Philippa Kaur

Elon Musk has been steadily expanding his political influence since being designated a “special government employee” by United States President Donald Trump in January.

Appointed to lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has moved to transform government operations by pushing for mass layoffs of government employees and attempting to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Musk’s ruthless drive for efficiency has served him exceptionally well at Space X and Tesla, but can the same approach work in government where the stakes are much higher and services are more closely tied to people’s lives?

Unlike in the private sector, where streamlining operations typically affect employees and investors, cuts to government programs can disrupt essential services and impact millions of people globally.

Governments aren’t tech startups

Musk’s entrepreneurial results are indisputable — he has founded and taken startups from the very beginning to unimaginable heights, multiple times, often at the same time. To do so, he has been ruthless with respect to efficiency.

Walter Isaacson’s biography on Elon Musk dedicates numerous chapters to his approach to designing efficient process and systems — an area of study covered by industrial and systems engineering.

Musk’s approach is extremely disruptive. When analyzing a set of tasks to accomplish a goal, his default is to eliminate as many of them as possible, striving to overcut by at least 10 per cent. If he doesn’t return 10 per cent of the tasks to the process afterwards, not enough were cut in the first place. In Musk’s “productivity algorithm,” not cutting enough tasks is an error to avoid.

Workers install lighting on an ‘X’ sign atop the downtown San Francisco building that housed what was formally known as Twitter, rebranded X by owner Elon Musk, in July 2023.
(AP Photo/Noah Berger)

It’s true that eliminating waste is foundational to industrial and systems engineering. It’s an approach often associated with the Lean production philosophy, which has its roots in post-war Japan. A fundamental tenant of Lean is that waste should be identified by workers and leaders should support them in eliminating wasteful tasks. Unlike Musk’s top-down productivity algorithm, it’s designed to be a bottom-up approach.

Musk’s approach was developed for tech startups where failing is expected, common and largely inconsequential to everyone but stockholders. If SpaceX doesn’t get humans to Mars, it’s inconsequential for most people. If Tesla, PayPal or Twitter/X fail, alternatives would fill the void.

However, this model doesn’t easily translate to government, where failure has more direct, far-reaching consequences on people’s lives.

People are not tasks

Musk’s efficiency-driven approach has had a notable impact on the companies he’s led. Shortly after taking over Twitter/X, Musk went from eliminating tasks to eliminating people. Over the course of roughly a year, Musk laid off approximately 80 per cent of Twitter’s staff.

Since identifying “wasteful” employees is more complex than cutting unnecessary tasks, new tools were needed. Software engineers were asked to submit code for evaluation, but when this didn’t result in deep enough cuts, employees were given an ultimatum: those who didn’t opt in to keep their jobs would be fired, placing the onus on workers to declare their willingness to stay.

A similar approach was used at the FBI in February. In an email, Musk instructed federal workers to explain what they had done in the past week with a warning that non-responses would be treated as a resignation. In less than 48 hours, this was quashed and responses were made voluntary.

The FBI headquarters building in Washington, D.C., in December 2024.
(AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

This startup mentality of “failing fast” also didn’t translate well at the National Nuclear Security Administration, where a rapid round of firings led to concerns that national security was being jeopardized. Within 48 hours, most of the firings were rescinded and 322 of 350 fired employees were hired back.

Similarly, at USAID, DOGE-led firings “accidentally” cut Ebola prevention during an outbreak in Uganda — a mistake that could have had catastrophic consequences.

Musk’s flawed productivity algorithm

One of the flaws in Musk’s efficiency algorithm applied to people is the assumption that fired employees can always be rehired if needed. But people are not tasks that can be removed and replaced without consequence.

The National Nuclear Security Administration struggled to contact dismissed personnel. At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, one fired scientist said “they were not sure if they wanted to return,” with one asking: “How are you going to be able to hire good people when you’re not offering Silicon Valley stock or pay, and you’ve taken away their stability?”

While this method may have worked in the fast-paced, high-reward world of tech startups, its application in government has been chaotic at best and dangerous at worst. Furthermore, early reports indicate the cuts are hardly making an impact on spending.

No luxury of trial and error

Lean manufacturing has often been described as transformative and credited with turning ailing companies into fierce streamlined competitors, but Musk’s version of efficiency engineering lacks consideration of long-term consequences.

Even apostles of Lean would not call it disruptive or take an overzealous “shoot first and ask questions later” approach. Efficiency is not synonymous with cutting; it should be implemented with foresight, careful attention to value creation and consultation with those involved.

Musk’s approach to government so far seems more like the merciless corporate downsizer that George Clooney plays in Up in the Air than any real-life efficiency pioneers like Henry Ford, Joseph Juran or Apple CEO Tim Cook.

Government agencies don’t operate like tech startups, public servants are not tasks and public services don’t have the luxury of trial and error when national security or public health are on the line. More

As promised, the second Trump administration has quickly rolled out a slew of policies and executive orders that the president says are all aimed at “Making America Great Again.” This takes on different forms, including Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency quickly laying off thousands of workers at various federal agencies, and President Donald Trump pausing all funding for Ukraine.

Trump says that, among others, there are three groups that are making America not-great: immigrants, people with disabilities, and people who are committed to diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

These administration efforts began at a time when many Americans expressed an overall rising sense of dissatisfaction with the state of the country and politics. Just 19% of Americans said in December 2024 that they think the country is heading in the right direction.

