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 }}
Does Trump's campus crackdown violate the First Amendment?
The Trump administration says it's defending free speech by confronting liberal bias on college campuses—but is it doing the opposite? On GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters explains how the administration’s focus on elite universities has led to sweeping actions that may ultimately restrict speech, especially for foreign-born students. “These are not students who smashed windows or assaulted security guards,” Peters says. “It’s pretty hard to see how the administration can make the case that these people are national security threats.”
And the impact is already being felt. Peters points to advice from university officials telling students to avoid posting on social media out of fear that political expression might jeopardize their legal status. In Trump’s America, he argues, the First Amendment is being selectively applied—and for some communities, the price of speaking out may be higher than ever.
Watch full episode: The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
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.
The battle for free speech in Donald Trump's America
In the United States, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro argues that institutions once devoted to open inquiry are increasingly undermining that mission. “Universities have forgotten their basic responsibilities,” he says, citing unequal rule enforcement and what he calls an “illiberalism” that predates Trump but has intensified with political polarization. Shapiro supports the Trump administration’s aggressive scrutiny of elite universities but warns that some immigration-related free speech crackdowns risk overreach: “I'd prefer the administration go after clear immigration violations, not rely on vague designations like ‘harmful to foreign policy.’”
Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters warns that the Trump administration’s tactics may do more harm than good. “Rather than executing clean policies that defend free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” Peters points to a growing “chilling effect,” especially among international students, who are now being advised to self-censor for fear of legal consequences. Both guests agree that university culture has played a role in the current crisis, but they differ sharply on whether the government’s response is upholding or threatening the First Amendment.
In America’s culture wars, free speech is no longer just a right—it’s a weapon, and both sides are wielding it.
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.
Free speech in Trump's America with NYT journalist Jeremy Peters and conservative scholar Ilya Shapiro
Listen: Free speech has become one of the most contentious issues in American politics, but what does it actually mean today? On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro of the Manhattan Institute and New York Times free speech reporter Jeremy Peters. They discuss how free expression is being defined—and challenged—on university campuses and by the Trump administration, particularly when it comes to national immigration policy. “The dynamic of ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ is prevalent,” Shapiro warns, pointing to inconsistent enforcement of campus speech rules and a broader “illiberalism” taking hold in higher education.
The conversation turns to the Trump administration’s aggressive response to Israel/Gaza protests, including efforts to penalize non-citizen students for their political speech. Peters cautions that this approach may violate the very rights the administration claims to defend. “Rather than execute a clean policy to support free speech,” he says, “they’re using blunt force to try to deport people who didn’t do anything terribly wrong.” The potential legal battles ahead could determine how far the government can go in defining speech as a national security issue, especially for non-citizens.
Both guests acknowledge that antisemitism on campus has become a flashpoint, but differ on how it’s being addressed. Shapiro argues that while not all anti-Israel sentiment is antisemitic, many protesters are crossing that line: “It’s possible to be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic, but it’s very rare in my experience.” Peters agrees the issue is complex and evolving, noting that universities “seem much more focused on preventing antisemitism than they were just a year ago.” Together, the guests raise urgent questions about the balance between expression, identity, and institutional responsibility in a sharply divided political landscape.
How did 'free speech' become a partisan weapon in America?
In the United States today, the right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean everyone agrees on what it looks like in practice. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer opens with a landmark case: when neo-Nazis won the right to march through a Holocaust survivor community in Skokie, Illinois. The decision was controversial but helped define modern free speech as “ugly, uncomfortable, and messy,” yet fundamental to American democracy. Today, that foundational idea is once again being tested—on college campuses, in immigration courts, and in the rhetoric of both political parties.
Republicans have embraced free speech as a culture war rallying cry, using it to combat what they see as liberal censorship on college campuses and social media. Donald Trump even signed an executive order on his first day back in office aimed at curbing government interference in free speech. But Democrats argue that the same administration is now weaponizing federal power, targeting foreign students, threatening university funding, and punishing dissenting voices in ways that undermine the very freedoms it claims to defend.
Both parties claim to be protecting free speech, just not the same kind.
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.
France National Front presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen addresses a political rally in Lille on Feb. 25, 2007.
Father of the French far right dies
Jean-Marie Le Pen, whose ultranationalist and conservative views enraged millions but also shaped the contemporary French political scene, died on Tuesday at 96.
