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.
US Election
Outgoing and term-limited North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper speaks alongside his wife, Kristin Cooper, thanking North Carolinians for his two terms in office as Governor on Nov. 5, 2024.
There’s not much Democrats and Republicans agree on these days, but one area where they seem to share a view is this: the race for North Carolina’s open US Senate seat could be the most important election in the 2026 midterms.
How do we know? Follow the money. Each party is planning to spend gargantuan sums of money to win it, potentially breaking records.
“It’s going to be astronomical,” Matt Ballance, a former local Democratic Party chair in the southern state, told GZERO. “I think we’re going to see numbers that are going to blow past records out of the water.”
“It’ll be the most expensive Senate race in US election history,” says Michele Woodhouse, a former local Republican Party chair in the Tar Heel state.
Why the focus on North Carolina? It’s one of the few “swing states” – meaning ones that are still closely decided – that will have a Senate election next year. Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin – four of the seven battleground states from 2024 – don’t have an open seat this cycle. Michigan, one of the other two, hasn’t had a Republican senator since 2000. And with Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff running as an incumbent, North Carolina becomes the biggest prize.
While Democrats are unlikely to flip the Senate next year – they’d need to gain four seats in total to do so – winning the Tar Heel state would put them in a much stronger position to win back the chamber outright in 2028.
The North Carolina race was blown open a month ago when current Republican Sen. Thom Tillis announced he would vote against President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, over concerns it would slash healthcare funding. After Trump threatened to back a challenger to Tillis in the Republican primary, the two-term senator announced he’d retire next year rather than face the president’s wrath in a re-election fight. (He still voted against the bill.)
So who will replace him in the race? Trump is pushing for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley, a former North Carolina GOP leader who is set to announce a run imminently. As a close Trump ally, he will likely prioritize strong immigration enforcement, gun rights, and law and order. However, he has never held public office, so his policy preferences aren’t fully clear.
Woodhouse, who knows Whatley from their time working in the North Carolina GOP, thinks Trump’s endorsement will carry him through the primary, but she says he may face challenges at the grassroots level where he isn’t as well known to voters – especially among Trump supporters who don’t necessarily identify as Republican.
“I think he will be the nominee, but I don’t think it will be without a fight.”
What about the Democrats? There was only ever going to be one choice: former Gov. Roy Cooper, the 68-year-old centrist from rural Nash County.
When it comes to North Carolina politics, the man is a “powerhouse,” says Ballance. He has won six consecutive statewide races – including four as an attorney general – and took the governorship in 2016, despite Trump winning the state in that year’s presidential race. Cooper declared on Monday that he would run for the seat, prompting former US Rep. Wiley Nickel to suspend his nascent campaign the next day.
Cooper will put the economy at the center of his appeal. “I know that today, for too many Americans, the middle class feels like a distant dream,” he said in his announcement video. The video also features Cooper alongside members of law enforcement, and makes no reference to abortion, even though the former governor tried desperately to protect access to the procedure in his state.
Who’s the favorite? Despite its battleground status, North Carolina is something of a white whale for the Democrats, who haven't won a Senate seat (or a presidential election) there since 2008. But Cooper’s candidacy changes the calculus – a GOP-aligned polling firm found him leading Whatley by three points.
“Roy Cooper is the most formidable opponent Democrats could put up,” says Woodhouse. “Michael Whatley has a long road and a short time. He doesn’t have high name recognition. … It will be a very, very hard seat for Republicans to hold onto.”
If there is a way to target Cooper, per Woodhouse, it’ll be over his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, when he imposed some lockdowns, and the “failed” recoveries from a pair of hurricanes that struck the state during the course of his eight-year governorship.
But Ballance isn’t worried.
“He has a proven record of being able to get over the finish line,” he said, before describing Whatley as a “just a mouthpiece” who has “done nothing in terms of policy.”
Cooper plants a flag. The former governor doesn’t just put the Senate majority in sight; he also lends the party some leadership, something it desperately lacks in the wake of its shambolic 2024 campaign.
While he is on the older end of the spectrum in a party that seems to want to move in a younger direction, he has something most of his contemporaries don’t have in purple or southern states: a winning election record – he’s never lost a race.
With former Vice President Kamala Harris deciding to sit out the midterms, and the North Carolina Senate race becoming the focal point of next year’s elections, Cooper could become one of the principal faces of the party in 2026, per Woodhouse.
It could be just what the doctor ordered for Democrats.
