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.
Video
After being fined and warned, defendant Donald Trump learns what he can and cannot say.
Watch more PUPPET REGIME!
Subscribe to GZERO Media's YouTube channel to get notifications when new videos are published.
Public approval for the US Supreme Court is at an all-time low. But how much does that matter really? On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down why voters believe the Court has become more partisan and politically motivated in recent years and whether public perception makes any difference in how it operates.
According to Gallup polling, SCOTUS has had a strong net approval rating, much higher than the President and Congress, for most of the last 25 years. But as of September 2023, 58% of Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court, a record high. The Court’s credibility has come under fire following ethics scandals involving Justice Clarence Thomas and a string of 6-3 conservative majority opinions, like the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade, increasingly out of step with public opinion.
It’s a class question of separation of powers: The justices aren’t elected, and the judicial branch of government isn’t designed to respond to popular will. But if SCOTUS falls out of step with voters completely, it risks losing the very thing that gives it legitimacy: public faith.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- SCOTUS adopts new ethics code as public trust plummets ›
- Who cares if the Supreme Court justices like each other? ›
- Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims ›
- US Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions ›
- Why Clarence Thomas has eroded trust in the US Supreme Court ›
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his perspective on US politics.
This is what we are watching in US Politics this week: It's still the campus protests for the second week in a row.
This has been a pretty dominant story in US Politics, despite everything going on in the world. Antony Blinken trying to get peace in the Middle East. Donald Trump on trial. These campus protests have dominated headlines and are starting to spill over into the political sphere.
You've seen a number of Republican governors like in Georgia over the weekend, gleefully moving the police in, in order to crack down on a protest at Emory University. The University of North Carolina system has come out strongly against campus protests, and conservatives are rallying to support a bunch of frat boys that decided to defend the American flag against some protesters who wanted to put up a different flag.
Ben Sasse, former senator from Nebraska, is now the president of the University of Florida system, getting kudos online for his strong response. And you're getting protests that are turning increasingly violent at UCLA, at Columbia where a bunch of students occupied administrative building, leading Mayor Eric Adams to send in the police. President Biden this week gave an address to the nation on the student protests, asking for everybody to please calm down, clearly trying to align themselves with who are basically the normies of American politics who don't like this kind of campus protests and violence.
And Donald Trump getting in the game, trying to take advantage of the protests by claiming these are all left wing agitators who are aligned with the Democratic Party. This theme is going to continue throughout the campaign if the protests are sustained, which is, of course, a big question marks with campuses going home for their summer vacation in the next few weeks. So likely the story dies down but will come back to life later in the summer with any protests planned around the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
And of course, any protests that are launched on campuses when they come back in the fall, much closer to the election date. One thing this could be a preview of is organized activism against Donald Trump. Should he win the White House and immediately take actions to crack down on immigration in the United States, or any other hot bit social issue. You now have an organized protest movement that could carry itself into 2025, in the event of a Trump win.
Yale legal scholar and New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon wants to have faith in the Supreme Court. "I want to have a good faith belief in the justices' approach to these cases” she tells Ian Bremmer in a new episode of GZERO World. But in a wide-ranging conversation in which Bazelon and Bremmer preview the major cases facing the Supreme Court this spring, Bazelon confesses that the past few years have tested her faith.
“After a certain number of cases come out particular ways, you start to feel like cynicism is realism about the Court."
And Bazelon is not alone. Public faith in the Supreme Court is at record lows, thanks to its rightward tilt and ethical questions surrounding the conduct of Justice Clarence Thomas. And that’s a problem, Bazelon says, not just for America but for the justices themselves. “They all have an incentive to protect the institution, the liberals as well as the conservatives. They don't want to see Americans lose total faith in the Court. That's not good for them and their job security and their collective legacy.”
But do the justices themselves get along? Bazelon couldn’t care less. “I'm personally mystified why they think we should care about that. I don't care whether they can be nice to each other when they're having lunch, whether they're collegial. I care about whether American law is going in a direction that makes sense to most Americans.” But at a time when the country itself could not be more divided, could collegiality in the highest court of the land be just the thing that Americans cling to?
Watch the full interview with Emily Bazelon on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television beginning this Friday, May 3. Check local listings.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- Supreme Court divided over Trump’s absolute immunity claims ›
- US Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions ›
- Why Clarence Thomas has eroded trust in the US Supreme Court ›
- US Supreme Court upends Roe v. Wade ›
- Ian Explains: Does it matter if Americans don't trust the Supreme Court? - GZERO Media ›
On GZERO World, David Sanger, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist and author of "New Cold Wars," argues that while China seeks to become the top global power by 2049, Russia, lacking such aspirations, acts as a disruptor on the international stage. Sanger also notes how both countries have an interest in fueling instability in the U.S., amplifying chaos to distract American focus from their strategic ambitions. He tells Ian Bremmer, "China wants to be the top dog by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Revolution and of Mao declaring the state. And they want to be the top dog of something worth being the top dog of. The Russians have no hope for that. So their only source of power is as a disruptor, and that's the friction between these two that may come into play."