This perspective is striking not only because it is so dark, but because it strongly resembles how Americans felt during a pivotal decade 100 years ago, when people’s dissatisfaction with the state of the country led to a series of discriminatory, hateful policies by the federal government.

It’s a period of American history that I think offers something of a mirror of the current political situation in the U.S.

A registry room is seen at Ellis Island in New York Harbor in 1924.
Associated Press

The Roaring ‘20s?

In the 1920s, the economy was good, the U.S. had won World War I, and a terrible pandemic ended.

But many Americans did not see it that way.

They entered the 1920s with a growing sense of paranoia and a feeling that they had been robbed of something. Winning World War I had come at a terrible cost. More than 116,000 American soldiers died and twice that number came home wounded.

As the war came to a close, the U.S. – and the world – was in the throes of the flu pandemic that ultimately claimed tens of millions of lives, including about 675,000 in the U.S.

Other Americans were concerned about the possible rise of communism in the U.S., as well as the arrival of many immigrants. This led extremists to introduce and implement hate-based policies at the federal and state level that targeted nonwhite immigrants and disabled people.

Among the most significant results of that political moment was the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, a restrictive immigration policy that, among other changes, prohibited immigration from Asia.

Another pivotal movement was the Supreme Court’s 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, which affirmed that the state of Virginia had the right to sterilize intellectually and developmentally disabled people.

Discrimination against marginalized groups

The Johnson-Reed Act prompted a major shift in American immigration policy, based on the fear of something that former President Theodore Roosevelt and others called “race suicide.”

The law introduced rigid restrictions keeping people out of the country who were not from Northern and Western Europe. The immigration quotas that it established would continue to be enforced into the 1960s.

The U.S. politicians who lobbied for this law were successful because they supported their effort by presenting evidence that showed purportedly scientific proof that almost all people in the world were biologically inferior to a group they called the Nordic Race – meaning people from Northern Europe – and their American descendants, who formed a group they called the “American Race.”

By restricting immigration from all other groups, these legislators believed they were counterbalancing a crushing period where war and pandemic had killed off what they saw as the country’s best people.

Different groups preyed on Americans’ grief about the war and pandemic and directed it against minority groups.

Ku Klux Klan members parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington on Aug. 8, 1925.
Bettmann/Contributor

From Maine to California, a revived Ku Klux Klan attracted millions of followers with its belief that white people were superior to all others, and that Black people should remain enslaved. At the same time, a group of scientists, doctors and psychologists found enormous success in persuading the public that there were scientific reasons why hatred and discrimination needed to be incorporated into American government.

Their proof was something called eugenics, a pseudoscience which argued that humans had to use advanced technology and medicine to get people with good traits to reproduce while stopping those with bad traits from having the opportunity to do so.

Harry Laughlin, a eugenicist based at a research laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, was one of this movement’s most vocal representatives.

Laughlin worked for several different eugenics research organizations, and this helped him become successful at creating propaganda supporting eugenics that influenced public policy. He then gained a spot as an expert eugenics adviser to Congress in the early 1920s. With his position, Laughlin then provided the pseudoscientific data that gave the supporters of Johnson-Reed the claims they needed to justify passing the measure.

Carrie Buck, left, pictured with her mother, Emma, was the first woman involuntarily sterilized under Virginia law in the 1920s.
M.E. Grenander Special Collections and Archives, University at Albany

A push for sterilization

In Laughlin’s influential 1922 book “Eugenic Sterilization in the United States,” he detailed a road map for passing a law that would allow governments to sterilize disabled people.

After so much death during World War I and the influenza pandemic, Laughlin found fertile ground for making a case that the U.S. needed to stop people who might be considered “feeble-minded” from passing down inferior traits.

In the mid-1920s, Laughlin and his allies pressed a court case against a teenage woman whom the state of Virginia had deemed an imbecile and incarcerated at a massive Virginia institution for the feeble-minded. This woman, Carrie Buck, was incarcerated after she gave birth to a child in 1924 who was conceived as a result of rape. If Buck, who was 18 years old at the time, had any hope of being released, the officials who ran the institution demanded she be sterilized first.

All across the country, states had begun legalizing forced sterilization. Now, this case of Buck v. Bell made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1927, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. issued the court’s ruling, which had only one dissent. In it, he wrote that “three generations of imbeciles is enough” and extended the scope of a previous ruling that allowed the government to compel people to get vaccinated to include forced sterilization of disabled people.

Buck was forcibly sterilized in October 1927, shortly after the court’s ruling.

While it is unquestionable that sterilization and other discriminatory policies found common cause with Adolf Hitler’s rising Nazi movement – which used the eugenic ideas of sterilization and mass extermination – they persisted, largely unchallenged, here in the U.S.

Some people, including myself, argue that the spirit of these discriminatory policies still exists in the U.S. today.

A familiar story

Following stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the American economy has been growing.

But sensing a grave decline, some white Americans have turned their sights on people with disabilities, immigrants, transgender and nonbinary people, and people of color as the source of their problems.

Trump regularly encourages this kind of thinking. In January 2025, he blamed an air collision that occurred over the Potomac River and killed 67 people on disabled Federal Aviation Administration employees, implying that they did not possess the intelligence to do their jobs.

Trump falsely said the Jan. 1, 2025, New Orleans terror attack was caused by illegal immigration, even though a Texas-born man drove a car into a crowd of people, killing 14.