“Democrats are rudderless right now,” says Woodhouse, the Republican. “Roy Cooper in this race could be the rally call that they all coalesce behind.”
Malibu, California, USA: A pickup truck with a President Donald Trump decal and decorated in U.S. Flags drives on Pacific Coast Highway on July 4th in Malibu, California.
Even still, with six months under their belt, US allies and adversaries continue to be confounded by the pace of dynamics coming their way. The influx of volatility is largely treated as an unknown variable to be built into strategic conversations and planning. An imperative to hold space for the “known unknowns” that will require navigation and policy response. The United Kingdom’s 2025 National Security Strategy released in June, for instance, labels this moment “an era of radical uncertainty” with no “stable equilibrium” in sight.
For the US administration, dysregulation is part of the end game. The intention is keeping global stakeholders on their toes, or as the White House calls it, “Keeping America in the Driver’s Seat.”
Security sphere uneasiness
Without a clear sense of what lies ahead, the working global response is to brace for impact, hope the ripples emerging from the US are not directed your way, and when they are, to do the best to ride the waves. In Europe, where the memory of US Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at this year’s Munich Security Conference still brings a shudder, there is a fleeting sense of relief at surviving June’s NATO Summit unscathed. A commitment to invest 5% of annual GDP on core defense requirements and defense- and security-related spending by 2035 feels like a fair price to keep the US engaged. After a decade or so wandering through the wilderness and being chided by successive US presidents about fair dues, European capitals find themselves buoyed by a reenergized NATO alliance.
With the hurdle of the NATO Summit cleared, Europe returns its focus to another summer offensive in Ukraine. Initial optimism that a change in the US administration might provide exit ramps for the war has subsided. Trump’s own promises to bring the war to an end quickly have been frustrated by the realities of an intractable conflict and the limits of relational diplomacy. Amidst an intensifying Russian missile and drone campaign of late, Europe is not sure which messaging from Washington is noise and which is signal. Reporting that the US Defense Department would halt the delivery of air defenses and artillery to Ukraine as part of a stockpile review had a chilling effect. Trump’s subsequent critical comments of Russian President Vladimir Putin at a US Cabinet meeting, alongside plans to sell weapons bound for Ukraine to NATO allies, reduced some of Europe’s anxiety. But each time Europe thinks it is doing a two-step with Trump only to find itself facing radical uncertainty, the known unknowns leave a mark.
A cresting trade tidal wave
Alongside security, the other major wave rippling around the globe this summer is a trade tidal wave. Just under the wire, the Trump administration extended implementation of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” from July 9th to August 1st. According to the White House, the further pause was based on “information and recommendations from senior officials, including information on the status of trade negotiations.” Thus far, a “Liberation Day” target of 90 deals in 90 days has resulted in trade agreements with the UK and Vietnam and a temporary trade truce with China (even as it has imposed new export restrictions on rare earths).
While the Trump team will be privately disappointed by the number of deals achieved to date, it is unlikely to be discouraged. As the world looks to interpret what comes next on trade, global stakeholders would do well to hold firm to a couple of framing principles. The first is that the US administration is ideological on trade, and has positioned these ideals at the center of its current-term ambitions.
The second grounding principle is that the president views himself as dealmaker-in-chief. He prefers to anchor negotiations by naming a price early in the process: in this case the Liberation Day reciprocal tariff rates. The anchoring position may not be where negotiations land, but it has the effect of shifting perspectives and forcing behavioral change. Europe’s 2025 NATO defensive spend commitments provide Trump with proof that this approach (plus patience) works. Likewise, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s rescission of a digital services tax (DST), disfavored by the US administration, is another data point for Trump’s negotiating strategy. Canada, for its part, is being repaid for its cooperation with a renewed threat of 35% tariffs on US imports.
Given all its levers of power, the US administration has taken to a tariff-letter-writing campaign. South Korea, Brazil, Philippines, Malaysia and a dozen or so others have been the recipients of letters notifying them of US willingness to continue its trading relationship but on new terms. What gets overlooked by too narrow a focus on the latest trade threats, and viral memes suggesting “Trump always chickens out,” is that against the wider perspective the US administration has already succeeded. Whether Brazil is hit with 50% tariffs over Trump’s displeasure with former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s legal investigations, whether Japan’s government falls over the precariousness that the threatened 25% tariffs have wrought, whether copper imports face 50% duties now and pharmaceuticals 200% in a year’s time or not; trade is at the top of everyone’s priorities.
