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.
popular
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks on the phone to US President Donald Trump at a car factory in the West Midlands, United Kingdom, on May 8, 2025.
When President Donald Trump announced a trade deal that will reduce US tariffs on UK cars and plane engines in return for greater access to the British market for American beef and chemicals, he singled out Prime Minister Keir Starmer for praise.
“The US and UK have been working for years to try and make a deal, and it never quite got there,” said Trump. “It did with this prime minister.”
The president’s comment twisted the knife into the UK Conservative Party, which tried — and failed — to achieve a trade deal with the Americans during its 14 years in power. It took Starmer, the Labour leader, to finally clinch the deal less than a year after entering office.
Starmer isn’t the only winner. Brexiteers cited the prospect of a US trade deal to further justify exiting the European Union. The deal caps a stellar week for Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, after his party made extraordinary strides in the local UK elections last Thursday.
There’s a caveat. The scope of the deal was somewhat limited, with many goods still subject to the 10% tariff — Trump said this rate was “pretty well set.” The UK tariff rate appears to have dropped, while the US one has risen, although the White House numbers can sometimes be off.
What’s Trump’s strategy? With this deal — the first the US has made since “Liberation Day” — it’s not clear whether the president’s main goal is protectionism or winning concessions from America’s allies.
The US did nab some wins from the pact, including access to UK meat markets, but they inked it with a country with which they already have a trade surplus. Trump thus achieved both of these goals, making it unclear where his priority lies.The newly elected Pope Leo XIV (r), US-American Robert Prevost, appears on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican after the conclave.
On Thursday, Robert Francis Prevost was elected the 267th pope of the Roman Catholic Church, taking the name Pope Leo XIV and becoming the first American pontiff — defying widespread assumptions that a US candidate was a long shot.
Who is he? Raised in Chicago, Pope Leo served for two decades in Peru, where he worked as a missionary, parish priest, teacher, and bishop.
What does he mean for the future of the Catholic Church? The 69-year-old pope faces pivotal decisions about the church’s future — chiefly whether to continue the inclusive and reform-minded agenda of his predecessor, Pope Francis, who died last month, or to chart a new course. He echoes Francis’ sentiments on immigration and devotion to the poor, but he is expected to be more conservative — especially when it comes to LGBTQ issues.
While Pope Leo may be a middle-of-the-road choice for the Catholic Church, his views on immigration put him on a crash course with the Trump administration. His X history reveals three recent posts disagreeing with how Trump — and JD Vance, in particular — have treated migrants.
US President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney meet in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., USA, on May 6, 2025.
The first official meeting between Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and US President Donald Trump was friendlier than you might expect given the recent tensions in the relationship. Carney described Trump as a “transformational” president, while the US leader said he had “a lot of respect” for his Canadian counterpart.
It wasn’t all pleasantries, however: Trump again said Canada should become the 51st state, to which Carney cautioned the former real estate magnate that “there are some places that are never for sale.”
Trump’s response? “Never say never.”
The start of a beautiful friendship? Despite some disagreements, the two leaders agreed to begin talks on new economic and security frameworks. The Canadian dollar even rallied slightly after the “positive” exchange.
But tariffs remain in place: Canada and the US are keeping their tariffs on each other’s steel, aluminum, and auto industries for now.
Next stop, the G7. The two men will meet again, along with other world leaders, when Canada hosts the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, next month. Ahead of that, Carney gave Trump a gift. What was it? A Kananaskis Country Golf Course hat, naturally, and some other gear from the resort.
For more on Tuesday’s White House tête-à-tête and upcoming trade talks, read GZERO’s interview below with former Canadian Progressive Conservative leader and Quebec Premier the Hon. Jean Charest.India and Pakistan are on the brink of war again after India this week launched airstrikes against what it said were militant camps in Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir.
The move was a response to a recent terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan. Islamabad denies the allegations.
This is the most serious flare-up in decades between the two nuclear-armed rivals, who have had three major conflicts since the 1960s.
Whether things get worse from here is now up to Pakistan, says Pramit Pal Chauduri, lead South Asia analyst at Eurasia Group.