At a policy level, Trump’s administration has made significant changes to the immigration system, including taking steps to remove legal protections for 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants in the U.S. And he has launched an unprecedented challenge to birthright citizenship.

There are limits to what history can say about the current situation. But these similarities with the early 1920s suggest that, contrary to many claims about the unprecedented nature of the current times, the country has been here before. More

After publicly belittling Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in a White House meeting, Donald Trump has suspended US military aid to Ukraine and paused intelligence sharing. It is now clear that Ukraine is in trouble in both its political and military situations, and the latter will only worsen as the effects of the US aid suspension hit.

Trump’s outburst has, to some extent, reinvigorated European support for the war-torn country. But Zelensky’s recent statement that “Ukraine is ready to negotiate about an end to the conflict” suggests that he recognises how precarious the situation has become.

In Trump’s address to the US Congress on February 4, the US president welcomed this shift, and claimed that Russia was also ready for a truce.

What would a negotiated peace look like? The side that holds the upper hand, both politically and militarily, will have a stronger position at the negotiating table.

At the moment, the advantage is overwhelmingly with Russia, which is striving to press home its battlefield advantage and occupy as much territory as it can before a potential ceasefire. This is likely to mean a freezing of the conflict on its current lines of contact.

The war has now lasted more than three years, and since Ukraine’s failed summer 2023 counteroffensive, there have been no major changes on the battlefield, except for Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region in August 2024. Kyiv had hoped that seizing this territory could serve as a bargaining chip in future peace negotiations.

But even this has not gone according to plan, as Russia has been steadily reclaiming the area, aided by North Korean troops.

Recent battlefield developments reaffirm the ongoing stalemate. According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) (as of March 4), Russian forces continued offensives along various key strategic points in the east and south. While Russian advances continue to be slow, it’s a situation that could change quickly, particularly with the dramatic shutdown of US assistance.

One of the key areas where Russia is now putting intense pressure on Ukrainian troops is in the Kherson oblast in the south of the country. Russian forces are reportedly attempting to cross the Dnipro river, aiming to establish footholds on the west (right) bank at four locations to allow them a clear run at the strategically important port city of Kherson.

Russia has successfully negotiated river crossings during the three-year war, but this time, the situation seems more challenging. Recent reporting from the frontlines has described Russian assaults on Dnipro crossings as “suicide missions”, causing heavy Russian casualties.

A high Russian body count is nothing new in this conflict. But why is Russia willing to sacrifice so many of its soldiers, particularly when the political prospects favour Putin and the Russians?

Oleksandr Prokudin, the governor of Kherson, suggests that Russia is desperate to establish a foothold as crossing the Dnipro would open up Kherson oblast for further advances and could be used in negotiations to strengthen Russia’s claim over the entire region. The occupation of Kherson was listed by Russian defence minister, Andrei Belousov, as a key strategic goal for 2025.

Strategic barrier

Crossing the Dnipro will not be easy. Ukraine has tried and failed in the opposite direction on several occasions for example, in April and August 2023.

At that stage, as part of the (ultimately unsuccessful) spring-summer offensive, Kyiv hoped crossing the river would be a major breakthrough that would lead to easier access to Crimea. This now looks like a lost cause – at least militarily.

State of the conflict in Ukraine, March 5 2024.
Institute for the Study of War

The Dnipro is not only a natural barrier dividing the country into two parts. It’s also vital as a transport artery through the country and its dams provide energy.

Russia realises this, and it has seen the river as one of Ukraine’s “centres of gravity”. On day one of the invasion, Russian forces made a beeline for the Dnipro, crossing and taking up positions that they were later forced to abandon as Ukraine fought back.

Now, as Prokudin observed, Russia is once again throwing its troops at the river. A series of assaults in December 2024 were successfully repelled, but things have changed even in the few months since. Ukraine is in an increasingly difficult position.

Ukraine’s military is facing increasingly critical troop shortages and has a far smaller population to draw on than Russia – something which is beginning to tell.

And each day seems to bring further bad news. The US decision to pause intelligence sharing will mean its forces in the field will be virtually deaf and blind and at the mercy of Russian attacks on their positions (although there is reason to believe the pause may be reasonably shortlived).

But, with the decision to halt military aid, it’s an indication of the Trump administration’s determination to force Kyiv into a peace deal – whether or not it’s acceptable to Ukraine.

At this stage it looks almost inevitable that Ukraine will be unable to reclaim all the territory it has lost to Russia since 2014. Its best chance may be to secure what it still does control and go all-out to prevent further Russian advances. One of the ways it needs to do that right now is to ensure Russia does not establish a foothold across the Dnipro river. More

It’s hard to keep track of US President Donald Trump’s many notable acts since returning to the White House. His recent pro-Russia stance on the war in Ukraine has, rightly, received a lot of attention.

But for every big moment, there are others that fly under the radar. One such issue is the politicisation of the Department of Justice (DoJ).

Although there is longstanding precedent that the DoJ remains politically neutral in its operations, recent events have indicated a dramatic break from that tradition.

And, importantly, Trump has been laying the groundwork to justify this for nearly two years, using a propaganda tactic that’s been employed by authoritarian governments throughout history.

Strategic sidelining

The current administration has attempted to fire or sideline anyone at the DoJ who was involved with prior investigations and prosecutions of the now-president.