The Trump administration has set a target of a new Golden Age for the American people. Through adopting an elusive approach to security expectations and defensive support, unsettling the global trade infrastructure, exporting risk, the president makes clear the US will be driving the agenda. Everyone else is sitting in the passenger seat.
Bavaria, Germany - June 6, 2025: PHOTOMONTAGE, Red cap with VOTE FOR ELON MUSK in front of US flag.
It started, as most of Elon Musk’s moves do, with a post on X. On July 5, the Tesla CEO and former adviser to US President Donald Trump announced the formation of the America Party, a new political movement meant to upend what he called “a one-party system, not a democracy.”
Why start a party? The two men have been feuding over the president’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which became law July 4. Musk slammed the package – which pairs tax cuts with massive spending hikes for defense and immigration enforcement – for adding trillions to the US debt. He now plans to defeat legislators who supported it, vowing that “They will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.”
Will voters bite? Musk posted a poll on X on July 4 – American Independence Day – asking whether voters wanted “independence” from the American two-party system: 65% of 1.2 million respondents answered “Yes.” A subsequent Quantus Insights poll found that 40% of voters are open to supporting his America Party, though just 14% are “very likely” to vote for it, with skepticism highest among Democrats and older voters.
Have third parties ever made a difference? Alternatives to the Republican-Democrat duopoly have periodically emerged. And while a third-party candidate has never won the White House, they’ve helped other candidates to do so. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt’s breakaway Progressive Party won 27% of the popular vote, dividing the Republican base and handing the presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. In 1992, billionaire Ross Perot’s independent candidacy captured nearly 19% of the vote and helped Democrat Bill Clinton defeat incumbent Republican President George H. W. Bush. In 2000, Ralph Nader’s campaign under the Green Party banner swung the election to George W. Bush by drawing Florida votes away from Democrat Al Gore. Most recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ran as an independent in 2024 but dropped out to endorse Trump, later becoming his secretary of Health and Human Services. On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, no significant third party has ever emerged.
President or power broker? Musk isn’t aiming for the presidency himself (as a foreign-born American he isn’t eligible anyway). Rather, he says he wants to target two or three Senate seats and eight to ten House races to act as a swing bloc in a polarized Congress. He promises to champion fiscal discipline, deregulation, and centrism, positioning him as a potential spoiler for Trump in the 2026 midterms. But Musk’s personal brand is polarizing: a Morning Consult poll from late June showed his overall net favorability at -14, and an Economist-YouGov poll found that Musk’s net favorability dropped from -9 to -23 after his feud with Trump.
Can Musk really pull this off? Despite Musk’s deep pockets, money might not be enough: in April, his $20-million political push in Wisconsin failed to sway a key judicial race. Logistical barriers might prove even tougher. Starting a nationally-competitive third party requires navigating a maze of state-level signature thresholds and party-registration deadlines, as well as building campaign infrastructure and volunteer networks – his disruptive intentions aside, does Musk really have that level of patience for politics?
And what if Trump acts against him? Last week he threatened to strip him of citizenship, and Sunday night called his third-party effort “off the rails.” With stakes this high, this next chapter in the clash between the world’s richest man and the president could have huge implications.
Democratic mayoral candidates Andrew Cuomo, left, shakes hands with Zohran Mamdani, center, as Whitney Tilson reacts after participating in a Democratic mayoral primary debate, on June 4, 2025, in New York City.
New York City residents head to the polls today to vote in the Democratic primary election for mayor, and while housing affordability, street safety, and public transit are the key issues motivating voters, another issue has come into the limelight in recent weeks, from nearly 6,000 miles away.
The candidates views’ of Israel have become, if not a decisive factor, a huge flash point in a city that is home to the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Israel, becoming a major topic of discussion at the two televised debates.
The race has now come down to two candidates: Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist politician of South Asian descent who once tried to become a rapper, and former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, an establishment centrist who resigned from his previous role after facing accusations of sexual harassment. Other candidates like hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson and New York City Comptroller Brad Lander are still in the running but face long odds – they have endorsed Cuomo and Mamdani, respectively.
The race is on a knife edge. Polls show a surprisingly close race: Most had shown Cuomo ahead, but an Emerson College survey from last week found Mamdani edging out his rival in the final round. In a city that is as heavily Democratic as the Big Apple, the Democratic primary winner will be the firm favorite to win the general election on November 4.