“Pakistan [will] decide whether it goes further up the escalation ladder,” he says, noting that Pakistani forces shot several Indian aircraft during the skirmish.
“Having shot down at least three Indian fighters, it seems it is in a position to claim victory and bring the clash to an end.”
Whether it does may turn in part on calculations about the risk of deeper conflict with a much larger neighbor. Here’s a look at how the conventional and nuclear forces of the two countries stack up.
Viktor Orbán watching his party leave him behind.
For the past fifteen years, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has coasted from one election victory to another. Since returning to power in 2010, the self-proclaimed defender of “illiberal democracy” has transformed his country into an “electoral autocracy” – reshaping institutions, rewriting election laws, muzzling independent media, and stacking the courts – where elections are technically free but heavily tilted in his favor, the media landscape is dominated by government allies, and the ruling party – Fidesz – uses the machinery of the state to reward supporters and punish dissent.
All the while, Orbán has proudly cast himself as Europe’s chief populist troublemaker – a pro-Russian crusader against liberalism, immigration, and Brussels bureaucrats, Donald Trump’s man across the Atlantic, and a guy who relishes nothing more than jamming up the European Union’s gears.
His nationalist-populist model inspired imitators and admirers across the West. Where many right-wing populists have flamed out, Orbán has endured, winning elections (four in a row, to be precise) and accumulating more power along the way.
But now, Orbán’s veneer of invincibility is cracking. Suddenly, the world’s most durable populist and Trump’s best friend in Europe looks more vulnerable than ever.
Cracks in the crown
At home, the Hungarian prime minister is facing a newly energized political opposition led by a former protégé-turned-rival named Peter Magyar, who’s managed to do what no other challenger has: unite Hungary’s fragmented anti-Orbán forces. Recent polls show Magyar's center-right Tisza Party holding a commanding double-digit lead over Orbán’s Fidesz among committed voters. Whether or not it’ll hold until the elections in early 2026, that’s no small advantage in a country where the ruling party has rewritten the electoral rules in its favor.
Magyar’s appeal lies in his hybrid message: anti-corruption and pro-transparency, but also nationalist and socially conservative enough to peel away disillusioned Fidesz voters. His rise has upended Orbán’s usual playbook, which relied on a splintered opposition and a monopoly on patriotic rhetoric.
Now, for the first time in years, Orbán is worried, and he’s throwing every goodie he can think of at voters – tax breaks for mothers, higher allowances for families, VAT refunds for retirees, price caps on groceries – in a bid to shore up support and stem Magyar’s rise.
But while these giveaways may buy him some political breathing room, they are also blowing a hole in Hungary’s budget just as the economy is faltering. Growth has been stalled since the end of 2022, the budget deficit is ballooning at 4.9% of GDP, and Orbán’s long-running feud with Brussels means billions in EU recovery funds are likely to remain frozen this year.
Then there’s the Trump factor. Orbán likes to boast about his closeness with the US president. He was the first European leader to endorse Trump in 2016 and again in 2024. But that friendship is becoming less useful.
Unless the EU manages to negotiate a trade deal with Washington, Trump’s punitive new tariffs would hit Hungary’s growth engine especially hard, affecting demand from Europe (particularly Germany) and products ranging from lithium-ion batteries (which make up almost 20% of the country's US exports) to electronic, manufactured goods, and even high-quality wines. Orbán has downplayed the damage, insisting Trump’s tariffs are no big deal – and even floating the fantasy that he could leverage his closeness with Trump to strike his own bilateral deal … despite the tiny issue that EU countries have no capacity to bypass the bloc’s common trade policy.
The White House has also made it clear it’s not inclined to give its pal a pass, especially given the growing suspicion with which defense and trade hawks within the administration view Orbán’s pro-China orientation. In fact, Washington is pushing Budapest to ramp up defense spending to 5% of GDP, buy more weapons and LNG from the US, and distance itself from Beijing at a time when economic conditions are making Hungary more financially dependent on China.
And so, Viktor Orbán is boxed in: squeezed by a surging domestic challenger, trapped by an overextended fiscal policy, cut off from EU funds, and now caught in the undertow of his ally’s protectionist turn in Washington.
