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.
Video
If you ask the individuals working for DOGE, if you ask Elon Musk, they're doing the right thing. They are undertaking a revolution to save the United States,” Drummond says, “If you ask any of the civil servants or the federal workers who've lost their jobs, there is a deep sense of concern, of dread that this revolutionary effort will destroy so much of what powers this country.”
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
How long will President Donald Trump’s relationship with Elon Musk last? The alliance has so far defied predictions from the left (and parts of the right) that a relationship between two famously impulsive and mercurial billionaires would eventually lead to conflict. Instead, Musk is everywhere in the Trump administration—attending cabinet meetings, shaking hands with world leaders, smiling in the Oval Office. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has embedded itself across nearly every federal agency. In many ways, the relationship is mutually beneficial: Musk has an almost limitless checkbook to bankroll Trump’s political operations, and DOGE is helping him deliver on a campaign pledge to “shatter” the deep state. Meanwhile, Musk has become the most powerful person in Washington, not named Trump. But the president also has a history of discarding allies when they are no longer valuable and many of his close advisors have become his harshest critics. So, can the Trump-Musk alliance survive for the long haul, or is it destined to go up in flames?
Watch the upcoming episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on US public television this weekend (check local listings) and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take on the back of the full transcript of these Signal chat that's going on about the bombing of the Houthis. A few things here. First of all, are we surprised that a journalist is actually publishing what is clearly classified data? And there's no question, it's classified data. I mean, you're talking about the targets, the exact timing in advance of US military strikes, incredibly sensitive information, against people that are described as terrorists in the chat. And clearly, if that information had gotten out in advance when Jeffrey Goldberg had received it in real time, it would have put the operation at risk. It would have prevented it from going on. It would have been denounced as leaking classified information, and he would be facing some legal charges from the administration. So I don't think it's credible to say that this is not classified.
But since Trump and members of administration have now said that it isn't classified, there was nothing classified in it, I guess that provides legal cover since it is ultimately in the charge of the president to be able to determine, as president, whether or not something is classified. That there's nothing illegal in Goldberg and the Atlantic Magazine now taking all of that information and putting it out to the public. So is that embarrassing for the US with its allies in terms of how they're handling such a chat? The answer is of course, yes. And I expect that we're going to see a significant amount of continued focus on this topic. A lot of people are going to be asking questions about how it was that this conversation could have been had on Signal and also how it was that Goldberg could have been brought on board. But say that as it may. I mean if you are the Trump administration here, it is age-old tactic, full denial responsibility is actually of your political adversaries so blame Goldberg. Imply that maybe he tried to get on the call through nefarious ways.
It's all his fault. It's overstated. He's a fake news, no news journalist. No one should pay attention to him. He's a bad guy. I mean all of that stuff. And I was particularly bemused by Elon Musk sharing a post from the Babylon Bee saying that, "If you wanted to ensure that nobody ever saw information you'd put it on page 2 of the Atlantic." And of course, that is true for Elon, and it's true for Trump supporters. And this is why the strategy works, is because the Atlantic and the people that read the Atlantic and support the Atlantic are all considered disinformation by those that are loyal to Trump. And vice versa. Fox, and Newsmax and all of the right-wing podcasts. Those are considered fake news by people that don't support, that dislike Trump. And that allows a strategy of full denial, not engaging with the facts and blaming those that are coming after you to be successful. Now, I still think that there are interesting pieces of information here.
Perhaps the most important is that the actual policy conversation, not the details of the war fighting itself, but rather whether or not it was a good idea to be attacking the Houthis, in a big way that was potentially going to increase energy prices. And that was much less of a fight of the Americans than it would be of those in the region that are engaged in the direct proxy war with Iran or the Europeans who have a lot more directly at stake, in terms of their trade in transit. And that was a very reasonable question, and it was strongly, in other words, Vice President Vance opposed these strikes and he's the most important person. He's the most senior ranking person in this chat. Trump isn't on the chat. And he's not saying the president is wrong. He's saying, "I don't believe the president is fully informed and this clearly is not in his interest, in his policy interest."
Now, the reason this is important is because in Trump's first term, I think you would have had a very similar conversation from people like Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo and others that would have been on this chat, but then they would have brought it to the president. And many, many instances in the first term of policy disagreements that then came up and said, "Mr. President. Respectfully, we think we've got additional information and we can better carry out your will by doing X, Y, and Z." And there were checks. There were internal checks on executive authority. What we see this time around is we see JD Vance, who's obviously a very smart guy saying, "I think this is a really bad idea. We shouldn't be doing it, but I'm prepared not to raise it to the president unless I have everybody around me supporting me because I can't do this by myself. I'm just going to get my head chopped off." And there's a little bit of back and forth.
And Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy in the White House and a full-on Trump loyalist, says, "Nope, the president wants this. I'm ending the conversation." And that's the end of the conversation, and it never gets to Trump. And then they go ahead and they bomb. So whatever you think about whether this was a good or a bad decision, the challenge here is that we have a big cabinet, some of whom are very capable, some of whom are absolutely not capable. But first and foremost is not getting the best information to the president because he's extremely confident. He believes that his policies are always the right ones, and he is absolutely punishing anything that feels like disloyalty, inside or outside of his team. That's why Pompeo, for example, John Bolton, have had their security details stripped away. Even though the Iranian government has been trying to assassinate them, right? Why? Because they were disloyal to Trump. That's not why they're trying to assassinate him. That's why Trump took away their security detail and that is a very strong message to everybody that is on this chat.
And I do worry, I worry that the three most powerful men in power today around the world, all in their 70s, Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, are also men that are incredibly confident about the rightness of their views. That loyalty is the key to the most important currency of power that exists inside those systems. And increasingly, they're not getting good information from their own advisers. That's a dangerous place for the world to be. It's a dangerous place for the world to be heading, and that's frankly the most important thing that I took out of this chat. So that's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon, thanks.
According to The Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, 2025 is shaping to be a historic turning point defined by three massive global shocks. “Each of which is big enough for our grandchildren to have a chapter in their history books,” she warns on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer.
The first is geopolitical: the United States, once the architect of the global alliance system, is now actively challenging—and possibly undermining—it. The second is economic: the U.S. has abandoned free trade in favor of escalating tariff wars, threatening the global trading system that has defined the past 80 years. And the third, perhaps most transformative, is technological: the rapid rise of artificial intelligence, which is reshaping industries and economies faster than governments can respond. The combination of these three forces, Beddoes argues, creates massive uncertainty with the potential for severe damage.
While acknowledging that some aspects of the Trump administration’s policies—such as cutting bureaucracy and rationalizing government—may have merit, Beddoes is deeply concerned about its overall trajectory. “I just find the combination of this… bullying, transactional approach, where the view is that your gain must be my loss… fundamentally misguided,” she says. With global institutions struggling to keep pace with these shifts, the question is no longer whether the old order will survive—it’s whether the world can build a new one before chaos takes hold.
Watch full episode: Trump’s trade war: Who really wins?
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Why are some countries issuing travel advisories for visiting the United States?
You'd call it an abundance of caution, but things are moving very quickly in the US. It's only been two months since Trump has been inaugurated. And many countries, allies of the US, feel that treatment of their citizens will not be aligned with rule of law in the United States. Certainly, worry given, for example, some green card holders facing deportation for what would be considered for an American citizen just exercise of freedom of speech, freedom of organization.
Also, they've seen what's happened with law firms and the chilling impact of Trump going after them if they are engaged in supporting lawsuits against the government. All of those things and a recognition that these are moving fast and getting more challenging quickly, quickly, quickly, is making a whole bunch of American allies issue travel advisories telling their citizens, "You shouldn't be traveling to the US right now." We've already seen a big economic impact of Canada tourism to the United States hurting the US economy. Haven't seen that as much from Europe yet, but I expect that you will. And of course, in terms of people that are applying for green cards and wanting to get jobs in top American corporations or apply to be students at top American universities, I think that's going to have a big impact going forward longer term.
How are the political tensions in Netanyahu's government impacting the war with Hamas?
Well, the fact that the far-right coalition is fully back together because the war has restarted. That's why the far-right party left, and that was because they didn't like the ceasefire and they certainly were opposed to phase two that would've led to the Israelis to do a full pullout of the military from Gaza. Well, now the war has restarted, the Israeli government is talking directly about annexation if the hostages are not all released. And they're doing that with full support of the United States. Big demonstrations in Israel, concerned that Israel is no longer going to be a democracy, especially because the prime minister has now sacked his Attorney General, has sacked the head of the Shin Bet, both unprecedented for Israel since independence. But Netanyahu has full support from his coalition and from the United States. So, he's in a strong position right now.
Will public outcry over the arrest of Istanbul's mayor lead to major political reforms or shifts within the Turkish government?
I don't expect so at all. They are allowing for large demonstrations to continue in Istanbul, even though President Erdogan has said that's illegal, in part because there's a lot of media there. There's a lot of focus there. They clearly want to limit that violence. But they've been cracking down really hard everywhere else in the country, including the capital, Ankara. They've dealt with this sort of thing in the past. The military is fully aligned with Erdogan, and the top is quite politicized. Media, dido, overwhelmingly aligned with the state. So is the judiciary after the failed coup attempt.
So for all of those reasons, I think this is going to be a move from Erdogan towards a more direct autocracy as opposed to a hybrid system. Unfortunate and yet one more place where the Europeans are in trouble. But nonetheless he's been quite useful to a number of other countries around the world in terms of dealing with refugees from Syria. If you're the Europeans, dealing with Turkey on the ground, dealing with Syria on the ground, and stability if you're the United States. And the Gulf States have found him useful as an interlocutor as well on Russia-Ukraine too. So for all of those reasons, very important internationally, very repressive domestically. Two things I expect to continue.
As Trump’s second term unfolds, European leaders are no longer just questioning America’s reliability—they’re beginning to worry that the US is actively hostile. Economist editor-in-chief Zanny Minton Beddoes points to growing frustration across the continent, and it's not just about America's reliability on defense. Trump’s aggressive trade policies, including escalating tariffs on European goods, have compounded the rift. “You have an anger at the United States amongst its allies that is damaging,” Beddoes warns.