This includes special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into several aspects of Trump’s wrongdoing, which have since ended. Several lawyers have been fired, ostensibly because “the Acting Attorney-General does not trust these officials to assist in faithfully implementing the President’s agenda”.

This action is not only vindictive, but likely designed to intimidate would-be investigators and make them think twice before further examining any wrongdoing by Trump or his associates.

Equally noteworthy has been the department’s attempts to drop corruption charges against New York mayor Eric Adams.
The official reason is that pursuing the charges might “interfere” with Adams’ reelection campaign.

In reality, however, Adams has been accused of cutting a deal with the administration: he agrees to assist with Trump’s immigration crackdown in return for having the charges against him withdrawn (although not dropped entirely).

Adams denies the existence of a quid pro quo, but he did joke about it on national television with Tom Homan, Trump’s “Border Czar”.

So deeply problematic was all this that two US attorneys for the Southern District of New York opted to resign in protest, rather than be party to what they saw as a nakedly corrupt act.

The whole scenario is eerily reminiscent of 1973’s “Saturday Night Massacre”, when President Richard Nixon ordered his Attorney-General Elliot Richardson to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal.

Nixon eventually had his way, but not before refusals and resignations from both Richardson, and the Deputy Attorney-General William Ruckleshaus.

But, where Nixon’s move dramatically hastened his own downfall, Trump’s actions have barely raised an eyebrow. Why?

The propaganda play

The answer lies in a propaganda technique known as “accusation in a mirror”, which entails accusing one’s opponents of the very wrongdoing one plans to commit.

As one legal scholar explains, it’s:

a rhetorical practice in which one falsely accuses one’s enemies of conducting, plotting, or desiring to commit precisely the same transgressions that one plans to commit against them.

Accusation in a mirror has been used in the past, including in the Rwandan genocide. There, trusted voices claimed the Tutsi wanted to “exterminate” the Hutu. Tragically, it helped bring about the exact opposite circumstance.

Similarly, in February 2022 Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing genocide against Russian-speaking populations in the Donbas region. This baseless accusation provided a justification for invading Ukraine, which mirrored Russia’s own indiscriminate shelling of Ukrainian civilians.

We suggest Trump has been using this technique since he was first criminally indicted, in early 2023, on 34 felony charges related to the falsification of business records. He and his supporters have insisted the department, under President Joe Biden, was “weaponised” against him.

Trump repeatedly claimed those charges – and subsequent indictments – were a politically motivated “witch hunt”. He reiterated these claims in his first speech to Congress.

Many elected Republicans have also supported and amplified that narrative.

These claims of victimhood have helped prime Trump’s base to appraise any subsequent legal scrutiny of him as purely partisan, and therefore invalid.

In reality, the facts were straightforward. Prosecutors were sure there was enough proof to proceed with the case, including evidence Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence, and obstructed attempts to retrieve them.

In a functioning legal system, nobody is “above the law”. This means even former presidents can be prosecuted if there’s enough evidence.

Yet Trump’s accusations of a partisan DoJ completely reframed legitimate investigations into alleged political vendettas. In doing so, it effectively justified his subsequent decisions.

A self-fulfilling prophecy

The idea that “if they did it to me, I’m entitled to do it back” was made explicit by Trump in late 2023.

When asked if he would use the DoJ to go after his political rivals, Trump argued he would only be levelling the playing field, stating:

they’ve already done it, but if they want to follow through on this, yeah, it could certainly happen in reverse.

In short, Trump’s false claim of being victimised by a politicised DoJ served as moral cover for his own politicisation of it.

This is a textbook example of how accusation in a mirror can help manufacture the reality it pretends to condemn.

Addressing the problem

This tactic has long been a play by totalitarian and authoritarian leaders.

Foundational propaganda scholars such as Hannah Arendt and Jacques Ellul highlighted how authoritarian rulers often repeat falsehoods – flipping the aggressor and victim – until the masses become desensitised, alienated and confused.

Once enough people believe the system is already corrupt and untrustworthy, they are less likely to be shocked by an actual purge (such as firing DoJ officials).

The implications of such tactics extend internationally, not just to the US.

History cries out to us about the risks of this sort of public discourse. It erodes trust in institutions and liberal democratic processes, paving the road for leaders to undermine them further, corrupting the system in the name of rooting out corruption.

Ultimately, one of the best antidotes is awareness. By exposing these tactics, we can better safeguard against disinformation, protect the rule of law and hold leaders accountable. More

Since commencing his second term as United States president, Donald Trump has distanced the US from Ukraine and warmed relations with Russia.

This presents a predicament for European nations.

A changing landscape

Europe relies on the US for military and technology capability.

The US is responsible for more than a third of the total funds spent on defence worldwide.

It is also a critical member of the NATO security alliance and has more than 80,000 troops on the European continent.

Since January 20, the Trump administration has coupled economic isolationism with a surprisingly interventionist foreign policy agenda.

This is driven by a realist, interests-based approach to political leadership.

Trump’s actions align with a worldview that emphasises material advantage over values and ideas – the interests of great and regional powers are considered to be the only ones that matter.

The heated exchange between Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on February 28 underscored the crumbling architecture and protocols of the international rules-based order in place since the second world war.

It appears the Trump administration may expect unilateral concessions from Ukraine to Russia for peace. This would likely include ceding significant territory to Russia.

Read more:
In siding with Russia over Ukraine, Trump is not putting America first. He is hastening its decline

A rock and a hard place

Ukraine borders four EU and NATO-member countries: Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. This poses a serious security risk.