Le Pen was a far-right fixture of French politics for nearly five decades as a legislator in the French and European parliaments, and as founder and leader of the National Front party, which he founded in the early 1970s.
What were his politics? A theatrical orator and a fierce opponent of immigration – he sought the “purification” of France and a return to traditional Catholic values – Le Pen’s rhetoric often veered towards xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and antisemitism. At least half a dozen times he was convicted of either inciting racial hatred or denying the Holocaust.
And yet, beginning in the 1970s, he, along with anti-tax advocate Pierre Poujade, amassed a dedicated following among a slice of the French public who resented the governing elite, struggled with economic hardship, and viewed immigration from France’s former colonies in Africa and the Middle East as a threat to their livelihoods and French culture.
Le Pen ran for the presidency five times. He never won but he came closest to the prize in 2002, when he made it to a runoff against Jacques Chirac, taking nearly 20% of the vote.
Ultimately, his more extreme rhetoric came to cap the appeal of his party. When his daughter, Marine, inherited the organization from him 15 years ago, it was something she sought to address.
“He gave her a family business,” says Mujtaba Rahman, managing director of Europe at Eurasia Group. “But she had to change the brand.”
While she kept the focus on limiting immigration and protecting French cultural values, she distanced herself from his antisemitic and homophobic rhetoric, expelling him from the party, and changing the name to National Rally.
The party has surged in popularity in recent years. Politics in France – as elsewhere in Europe and the US – have shifted rightward in ways that were hard to imagine even during the height of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s polarizing influence in the early 2000s.
In 2022, Marine got more than 40% of the vote in the presidential runoff against Emmanuel Macron. And last summer, National Rally won the first round of France’s snap elections outright for the first time.
Le Pen’s legacy continues to polarize French politics. Far-right TV host and former presidential candidate Eric Zemmoursaid Le Pen “was among the first to alert France to the existential threats that awaited it.” Far-left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon, meanwhile, said that “the fight against the man is over” but that “the fight against the hatred, racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism that he spread continues.” Macron, for his part, said Le Pen’s legacy “is now a matter for history to judge."Shaar Liva Hebrew school and synagogue are operating in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on August 17, 2024
HARD NUMBERS: Jewish orgs get mass threat, Canada’s inflation keeps falling, Harris’ fundraising dwarfs Trump’s, US jobs numbers revised downward
100: More than 100 Jewish institutions across Canada received an identical bomb threat early Wednesday. The email warned of explosions at synagogues, community centers, and hospitals in Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal. Authorities are investigating but said the risk was “low.” A recent poll showed a quarter of Canadians consider antisemitism a “serious problem.” Last year, attacks on Jews accounted for 70% of all hate crimes in Canada.
40: Annual inflation in Canada fell to its lowest level in about 40 months in July, as prices grew just 2.5%, down from 2.7% a month earlier. The good news is this gives the Bank of Canada room to continue cutting interest rates at its next rate-setting meeting in September. Markets now expect the regulator to slash rates by another 25 basis points, bringing the benchmark to 3.75%.
4: Good vibes make money, money makes good vibes. Kamala Harris’ main campaign fundraising group brought in four times as much money as her opponent Donald Trump’s in July, raising $204 million to the GOP nominee’s $48 million. The vice president also spent three times more than her rival that month as she looked to get herself on a firm footing after President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the race.
818,000: The US economy created 818,000 fewer jobs than initially reported in the first quarter of this year, according to a regularly scheduled revision of figures released on Wednesday. If this number holds through the next review of these numbers (in February), it would be the largest downward correction for a quarterly jobs number in 15 years. But look for the Trump campaign to hammer Kamala Harris and the White House over this news well before then…U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump smiles during the Suffolk County Republican Committee fundraising reception in Patchogue, New York April 14, 2016.
Hard Numbers: Embarrassing politicians, European antisemitism, Lasers vs. drones, Inflationary surprise, Bear attacks, Rouen spire blaze
63: A new poll from Pew Research finds that 63% of voters describe bothJoe Biden and Donald Trump as “embarrassing.” Some supporters – 37% of Biden supporters and 33% of Trump supporters – say their own candidate is embarrassing.
75: A new survey from the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency has found a surge in antisemitism in Europe. In particular,75% of the Jewish Europeans interviewed said they felt they were held responsible for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza because they are Jewish.
1.50: South Korea’s government announced Thursday it will deploy a laser weapons system to intercept North Korean drones, which have created recent headaches for the country’s security. The lasers in question will reportedly cost about$1.50 per shot.