Where do the candidates stand on Israel? Mamdani is an avowed critic. At the first televised debate, he affirmed Israel’s right to exist, but not as a “Jewish state.” He has also defended the use of the controversial call to “Globalize the Intifada,” drawing backlash from several Jewish groups who view it as antisemitic hate speech. But he has also said that he wishes to “meet Jewish New Yorkers where they are” and focus on the issues that they care about in the Big Apple.
“The New York City mayor does not make foreign policy, of course,” Tilson told GZERO Media last week. But Mamdani’s views on Israel, he said, are “absolutely motivating Jewish voters in the city.”
Cuomo, on the other hand, has been wholly supportive of Israel – he’s always seen wearing a yellow ribbon on his lapel in solidarity with Israelis held hostage in Gaza. Yet he has faced criticism, too. Lander, who is Jewish, accused him of “weaponizing antisemitism to score political points.”
How did this become such an issue? New York City is home to 1.4 million Jewish people, accounting for roughly 12% of the city’s population. While Israel is often a higher priority for Jewish voters than others, it’s especially high now among Jewish New Yorkers due to Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza, the backlash against it at institutions like Columbia University, and the rise of antisemitic violence across the United States.
New York Jewish voters, reflecting the broader community in the US, are hardly a monolith. While support for Israel is generally strong, there is a diversity of opinion about the war in Gaza and the Palestinian cause. That may in part be why a recent poll shows Jewish voters in New York are actually split among the top candidates, Cuomo at 31%, Mamdani at 20%, and Lander, who is Jewish himself, at 18%.
Reality check. Housing affordability and the economy remain the top issue for voters: Three in 10 New Yorkers put housing costs as their top issue, and another two in 10 said it was the economy, per an Emerson College poll from May. Fewer than 1% of voters said their top issue was foreign policy.
Yet Israel specifically remains an issue, one that can’t be captured in the nebulous “foreign policy” bracket, says Tilson, whose wife and daughters are Jewish. What this is really about, he said, is Jewish people’s perception of safety – over three-quarters of all American Jews said they feel less safe in the United States following Hamas’ attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, per an American Jewish Committee report. In New York City, antisemitic attacks increased more than 100% between 2022 and 2023, according to the local offices of the Anti-Defamation League.
“You’re defining it too narrowly by saying foreign policy. It is [about] keeping the Jewish community safe,” said Tilson. “And there has been a dramatic decline in the feeling of [safety among New York Jews].”
Nuns walk at St. Peter's Square, ahead of the conclave, at the Vatican, on May 6, 2025.
26: The conclave of 133 cardinals will gather in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel on Wednesday to begin the process of electing a new pope via secret ballot. To win the job with a puff of white smoke, a candidate must garner the support of two thirds of the conclave, plus one. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, a veteran Vatican diplomat, is the favorite, per Polymarket, which gave him a 26% chance of winning.
182: Some 182 days on from the 2024 election, and North Carolina has still yet to certify state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs’ reelection victory. The Tar Heel State did move one step closer to affirming the result on Tuesday, though, after a federal judge narrowed the number of votes that were under dispute. Last November, Riggs, a Democrat, defeated Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million cast.
4: All four major airports in Moscow were ordered to shut after the Kremlin accused Ukraine of launching a drone attack on the Russian capital. There were no casualties in the reported attack, which came days before Russia holds a celebration to mark the 80th anniversary of the Red Army’s triumph over Nazi Germany.
14%: The US trade deficit jumped 14% in March, setting a new record of $140.5 billion as American consumers and businesses rushed to buy foreign goods like pharmaceuticals and computer accessories ahead of President Donald Trump’s announcement of global tariffs in early April. Some economists believe US firms were still frontloading purchases well into April.
18,500: An estimated 18,500 Sudanese have crossed the country’s western border into Chad over the last two weeks alone, per the United Nations, with many severely malnourished. Nearly 800,000 Sudanese have fled to Chad since Sudan’s civil war began two years ago. For more on why one of the world’s deadliest conflicts continues, see here.
>$1 million: Chris LaCivita, who ran Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign last year, is reportedly earning more than $1 million to advise Albania’s former Prime Minister Sali Berisha. LaCivita is rehashing the MAGA message, only with “Albania” replacing “America.” Berisha, who faces corruption allegations, is hoping to lead the Balkan country again after the parliamentary elections on Sunday.The White House is seen from a nearby building rooftop in Washington, D.C. on May 4, 2023.