Europe’s foremost security challenge is to deter Russia from further offensive action on the continent.

European countries have a direct interest in stopping the war, because a continuing conflict presents a costly threat, draining resources in military and humanitarian aid.

According to the Kiel institute for the World Economy, since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, European countries have collectively committed more than $US138 billion ($A222 billion) in military and non-military aid.

European countries want to see an end to the war that leaves Ukraine a safe and sovereign nation state. For European countries, it is crucial that any political settlement effectively deters Russia from further incursions into Ukrainian or Eastern European territory.

Without deterrence measures in place, there is no guaranteed prevention of wider state-to-state conflict on the European continent in future.

On the one hand, Europe needs the US military and economic might. On the other hand, Europe has pressing security concerns that drive a divergence from the US in its position on Ukraine.

How far will Trump go with Russia?

A key question on European leaders’ minds is: will the NATO alliance hold if there is an incursion into NATO-member territory?

If the borders of Poland or a Baltic state are violated, NATO’s article 5 will be triggered. This article requires the collective defense by all NATO allies of any ally under attack.

This could mean the US is obliged to join a direct confrontation with Russia.

Would Trump actually commit US military support to a fight with Russia? Or would the US abandon their NATO treaty obligations?

Trump’s rhetoric and actions so far suggest European countries should prepare for the latter possibility.

Read more:
How Trump’s spat with Zelensky threatens the security of the world – including the US

Strategic autonomy and deterrence

Given this dilemma, Europe needs to focus on strategic autonomy and deterrence.

Strategic autonomy includes not only defence, but also economics, environment, energy and values.

In terms of defence, strategic autonomy means Europe taking more responsibility for its own security. Former European Defence Agency chief Jorge Domecq notes this includes having the ability to “develop, operate, modify and maintain the full spectrum of defence capabilities”.

Effective deterrence of further Russian aggression on the continent requires providing substantive security guarantees to Ukraine. This may include a multilateral security structure for European countries (without the US) that could guarantee Ukraine’s security.

The idea of a European Army has also reemerged. This would go beyond defence cooperation to full military and strategic integration. Such an entity could underpin a European peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

At a summit in London on March 2, EU countries and the UK proposed a one-month truce that could be followed by European troops on the ground in Ukraine to maintain the peace.

What does Ukraine want from Europe?

A Gallup survey in late 2024 suggests the percentage of Ukrainians who want a negotiated end to the war has increased from about 20% in early 2022 to more than 50% in late 2024.

Over the same period, those who favour fighting for a military solution has declined from more than 70% to just under 40%.

The same survey revealed most Ukrainians prefer a key role for the EU in negotiations (70%) and the UK (63%), with less than half preferring a significant role from Trump.

Interestingly, more than 40% supported a central role for Turkey in negotiations.

China: a country to watch

China’s approach to Russia and the war could have an impact on Europe’s security and political stability.

China is mostly concerned with domestic economic growth and regime stability, and it has not directly involved itself in the war in Ukraine.

However, China is a close friend of Russia and a security ally of North Korea, which is currently fighting in the Kursk province of Russia against Ukrainian forces.

In 2023, China put forward its own “peace plan” proposal for Ukraine.

A rapprochement between the US and Russia may be viewed unfavourably by China which could see this as a threat to its own regional geopolitical influence.

China maintains significant influence over Russian President Vladimir Putin due to economic and security ties.

If China senses a fundamental shift in the international order, it may become more assertive in attempting to influence Russia and the trajectory of the war in Ukraine.

For Europe, distancing from the US may mean getting closer to China.

However, this comes with its own risks. More

Ever since Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, stock market expectations have been volatile – driven in part by a healthy dose of motivated reasoning.

At first, markets surged on hopes of lower taxes and deregulation. But this enthusiasm soon faded as announcements about tariffs and stricter immigration policies dampened sentiment. Underscoring that point, on March 3, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 600 points after Trump said that tariffs he had been threatening for weeks would indeed be imposed on Canada and Mexico the following day.

In all of these cases, investors weren’t just reacting to economic fundamentals. They were projecting their own assumptions onto them, helping shape market reality.

Financial forecasting is notoriously tricky, and it’s not easy to separate meaningful data from mere “noise.” But it’s still worth asking: Are American investors ready for a new period of economic and financial turbulence? Will Trump fuel another Wall Street rally? Or will uncertainty drag markets down?

As an economics expert with two decades of experience studying politics and finance, I believe that presidential rhetoric and policies can create uncertainty – and that uncertainty affects the market. Specifically, stock prices tend to rise when companies expect higher profitability and fall when uncertainty outweighs the gains.

Trump’s dramatic policy shifts are already sending mixed signals to the markets. And what happens in the next four years could reshape America’s financial future. Today, more than 60% of Americans are tied to the stock market through retirement and investment accounts, which means the repercussions will go far beyond Wall Street.

How do presidents affect the stock market?

Presidential elections have a well-documented impact on financial markets.

Stocks tend to rally in the weeks leading up to the vote, but risk jumps by about 15% as investors brace for uncertainty. This uncertainty hits some companies harder than others, especially those in politically sensitive industries. Businesses that spend big on lobbying and companies affected by trade or climate policies suffer the most.

