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 }}
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.
The case for Trump's tariffs
What will President-Elect Donald Trump’s election win mean for the US economy? After years of inflation and stagnating wage growth, millions of voters elected Trump off the back of his promise to usher in a “golden age of America.” Trump has vowed to raise tariffs, slash business regulation, and deport millions of undocumented immigrants, policies he says will put Americans first. But what will that mean practically for workers and consumers? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer is joined by Oren Cass, the founder and chief economist of the conservative think tank American Compass, who thinks Trump’s tariff plan will be a step in the right direction. Many economists argue that Trump's tariff plans will raise consumer prices and spark a global trade war, but Cass argues they're a necessary correction that will incentivize domestic manufacturing, reduce the deficit, and counter China’s unfair trade practices.
“If you actually believe that making things in America matters, then we are going to have to find a way to put a thumb on the scale for getting more of that investment back here,” Cass explains, “And I think that's what a tariff can help do.”
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 (🔔).
At the Paris Peace Forum, war and conflicts were topics du jour
Just days after Donald Trump's decisive victory in the US presidential election, leaders from around the world gathered in Paris for the annual Peace Forum. With so much uncertainty about the future of America's global commitments, from climate financing to funding for Ukraine, the vibe is anything but peaceful. Now in its seventh year, the Paris Peace Forum brings together a global network of government, nonprofit, and private-sector leaders to tackle the biggest issues of our time.
But on that stage, it's been looking more like curtains for true cooperation. The theme this year is "Wanted: A Functioning Global Order." What makes the current world order so dysfunctional? And a new era of regional wars is making those problems worse. This year's Global Peace Index reported the highest levels of armed conflict since the end of World War II, at a time when geopolitical competition threatens diplomatic efforts for peace. There was no shortage of critical issues for leaders to address here in Paris, but top of mind for Europe was the ongoing war in Ukraine and what Donald Trump's victory in the US election might mean for American support next year.
Watch the full GZERO World episode: Trump foreign policy in a MAGA, MAGA world
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 (🔔).
- Will Hezbollah enter the Israel-Hamas conflict or not? ›
- “Crimea river”: Russia & Ukraine’s water conflict ›
- UN Secretary-General António Guterres on AI, Security Council reform, and global conflicts ›
- The view from Tehran: Iran's VP Zarif on Israel, Gaza & US complicity in ongoing conflicts ›
- The 2024 Paris Peace Forum faces a dysfunctional global order ›
Europe's biggest concerns about Trump's return
Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, shares his perspective on European politics from Delhi, India.
Is Europe prepared for a Trump presidency?
And that's of course the big issue around every capital of Europe. There are two major issues and concerns.
One of them, obviously, the Russian war against Ukraine. What will be the US policy? Trump has promised to make peace within 24 hours. That's not going to happen. Putin is determined to continue this particular war. What would be the consequences then? Is Trump going to throw Ukraine under the bus, abandon support and thus abandon de facto concerns for the security of Europe? How would Europe react to that big issue?
Second big issue, tariffs. Trump has said that tariffs is the word that he loves most of all words. And he said that he's going to impose 10, 20% tariffs on all imports and far more on imports, of course, from China. That's going to have hugely negative effects for the global economy, also for the European economy, US economy and everyone else. What's going to be the European reaction to that? Counter tariffs or trying to line up with other global trade actors to preserve as much as we can, open up a big global trading system? Huge issues. No answer until by January 20th we know what the Trump administration is going to do. One conclusion, fairly obvious; we better buckle up.
Europe's reaction to US election win: Gloom and despair
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.
This is Carl Bildt in Stockholm. I’m going to do one question this morning.
What’s the mood on this side of the Atlantic after the US election?
Well, I think it can be summed up fairly shortly: gloom and despair in Brussels and Kyiv, jubilation in expectations in Budapest, and a determination to press on in Moscow and Tel Aviv. That’s roughly, it.
- Foreign policy tests lurk within the US election ›
- Ian Bremmer on the US election & crisis of democracy ›
- How the US election will change the world ›
- US election: GOP could win a Trump-led sweep ›
- The 2024 Paris Peace Forum faces a dysfunctional global order - GZERO Media ›
- UN's Rebeca Grynspan on the world’s debt crisis: Can it be solved? - GZERO Media ›
- Europe's biggest concerns about Trump's return - GZERO Media ›
- How Trump forced Europe's hand on Ukraine - GZERO Media ›
A global leadership void and ongoing wars
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody, Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I am here in Tokyo, Japan. Just got back from Beijing. Being in this part of the world has me thinking a little bit about the state of our world and leadership, or should I say, the lack thereof. Those of you following me know I talk about a G-zero world, not a G-7, not a G-20, a place where we lack global leadership, and that has been so clear, thinking about the wars that continue, between Israel and Palestine, and now Lebanon, and more broadly in the Middle East, and between Russia and Ukraine, and increasingly NATO in Europe.
I think about the fact that all over the world, everyone wants these wars to be over. They're causing enormous amounts of suffering, displacement of human beings, massive war crimes, but they persist. It's worth thinking about what that means in terms of leadership because when we talk about the Middle East, and Israel-Palestine in particular, the United States is the most powerful ally of Israel, overwhelmingly in terms of its political and diplomatic support, its economic support, technological support, its military aid and training and intelligence. And yet, over the last year, the United States has had virtually no influence in the ability to contain, constrain, or end this war, irrespective of all the suffering.
You can complain about the United States on that with good reason, but then you look at Russia-Ukraine, and you see that over the last three years, China's been, by far, the most powerful friend and supporter of Russia, massive amounts of trade only expanding and dual-use technologies and diplomatic support. Yet, despite that, China has been unwilling to use any influence on Russia to try to bring the war to the end.
Now, to be clear, both the United States and China say all the right things. In Beijing, I was hearing from the leaders that they're friends with the Ukrainians and they maintain stable relations, and of course they want the war over, and they respect Ukrainian territorial integrity. And of course, the Americans support a two-state solution for the Palestinians and want to ensure that they get humanitarian aid and want to see a ceasefire happen, but I mean, the revealed preferences of both of these countries is their willingness to do anything about it is virtually zero. The Chinese don't care about the Ukrainians ultimately. That's what we're learning over the last few years. The Americans don't care about the Palestinians ultimately. That's what we've learned over the last year.
Absent leadership from the two most powerful countries in the world, where do you think we're going to get geopolitically? The answer is, to a much more dangerous place. That's the concern. I don't see that changing, particularly whether we have a Harris or a Trump presidency. I don't see that changing whether we have a Xi or a Xi presidency in China. It's not like they're making any real choices going forward. But look, maybe I'll be surprised. And certainly, it would be nice if no matter who wins, this was a topic of conversation between the Americans and the Chinese. That, "Hey, China. If you'd be willing to do a little bit more with Russia, we'd be willing to do a little bit more with Israel." I mean, frankly, at the end of the day, that's the kind of horse-trading I think we could really use diplomatically. Right now, that's a conversation that hasn't happened yet, but maybe it will.
That's it for me, and I'll talk to y'all real soon.