3: US inflation in June eased more than economists expected, extending a recent slowdown in price increases and feeding speculation that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates this fall. The consumer-price index rose3% year on year.
219: The first four months of this year saw a record219 bear attacks in Japan. Six of them were fatal. In response, Japan’s government reportedly plans to revise poaching laws to lift some restrictions that ban hunters from shooting bears.
70: The spire of a famous Gothic cathedral in the French city of Rouen caught fire on Thursday. Thankfully, about70 firefighters were able to contain the blaze. This spire appeared in a number of paintings by impressionist Claude Monet, and between 1876 and 1880 the church was the world’s tallest building.
Café Esplanade, a fancy coffee shop that was designed by a celebrated modernist architect and frequented by many from Brno’s once-thriving Jewish community.
OPINION: Stop with the “1930s” stuff
A few weeks ago, I was standing on a little triangle of clumpy, unkempt grass between two plastic garbage cans and an electrical transformer on a street corner in Brno, the second-largest city in the Czech Republic.
Before World War II, this little patch of grass was the site of the Café Esplanade, a fancy coffee shop designed by a celebrated modernist architect, where the cream of Brno’s once-thriving Jewish community would go to read the papers, chat, and smoke. Later, they would begin to speak in hushed voices about what was going on next door in Germany and Austria.
One afternoon, in August 1939, a few months after the Nazis had taken full control of Czechoslovakia, a mob of Czech fascists, eager to impress their new Aryan overlords, stormed the cafe. They ransacked it, savagely beating the Jews they found there, killing at least one of them. Two years later, most of the survivors would be rounded up and deported to their deaths.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the story of the Esplanade, as a growing number of influential voices tell us that the current situation on American college campuses – where student-run Gaza Solidarity encampments and their supporters have clashed verbally and in some cases physically with some Jewish students and professors – is “like the 1930s.”
Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu said it. This week, CNN anchor Dana Bash echoed it. Lots of less prominent voices are making the same comparison now. A woman at the recent United for Israel March at Columbia University told me the school itself had become “like 1939 Germany, and I don’t say that lightly.”
I don’t say this lightly either: Get a hold of yourselves.
There have certainly been incidents of overt antisemitism on college campuses. Some of them have been violent. This tracks a broader rise in antisemitic hate crimes in America, a trend matched by rising Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian violence as well. (Why should we distinguish between Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian violence? Read my friend Hani Sabra’s superb essay on that.)
But the “1930s”?
Let’s take a look at what was actually happening around the time that those Czech fascist goons showed up at the Esplanade.
A fanatically antisemitic government had, for six years already, been in control of the largest country in Europe. It had passed laws to discriminate against Jews, extended those laws to two other countries that it annexed (Czechoslovakia being one of them, Austria the other), and had already begun mobilizing paramilitary forces to destroy Jewish businesses and murder their owners.
There was a massive refugee crisis as hundreds of thousands of Jews tried, mostly in vain, to flee the Third Reich. In Berlin, meanwhile, the government was already readying plans to expel or murder millions more.
Does that really seem like an accurate comparison for 2020s America, where state and local authorities have, by contrast, deployed police to clear and arrest thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters who broke campus rules and, in some instances, harassed Jewish students? Are we really two or three years away from fanatical antisemites taking control of our country and sending the armed forces to beat, rob, and kill Jews? The US House of Representatives this week passed, with overwhelming bipartisan support, a bill to combat antisemitism that is so vaguely worded that it has raised First Amendment concerns. This is not the 1930s.
Many Jews are understandably alarmed and upset by what is happening on campuses across America. The sight of Jews encountering antisemitic discrimination or violence of any kind can trigger a deep fear, rooted in real historical experience. To deny or minimize any of that is its own form of anti-Jewish bigotry. Columbia and other schools are already facing a number of lawsuits over their alleged failure to adequately protect minority groups – including both Jews and Palestinians – during this period.
But the problem with the 1930s comparison isn’t just that it’s historically inaccurate, or that it trivializes and exploits the oppression and murder of millions of people, or that it’s an exaggeration that risks draining words of their urgency and their meaning.
It’s that it further poisons an already toxic, zero-sum discourse and deliberately opens the way to more violence. After all, if we are really in the anteroom of a second Holocaust, don’t existential threats call for extreme measures?
If you think so, let me invite you for a coffee at the Esplanade.