Many analysts, particularly those in business or finance, may assume that stock markets would do better under Republican administrations, as their purportedly pro-business, market-friendly policies are bound to improve returns. But history suggests otherwise: Over the past 70 years, markets have delivered 9% higher returns under Democratic than Republican presidencies.

Does that mean Democrats are better at managing the economy? Not necessarily. Research suggests that timing is key. Democrats tend to take office during economic downturns, inheriting markets that are primed for recovery – essentially, to use the parlance of markets, they “buy low.” Following the 2008 financial crisis, for instance, the stock market saw significant gains as the economy gradually recovered under the Obama administration.

Republicans, on the other hand, often inherit strong economies with limited upside, as they tend to assume office during periods of economic growth. This leaves less room for gains, especially when the market is already stable.

Trump, uncertainty and the markets

Markets love stability and predictability. Yet when political shifts introduce volatility, investor confidence – and ultimately stock valuations – can be shaken. Fewer privately held businesses are willing to go public during election years, for example. This suggests that political uncertainty constrains business decisions. Companies that rely heavily on government contracts and international trade are especially susceptible to this effect.

Trump’s policies have already created significant uncertainty, which directly impacts market stability and performance. The recent announcements of tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China led to big market swings, particularly in industries reliant on global supply chains such as tech and manufacturing. Trump temporarily postponed the new tariffs on Mexico and Canada, but the new tariffs on China went into effect as planned – an inconsistency that itself worsened uncertainty. If Trump continues down this path, U.S. companies relying on international trade will be faced with greater uncertainty in an already volatile market.

Immigration is another area in which Trump’s policies could cause uncertainty. Any moves that target illegal immigration or limit foreign workers are likely to hurt industries such as agriculture and tech that rely heavily on workers from abroad. Though some sectors may see benefits from reduced competition, the overall impact on the economy could be to increase market unpredictability.

Besides the president’s policy agenda, another big factor influencing the stock market is the unpredictability of Trump’s statements and actions. A single social media post can send shock waves through industries such as tech, pharma and defense. Similarly, unexpected shifts in policy can lead to rapid stock price declines.

With the beginning of the second Trump term, many Americans – especially those nearing retirement age – are watching closely as the president’s policy agenda takes shape. What it all means for their lives, and how it will affect investments, market stability and broader economic trends, is an open question.

But for investors weighing risk and reward, understanding the interplay between uncertainty, economic policy and market dynamics is essential. A second Trump term has the potential for significant shifts – not just for Wall Street but for the economy as a whole. More

If you want to get an idea of how Donald Trump’s mind works (and this can change from day to day, as we know), it’s worth taking a look at his TruthSocial website. As I write, beneath a video pinned to the top of his feed featuring an AI-generated vision of “Trump Gaza” (complete with casinos, shopping malls and a giant golden statue of the man himself), can be found a clue to the frenetic presidential activity of the past month.

In a post threatening legal action against any writer or publisher whose “Fake books” offends, Trump refers to himself as “a President who is being given credit for having the Best Opening Month of any President in history”. Apparently George Washington is second on that list – and, given that Potus #1 took 33 days to sign the first bill passed under the new US constitution, you could say Potus #47 has left him trailing in his wake.

Of course #47 appears to face fewer constitutional constraints than his illustrious predecessor.

Sadly, though, Trump will be unable to include in this list the deal he has reportedly just struck with Volodymyr Zelensky which swaps a share in Ukraine’s mineral wealth for an as yet unspecified security guarantee.

Precise details of this deal aren’t confirmed. But we’re told that the original US$500 billion (£394 billion) demand has been dropped in return for a share in an investment fund into which Ukraine will contribute 50% of the revenue from its mineral resources. “What better could you have for Ukraine than to be in an economic partnership with the United States?” commented US national security adviser, Mike Waltz.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

But for the sake of social media, a deal’s a deal and can be trumpeted as such. Zelensky is heading to Washington to sign the agreement and we shall find out in due course whether or not this will assure Ukraine’s future security. There is still the actual peace deal with Russia to work out, after all.

Another landmark foreign policy deal brokered by the Trump White House was with the Taliban in 2020 and concerned the future of Afghanistan. And, as Philip A. Berry writes, Zelensky can take little comfort in that.

Berry, a research fellow at King’s College London, who has extensive experience of working with anti-narcotics agencies in Afghanistan, points to similarities in the way Trump managed negotiations with the Taliban and his deal-making with Ukraine and discussions so far with Russia. The Afghan government was largely cut out of the negotiations, as Trump has threatened to do to Ukraine with regards a peace deal. And like the current situation, Trump’s regular public utterances seriously undermined the talks. Berry concludes:

Trump’s Taliban deal excluded the US’s ally, conceded too much to an adversary, and was partly motivated by the perception of wasting American dollars in a far-off land. Unfortunately, these hallmarks are all too evident in the president’s stance on Ukraine. Zelensky can only hope that things work out better this time around.

Read more:
How Trump the ‘master deal-maker’ failed when it came to negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan

Trust will be absolutely vital if the US and Ukraine are to conclude this agreement and, more critically, if they are to reach terms with Russia that will guarantee the “just peace deal” that Zelensky craves, writes David J. Wilcox of the University of Birmingham. Wilcox points to the relationship of trust built by Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s which paved a way for a series of nuclear weapons reduction treaties between the Soviet Union and the US.