But beyond policy, it’s Trump’s approach to foreign relations that is sparking the greatest alarm. Beddoes argues that his White House operates with a “mafia mobster kind of foreign policy,” where allies are strong-armed rather than supported. The result? Europe is starting to hedge its bets, strengthening its own defense industries and reducing economic reliance on the U.S. If Trump continues treating allies like adversaries, they may start acting accordingly.
Watch full episode: Trump’s trade war: Who really wins?
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 (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
- Europe plans for Putin & Trump 2.0 ›
- Will Europe step up as America turns its back on Ukraine? - GZERO ... ›
- What Trump's return means for Europe, with Finnish President Alexander Stubb ›
- China’s vows to pump up its economy — with one eye on Trump’s tariffs ›
- Trump imposes massive tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China ›
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take on this extraordinary story in The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of this magazine, invited into a Signal chat, the Signal app, by the national security advisor, Michael Waltz, with all of the major national security related principles in the Trump administration, to discuss imminent attacks by the United States on the Houthis in Yemen, the single biggest war fighting that the Trump administration has been involved in the first two months of their term. A lot to think about here, a few points I think worth mentioning.
The first point, it's pretty clear this should not have happened. A discussion of this sort, classified, involving direct war preparation, should not have been happening on Signal, but clearly everyone in the conversation was aware and okay with that. So, I don't think you blame singularly Mike Waltz for the fact that he was the guy that happened to bring the outsider inadvertently in. This collective responsibility, everyone, this is the way the Trump administration is handling these sensitive national security conversations, that is what needs to be looked into and rectified going forward. Mike definitely made a mistake here, and what seems almost certainly to be the case is that he thought he was including the US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, JG, same initials as Jeffrey Goldberg - and The Atlantic editor-in-chief, and he's the only obvious person, Greer, that otherwise wasn't on this broader conversation. So, I would bet my bottom dollar that is the way this happened. And I think all the people that are calling for Mike Waltz to be fired, I certainly wouldn't let him go for that. The issue is the broader lack of operational security around war decisions and fighting.
Now, as to the actual content of the conversations, frankly, I found all of the people involved to be pretty reasonable, especially in the context of how generally unprepared President Trump himself is on matters of national security. So, the fact that Vice President JD Vance was worried about the inconsistency of going to war for something that he doesn't think is a clear and direct US interest, that the US economy would be limited in terms of the impact of it, and this isn't really an American issue in the way that Trump defines American issues and war, that strikes me as not disloyal, but indeed the reality that Vance is aware of the fact that Trump doesn't know a lot of these details. But he doesn't want to bring it to Trump individually. Why not? Because he's going to get his head handed to him if he brings bad news to Trump unless everybody is on board, and of course, everybody isn't on board. There's some reasonable discussion around that, including with the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, and then finally Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff and head of policy in the White House, is the one that cuts it off because, why? He's the guy that is saying, "Trump says he wants it, we're going to do it." In other words, you've got to be completely loyal to Trump, that's it. And that's exactly what we've seen from this second administration, what Trump wants, Trump gets.
Now, another interesting point here is that the Europeans are not considered allies by this group across the board. Should be clear from anybody that has seen Vance in Munich, anyone that has seen the recent interview between the US Special Envoy Witkoff and Tucker Carlson, a number of other places where that's happened. But the point is that the entire Trump cabinet is basically saying, "We shouldn't be helping the Europeans, and if we have to help the Europeans, and Lord knows we shouldn't, we have to ensure that they directly pay for American help, American assistance." This is not collective security. This is completely transactional. Also, you got a lot of that about el-Sisi in Egypt, someone that Trump has been very supportive of, and indeed the US provides more support to Egypt than any other country militarily in the world except Israel. So the last few months you would've thought that Egypt would've been an exception there. From what we've seen from the cabinet, apparently not. Certainly a concern in terms of what Egypt is and is not willing to do on the ground in Gaza for Trump. That relationship seems pretty dicey.
Final point here, Jeffrey Goldberg deserves credit. I know that Elon in particular likes to say a lot that the public is now the media, but it turns out that well-trained journalists have standards and those standards are important. I have had my disagreements with what Goldberg has had to say. Some of his positions over the years, support for the Iraq War, for example, lots of other things, but in terms of his professionalism, as soon as he realized that he had been invited into something that was an authentic conversation about actual war plans and fighting, he got out and he told Waltz that he had been mistakenly invited. He made the public aware of what was going on without divulging any of the direct war plans or outing intelligence, active intelligence member that was part of it, all of those things, it was absolutely the right thing to do. He's now getting smeared by Hegseth, the secretary of defense, who was clearly embarrassed by his own mistake and his participation and culpability in all of this. He personally won't take responsibility as we so frequently see with our political leaders and never should have gotten confirmed, in my view and in the view of many Republican senators who weren't willing to go out publicly because of course they were fearful for their own careers. But Jeff Goldberg has done the right thing in terms of his career and I commend him for it.
That's it for me. I'll talk to y'all real soon.