Don’t call it a comeback
You might think this spells good news for Europe. Facing his most difficult year since first coming to power, the bloc’s preeminent internal antagonist will have a more limited ability to hijack the EU agenda or undermine European unity on Russia sanctions and Ukraine support in concert with Trump. Sure, if you’re laying odds, it’s still Orbán’s election to lose … but Hungary’s at least in play now. It’s welcome news for Brussels.
Some have gone further, though, pointing to recent centrist electoral wins against right-wing populists with explicitly Trumpian politics in Canada and Australia as evidence of a broader anti-Trump effect being in full swing. If Trump’s disruptive return to the spotlight is causing voters to “rally around the flag” of stability, then perhaps Orbán’s troubles are a sign that Europe is finally sobering up from its populist binge – that the chaos and corruption of his and Trump’s style has worn thin, and European voters are turning back toward sanity and moderation.
But that reading overlooks the fact that the anti-Trump bump isn't holding in Europe. If anything, the tide of right-wing populism on the continent is accelerating.
Take Romania. George Simion, an ultranationalist firebrand with a MAGA streak, is now the favorite to beat Bucharest’s pro-Western centrist mayor, Nicușor Dan, in the May 18 presidential runoff election following the collapse of the country’s pro-EU governing coalition yesterday. Simion outperformed expectations in the first-round vote last Sunday after openly embracing Trump-style politics, railing against the EU, and even welcoming American CPAC chair Matt Schlapp to the campaign trail. He is campaigning alongside Calin Georgescu, another far-right candidate whose first-round presidential election win last November was annulled by Romania’s top court due to likely Russian interference. (A massive online influence campaign tied to the Kremlin seems to have helped Simion, too.)
Across the English Channel, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party delivered a political gut-punch to the mainstream last Friday, flipping a historically safe Labor parliamentary seat in a by-election and racking up wins in local council elections. The Labor-Tory duopoly that’s dominated British politics for over a century suddenly looks wobbly – and Farage, a leading Brexit advocate and perennial Trump ally, is at the center of the storm.
Even in places where centrists are supposed to be on solid ground, the far right is gaining. In Poland, the ruling Law and Justice party is leaning into its Trump ties to boost its presidential hopeful, Karol Nawrocki. Recent polling shows Nawrocki closing in on centrist opponent Rafał Trzaskowski ahead of elections on May 18. He flew to Washington last week to meet with Trump-affiliated figures, hoping to ride the same anti-establishment wave to victory.
Meanwhile, in Germany, center-right leader Friedrich Merz squeaked into the chancellorship on a second vote after an embarrassing initial flop yesterday. With the hard-right, MAGA-endorsed Alternative für Deutschland continuing to rise, the conservative chancellor once viewed as the establishment’s answer to the populist surge now leads a wounded and weakened “grand coalition” that feels anything but grand.
All of which is to say: Orbán may be stumbling, but his current woes are less a sign of waning populism or an anti-Trump backlash across Europe than a story of one populist’s bad bets coming due. We could be entering a world where Budapest becomes less of a thorn in Brussels’ side than before. But if European centrists think that’ll be the end of their troubles, they’re in for a rude awakening. Far-right European populism is not going anywhere.
But it has reduced cause for panic, in part because Trump stated a commitment of the United States to the basic alliance, to the security umbrella, to defending Canada as necessary, which was something he wasn't saying over the past few months with Justin Trudeau. He clearly likes Carney more than Trudeau, which is not surprising because that bar is pretty much on the floor. And also stopped with the governor speak, which is clearly disrespectful, but did push on the 51st state issue, and how much better it would be for Canada if they were actually a part of the United States, not that he intends to take it over militarily, but rather something he's going to keep talking about.
And Carney didn't interrupt Trump when he was going on and on, talking about that, but then responded with his best line of the conversation, which is, "I've spent the last couple months going around talking to the owners of Canada, meaning the voters, the citizens of Canada, and it's never, never, never going to happen." Trump says, "Never say never," and they kind of agree to disagree on something they shouldn't be talking about to begin with. But at the end of the day, not much there. The bigger problem, of course, is that there is an incredibly important trade relationship between the US and Canada. And no, it is not true that the US doesn't do much business with Canada. In fact, Canada actually buys more from the United States than any other individual country in the world does. And if you go talk to the governors, the senators, the representatives of all of the northern states that border Canada, they can tell you just how integrated those supply chains are, how essential the Canadian economy is for them.