It has just been announced that preparations are being made for “expert-level” talks between the US and Russia, but, as Wilcox points out, “any negotiations to end the war will rest ultimately on those two states and their leaders”. And at present, nothing has been publicly said about whether Putin and Zelensky have even agreed to meet.

Read more:
Ukraine war: why negotiations depend on trust

Meanwhile, what do we know about Ukraine’s mineral wealth and what sort of return Trump can expect for the US? Dafydd Townley, an expert in international security at the University of Portsmouth, stresses that Trump’s recent decision to impose punitive tariffs against Beijing has closed off China as a source of key minerals on which the US has been reliant up until now.

It’s a clue, writes Townley, as to why the US president seemed very keen on bringing his deal-making facilities to bear on Greenland, which also has large deposits of desirable minerals.

Interestingly, as Townley points out, Russia has taken control of about 20% of Ukraine’s mineral deposits under the territory it now controls (which America would be open to exploiting according to an offer made by Vladimir Putin’s aides at the recent talks in Saudi Arabia).

It’s also worth noting that Ukraine’s extraction sector has suffered over the past decade from chronic under-investment, thanks to the ongoing hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. As a result it could be some years before the US gets what it needs from the deal it has reportedly struck with Kyiv.

Read more:
Why Trump really wants Ukraine’s minerals — China has put theirs off limits

Three long years

Amid all the shuttle diplomacy and wheeler-dealing taking place around them, at the start of the week the embattled Ukrainian population marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion. They were joined by more than a dozen foreign leaders who gathered in Kyiv to express their continuing support.

Sombre gathering: European leaders in Kyiv mark the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
EPA-EFE/Javad Parsa

As the conflict moves into its fourth year, Stefan Wolff, an international security expert at the University of Birmingham, takes a look at the broader geopolitical implications of the conflict in the era of Trump.

He sees worrying parallels with the Munich conference of 1938 which sealed Czechoslovakia’s fate. Not, as you might expect, in terms of Trump’s apparent appeasement of Putin – but because, like Munich, talks on the fate of a sovereign nation are being held without that nation being present. Wolff writes:

There is every indication that Putin is unlikely to stop in or with Ukraine. And it is worth remembering that the second world war started 11 months after Neville Chamberlain thought he had secured “peace in our time”.

This, of course, is the prospect that has both terrified and stiffened the resolve of Ukraine’s western allies. But Wolff also points to limitations in this analogy, in that he doesn’t believe that Trump is acting out of fear that he is in a weaker position than Putin, as did Neville Chamberlain and the French prime minister Édouard Daladier.

It’s rather that Trump sees himself as part of a triumvirate of world leaders, along with Putin and China’s president, Xi Jinping, who have the opportunity to carve out spheres of influence and establish a new world order based on the exercise of raw power.

Read more:
Ukraine war: Trump is not trying to appease Putin – he has a vision of a new US-China-Russia order

Richard Youngs, meanwhile, sees the dawning of what he calls a “no world order”. Youngs, an international relations expert at the University of Warwick, sees an era of flux, where the stability of the past 80 years is disintegrating without anything stable or concrete to replace it.

Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, with EU commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, and European Council president, Antonio Costa.
EPA-EFE/Ukrainian presidential press service

Several European leaders, including Keir Starmer who is today visiting Trump in Washington, are due to meet this Sunday ahead of a bigger defence summit in Brussels next week, to continue discussions about how to respond to the changing Ukraine situation. Reports suggest a European defence bank or fund that would include the UK may be on the cards.

Youngs certainly believes that European powers will need to consider practical measures in order to bind themselves into more cohesive relationship and ensure their continuing autonomy. One of those will be in boosting their defence capabilities – something that is now gathering pace in the face of US pressure.

But more radical thinking will be needed, writes Youngs, who has coined the term “geoliberalism” as a way of visualising the sort of thinking about the values and certainties that can bind Europe together in the face of global turbulence.

Read more:
No world order: Europe needs more radical thinking for the Trump era

Alex Titov, meanwhile, believes that for all the talk of “deals” to end the violence, both sides have their reasons for wanting to continue, given that their stated positions remain diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.

Russia’s battlefield progress, while steady, is slow and there’s no real prospect of it forcing a capitulation from Kyiv in the next 12 months. But – particularly with the radically different US position under Donald Trump, neither is there any chance of Russia being forced off the territory it has captured. Ominously, Titov concludes, this could mean that “the bloodiest battles of the war are yet to come”.

Read more:
Ukraine war three years on: the bloodiest battles may be still to come

A new way of governing

After a whirlwind first month, Trump held his first cabinet meeting this week, with a special appearance from his right-hand man Elon Musk, who reportedly got to speak more than anyone else. Musk, of course, has been responsible for much of the maelstrom of activity that has caused so much disquiet and is providing a lot of work for lawyers who are pushing back against many of the new adminstration’s measures on the grounds they are unconstitutional.

Special guest star: Elon Musk addresses Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting.
EPA-EFE/Al Drago/pool

Musk, Trump and his vice-president J.D. Vance have, in turn, pushed back against judges who have issued injunctions to either halt or delay some of their measures. Musk, in a fit of pique this week when three judges halted three of the administration’s policies, complained bitterly “What is the point of having democratic elections if unelected activist ‘judges’ can override the clear will of the people? Well, that’s no democracy at all!”