Sanger also argues that both Russia AND China have an interest in sowing internal discord in the United States. "They have every incentive, both of them, Russia and China, to be subtle actors in the background of this coming presidential election. And that's one area where if they are not cooperating, it would pay them off considerably to coordinate."
Watch Ian Bremmer's full interview with David Sanger on GZERO World - Are we on the brink of a new cold war?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- Are we on the brink of a new cold war? ›
- The next era of global superpower competition: a conversation with the New York Times' David Sanger ›
- What China and Russia share ›
- Trump: I would encourage Russia to attack 'delinquent' NATO allies ›
- The threat of foreign interference to the US election ›
- Who would Putin vote for? ›
- It’s election interference season — always ›
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How will the international community respond to an Israeli invasion of Rafah?
Very, very badly. You see that the Israeli prime minister and War Cabinet continues to say that no matter what happens with the hostages and a potential deal, and everyone's trying to get one done at the last minute, that the intention is still very much to fight on the ground there. I don't think that's a bluff. And especially because it's supported by the entire Israeli political spectrum and the population, they believe that you've got to take out Hamas. And beyond that, there's also the concern about Hezbollah. So I think the international response is going to be very negative. It is certainly going to push back the possibility of any Saudi normalization, and it's going to lead to a lot more demonstrations and hostility against Israel in the United States and in Europe.
How would a Trump presidency be different from his first term?
I think the biggest issue, is that, Trump is going to be focused much more on ending, all of these cases against him, which he sees as completely unjust and that the political enemies, need to be responded to. And that means a top priority of ensuring that the leadership of the Department of Justice, the FBI, probably the IRS, are political appointees and loyalists to him. This was not a priority in the first administration. There's no Bill Barr coming back as attorney general. And I think the potential of that, to both create a new McCarthyism in the United States and also to create a structural advantage for the incumbent party in being able to ensure election outcomes much more strongly than you would in a normal, representative democracy, that is significantly at risk in that environment. That'll change the way we think about rule of law in the United States. That's probably the biggest difference.
Are growing US campus protests a sign of a chaotic election in November?
I wouldn't say that yet. We're still talking about relatively small numbers of students, and after graduations are over, I think the student protests are over. But there's no question this does reflect a significant anger among young people in the country. A lot of the people that are involved in the takeovers of buildings, for example, and the tussling with police, are not the students themselves, but people coming in, political entrepreneurs, if I can call them that, from outside. I am deeply concerned about what happens with the upcoming Democratic convention in Chicago. I think that could be very violent with lots of demonstrations. Certainly I don't see the war in Gaza over any time soon. And as a consequence of that, I think that, this is going to be a big problem and very, very challenging, as we think about the most dysfunctional and polarized US election since the 19th century, since the period of reconstruction.
David Sanger, Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times journalist and author of "New Cold Wars," discusses the evolving relationship between China and Russia, highlighting its asymmetry and significance in today's geopolitical landscape. He points out how much the tables have turned. During the Cold War of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union was the dominant power when it came to its relationship with China. Decades later, it's clear that China holds the upper hand. "China holds more cards than the Russians do," Sanger tells Ian Bremmer. Not only that, Russia's Vladimir Putin needs China's Xi Jinping by his side in order to prevail in his war with Ukraine. "He [Putin] needs that Chinese technology desperately... He does not have a choice except to deal with the Chinese on Chinese terms right now."
And what does that mean for China's interests when it comes to the United States? "If you're Xi," Sanger says, "the two best things that can happen to you is that the US is tied up in Ukraine or ripping itself apart about the aid and consumed again in the Middle East." And at least in that respect, Xi seems to be getting everything he wants.
Watch Ian Bremmer's full interview with David Sanger on GZERO World - Are we on the brink of a new cold war?
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic ›
- The next era of global superpower competition: a conversation with the New York Times' David Sanger ›
- The limits of a China-Russia partnership ›
- Will China end Russia’s war? ›
- Xi’s “peace” plan for Ukraine: China “wins” ›
- Russia & China vs “the West” ›
Latest
Trump’s Gag Order EXPLAINED
Campus protests spill over into US political sphere
Israel intent on Rafah invasion despite global backlash
Putin needs Xi to win the war in Ukraine