And some of those are blue states, some of those are red states, and it don't really matter, they all care a lot about their relationship with Canada. So, it is important. But because Trump is individually taking the right to tariff from Congress, where it legally sits, and using legally contestable national emergency clauses to enforce tariffs, impose tariffs on other countries, including those that are governed by pre-existing trade relationships, like Canada, which has a robust USMCA, US-Mexico-Canada agreement, that Trump himself helped drive, negotiate, and trumpeted as a huge win at the time, but now he is singularly undermining it. And what that means is that we are very unlikely to get to a new agreed USMCA in the coming year, despite the utility of renegotiating it with the sunset clause, and instead... look, I don't think anyone's going to run away from it, I don't think it's going to break, instead, it means that every year we're going to kick it down the road and renegotiate so that you can keep it going.
And that means that the Canadians don't feel like they have a functional multilateral trade arrangement with the US and Mexico, that also means, because the US president can change it at any moment he wishes, and also that an enormous amount of time is going to be spent in those negotiations, not just now, but every year, creating more uncertainty for those that need to want to rely on the long-term stability of that trade relationship. And here is the rub, which is that the US-Canada relationship will stay important, it'll stay robust, but it will become more transactional, where it had been built on trust and shared values, and that means the Canadians will work really hard to hedge and de-risk their relations from their most important trading partner.
About 75% of Canadian trade is with the United States right now, they rely much more on the US than the Americans rely on Canada, Trump is absolutely right about that, but they now see that as a vulnerability. And for the last 40 years, the Canadians, really since '88, '89, the Canadians have focused singularly on increasing their interdependence with the United States. They built out all of this infrastructure from the provinces, not east-west, but rather north-south. If you look at the way that rail transit, and energy infrastructure, and supply chains work in Canada, it's as if these provinces were independent republics set up to do business just with the United States, not focused on what would make sense for an independent sovereign Canada over the long term, if that relationship suddenly were ruptured.
Well, that needs to change, and that's something that you're going to see the Canadians work very strongly on over the coming years. Easier for Carney to do, because his relationships internationally are much stronger than previous Canadian prime ministers, certainly generationally, if you think about the fact that he was Central Bank governor in the UK, and that one of his best international relationships is actually with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and others and others, I think you're going to see a very strong effort to work with the UK, to work with the Commonwealth, to work with the EU, and to help shift those trade flows over time to hedge further away from the US.
And the costs of that will be significant, the impact of the trade rupture in the near term will be a major recession in Canada imminently, and a mild recession in the United States imminently as well, but over the long term, my view is no one benefits from that.
So, that's the main takeaway, a little less theatric maybe than the internet, apologies for that, but it is the way I see it, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
A damaged portion of Bilal Mosque is seen after it was hit by an Indian strike in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, on May 7, 2025.
It was never going to end quietly: India early on Wednesday bombed what it said were nine militant sites within Pakistan and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, reportedly killing at least 26 people in the worst clash between the two countries in decades.
Warning signs. India launched the strikes in retaliation for a terrorist rampage in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir last month. Pakistan says it had nothing to do with that attack.
Pakistani response now inbound. Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called the Indian airstrikes an “act of war,” and has reportedly authorized the military to respond in kind.
Reaction from abroad. Major countries including the US, Japan, France, and China – which has close ties to Pakistan but borders both countries – called for restraint. Israel notably issued its unequivocal support for India and its right to self defense.
What will happen next? “Pakistan has traditionally responded with a tit for tat response, normally a bombing run on a minor target on Indian soil,” said Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Eurasia Group’s South Asia practice head. However, Chaudhuri doesn’t expect the fighting to last long.
“Both sides are nuclear armed, neither has overwhelming military dominance and both lack the economic or political interest in a sustained conflict,” said Chaudhuri. “These skirmishes tend to die out within 24 to 48 hours.”