Stephen Lovell, professor of modern history at King’s College London, has been looking at the way that Trump and his team are attempting to bend the US constitution to their will, comparing their approach to that of Vladimir Putin. Putin, as we know, never saw a constitutional loophole he didn’t want to wriggle through or otherwise obliterate.

Read more:
Trump, Putin and the authoritarian take on constitutionalism

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox. More

Canada emerged victorious in the 4 Nations Face-off hockey tournament on Feb. 20, but the event was overshadowed by growing political tensions between Canada and the United States.

In the lead-up to the final game, American fans booed the Canadian national anthem, likely in response to Canadian fans booing the American national anthem ahead of a game between the two teams on Feb. 15.

This was not the first recent airing of grievances from Canadian fans at a sporting event. Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of tariffs against Canada and repeated calls for Canada to become the 51st state, fans at a Toronto Raptors game and Ottawa Senators game booed the American national anthem.

Read more:
How Donald Trump’s attacks on Canada are stoking a new Canadian nationalism

Despite the proposed tariffs being postponed for 30 days, Trump’s antagonistic vision for Canada-U.S. relations has stoked anti-American sentiments among Canadians, including calls to boycott American goods and a deteriorating belief in close Canada-U.S. relations.

Those anti-American sentiments boiled over again when Canada faced the U.S. in Montréal, showcasing how sport can be used as an expression of nationalism — especially at a time of increased tensions between the two countries.

Why sports matter politically

It’s not surprising that sport has become an arena for nationalist political rhetoric. Sport possesses powerful symbolism that can be exploited to great affect in forming a coherent national identity.

In this way, sporting events are a way fandoms can reinforce national identity as an objective symbol that connects to primitive forms of national ideology.

Sport is also a powerful psychological setting for national rhetoric. A person’s social identity, or how they see themselves in relation to others, can be reinforced through sport. This can happen, for instance, when someone views themselves as a member of a team and celebrates their success, or views a rival team or country in a negative light after a loss.

Additionally, the outcome of a game can boost in-group favouritism, which can influence whether consumers buy goods from a specific vendor.

Toronto Raptors forward Bruce Brown, left to right, forward Scottie Barnes and forward Chris Boucher react as fans boo the American national anthem before first half NBA action against the Los Angeles Clippers in Toronto on Feb. 2, 2025.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Frank Gunn

Nationalism versus patriotism

Generally, research suggests sports reinforce a national in-group identity that is more patriotic than nationalistic. However, the vitriol Canadians have expressed during the American national anthem leans towards expressing nationalist views rather than patriotic ones.

Patriotism typically focuses on why a country is great without necessarily disparaging outsiders or other countries. Nationalism, on the other hand, tends to play up why one’s country is great while vilifying another country or group.

Trump’s focus on using tariffs to bully Canada into increasing security at the border has undoubtedly soured relations between the two countries. If Trump decides to flex the United States’ capacity to be a bully in U.S.-Canadian relations, Canada is stuck with limited options.

But are Canadians playing right into Donald Trump’s hand by leaning into an adversarial relationship?

How Trump uses sports for political gain

Trump has a history of using major sporting events to his political benefit. During his last presidential campaign, he attended the Army-Navy football game and became the first sitting president to attend the recent Super Bowl in New Orleans.

Trump also considered attending the 4 Nations final between the U.S. and Canada in Boston, but couldn’t attend due to a scheduled speech with U.S. governors. Still, he made his presence felt by calling the American team the morning before the game to wish them luck.

Looking ahead, Trump may continue to use international sporting events to assert his vision for U.S. relations with Canada and Mexico.

Elon Musk, right, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, centre, FIFA President Gianni Infantino and Jared Kushner listen as Trump speaks at the Future Investment Initiative Institute summit in Miami Beach, Fla., on Feb. 19, 2025.
(Pool via AP)

In January, Trump invited Gianni Infantino, the head of FIFA, to his inauguration, just as preparations have begun for the 2026 World Cup, which is to be hosted by Canada, Mexico and the U.S.

With Infantino and Trump becoming increasingly friendly, it seems likely Trump will use the upcoming World Cup to influence North American relations. At the very least, he will likely try to insert himself into its coverage.

Trump using sport to reinforce his image

Beyond politics, Trump uses sports to play into his crafted image as a hyper-masculine man. This image has played a large part in Trump’s popularity among young men and helped him win a second term as president.

Yet Trump does not necessarily fit the masculine norms his supporters lionize. Trump is fairly tall, which has been shown to be preferred among American voters. However, unlike past presidents such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, who played college football, Trump’s athletic background is limited to high school football.

Nor did Trump serve in the military like previous presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, both of whom served in the Second World War. Trump, by contrast, avoided service during the Vietnam war for medical and educational reasons.

Despite a lack of traditional masculine bonafides, Trump has shown an ability to use sporting events for his political gain. He has used sporting events as potent media environments to insert his talking points and burnish his masculine image.

In the end, the boos from Canadian fans may be music to Donald Trump’s ears. He wants to be hated by outsiders so he can turn around to his supporters and say that the U.S. is under attack at its borders. He wants the sporting accomplishments of the American men’s teams to reflect on his strength.

It can still go against him, as we saw Thursday night with Canada beating the U.S. in overtime. Justin Trudeau wasted no time using that moment to respond with strong rhetoric in a tweet.

What happened on the ice was out of Trump’s control. But he used the event to serve his own goals, sowing greater divisiveness across borders. The shadow of his combative rhetoric loomed large over the entire event. More