During the 2024 election campaign, US President Donald Trump made a plethora of ambitious promises to the American electorate and pledged to make them come true fast. He even suggested he’d be a dictator for a day to get them done. As he approaches the 100-day mark of his second presidency, GZERO assesses the extent to which he’s achieved his goals.
1. The swath of tax cuts – not yet
Wherever he went on the campaign trail, Trump seemed to make another promise about cutting taxes. He promised a crowd in Las Vegas that he’d end taxes on tips, told the Economic Club of Detroit in October that he’d make car loans tax deductible, and vowed to Wall Street leaders that he’d slash the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. Trump hasn’t yet achieved these goals, as only Congress can change the tax laws. Republicans on Capitol Hill are moving forward with the budget reconciliation process to amend these laws, but it’s not yet clear if the final bill will include all the specific tax cuts that Trump pledged.
2. The largest deportation effort in history – far from it
So much for this one. Despite all the furor over the deportation of alleged gang members to a Salvadoran prison, Trump can’t even seem to match former President Joe Biden’s deportation numbers: The current administration removed fewer migrants in February than its predecessor did 12 months earlier. That’s not to say the president’s rhetoric hasn’t had an impact: Border crossings have plunged since he returned to office.
3. Pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters – achieved on Day 1
This one didn’t take long: On his first day back in office, Trump absolved everyone involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, either by pardon, commutation, or case dismissal. The move appeared to surprise Vice President JD Vance, who said a week before the inauguration that those who committed violence would not receive clemency – the president duly overruled his second-in-command. Trump may not be finished yet, either, as he explores offering compensation for the pardoned rioters.
4. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war – not even close
A huge talking point for Trump and the Republican Party was that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would never have happened under his watch. Moving a step further, the president pledged to end the war within 24 hours of returning to the White House. If the former “Apprentice” star really believed his own words, he’s now had a dose of reality, as the end of the war remains firmly out of sight. The Trump administration seems fed up and is now on the verge of abandoning the negotiations.
5. His pledge to “cut the fat out of our government” – yes, and then some
Tariffs aside, the defining story of Trump’s first 100 days has been his extraordinary cuts to the federal workforce. From effectively disbanding the US Agency for International Development and initiating the end of the Education Department to being on track to remove a third of the Internal Revenue Service staff, the president and his billionaire advisor, Elon Musk, have taken a chainsaw to the federal government. To this end, Trump’s longtime plan to “drain the swamp” is finally coming to fruition, pending certain lawsuits.
Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas speaks during a press briefing on the World Economic Outlook during the 2025 World Bank and IMF Spring Meetings on April 22, 2025 in Washington, DC.
“Just since January, we’ve entered into a new era,” IMF’s Chief Economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas told the press Tuesday at the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. He explained why the IMF had just downgraded global economic growth expectations for 2025, from 3.3% to 2.8%, and global trade growth by more than half, from 3.8% last year to 1.7%.
Why? Global tariff rates are at their highest level since the Great Depression, following Donald Trump’s imposition of a 10% tariff on nearly all imports, along with duties of at least 145% on Chinese goods entering the United States. In a closed-door session with investors at a JP Morgan conference on Tuesday, US Trade Secretary Scott Bessent said that while the US will eventually de-escalate the trade war with China, negotiations with Beijing have yet to begin — and the process, he warned, will be a “slog.”
But an eventual de-escalation won’t alleviate concerns. “Beyond the tariffs themselves, the surge in policy uncertainty — related to trade policy but also more broadly — is a major driver of the economic outlook,” Gourinchas said. As a result, the US saw the sharpest downgrade among wealthy economies, with its expected 2025 growth falling from 2.7% to 1.8%.
Gourinchas notes that the downgrade could be temporary — if tariffs are rolled back and policy stability returns — but the IMF has raised the likelihood of a US recession this year to 40%, up from 25%.
All eyes are now on signals from the White House. Anticipation is building for Wednesday, when the Trump administration is expected to officially weigh in — and potentially upend the conversation. The administration has been hostile to international organizations like USAID and the United Nations, and some fear that the World Bank or the IMF could be next on the chopping block. Bessent is set to address the Institute of International Finance in the morning, followed by a high-stakes dinner with G20 leaders that evening.
GZERO will be watching to see how he responds to the IMF’s downgrade — and whether he offers any guidance to the institution itself. Some expect the Trump administration to urge the IMF to return to its traditional focus on balance of payments and debt crises, moving away from more progressive initiatives like supporting climate adaptation or promoting gender equality.