringent, some would say onerous, reporting and accounting requirements on recipients of U.S. assistance, and the General Accounting Office and agency inspector generals investigate possible misuse,” according to the Brookings Institution.
What harm could cutting it cause?
Eliminating foreign aid will produce negligible economic savings for the US economy but consequential negative results on US public safety.
Power abhors a vacuum, and if the US does not support governments or areas that are in crisis — like Syria — someone else will, like Russia, China, or Islamic State.
Closing your eyes to the global neighborhood won’t make global troubles go away. It simply limits Washington’s ability to prevent them from growing into genuine threats that will have to be dealt with one way or another. And worse, it cedes global influence to bad actors that will, eventually, also threaten US and Western stability.
A dramatic turn to US isolationism in a world of crisis would be a troubling, game-changing trend that would only make the US more vulnerable.
Elon Musk is the richest man in history and he’s in charge of government efficiency. He may cut many parts of government, but foreign aid is not the place to be penny-wise and policy-foolish.