Latest news with #Bremmer
Al Arabiya
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
'Not Something to Celebrate': As it Turns 80 and Faces Dwindling Global Clout, Can the UN Survive?
The UN marks its 80th anniversary this month facing a diminished global standing. Funding cuts, particularly from the US, have led to job losses and prompted long-delayed reforms. The principle of multilateralism is under pressure, and the Security Council has been unable to act decisively in the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. The organization's relevance in an increasingly divided world is in question. Founded in 1945 to prevent another world war, the UN's initial goal has been partly realized. However, conflicts persist globally, increasing the humanitarian needs while donor nations reduce aid. The grim mood at UN headquarters reflects anxiety about the upcoming US review of multilateral institutions, ordered by President Trump, and the resulting job cuts. Despite global changes and expansion of the UN system, its effectiveness is questioned, especially given current geopolitical challenges and US funding cuts. While credited with preventing World War III, the UN faces criticism for its current state. Bolton, a former US ambassador to the UN, considers it in its worst shape since its founding. Gowan, of the International Crisis Group, believes the UN will shrink in the next few years due to various factors. Bremmer, of the Eurasia Group, maintains that the UN remains relevant, despite lacking resources and military capabilities, due to its unique legitimacy in representing the global population. He added, 'The important thing is that as long as the great powers decide not to leave the United Nations, every day that they stay is a vote of confidence in the UN.' Guterres' 'Pact for the Future' seeks to address 21st-century challenges. Potential reforms include merging aid and development agencies. Gowan notes that the UN's New York location facilitates a lot of diplomatic business unrelated to the UN itself, and even intelligence gathering. The Trump administration's undermining of the UN is expected to elevate China's importance within the organization. Bremmer notes that China is poised to become more influential in agencies like the WHO and UNRWA as the US withdraws or reduces funding. Security Council expansion is a key area for change. There is broad agreement that Africa and Latin America should have permanent seats. Despite the UN's current challenges, its structure, including the veto power of major powers, is believed to ensure its survival.
Miami Herald
14-06-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Why the US is stronger than you think – and what that means for a world on edge
Contrary to common belief in the last two decades, the U.S. is not in decline militarily, economically, or technologically - at least according to GZERO Media founder Ian Bremmer. In a speech delivered at the AICPA's annual conference, Bremmer detailed significant global geopolitical shifts and their implications, focusing on the role of the U.S. and the emergence of new populist trends. Bremmer, who also founded political risk research and consulting firm Eurasia Group, noted a major geopolitical shift over the past 20 years as the U.S. became asymmetrically more powerful than its allies such as Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These allies, he said, have weakened demographically, technologically, and due to underinvestment in defense and productivity. "The United States is actually not in decline," he said. "Not militarily, not economically, certainly not technologically, and increasingly dangerous global order. The U.S. is in by far the most stable part of it geographically." Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter In fact, he noted that, currently, only two countries are technologically dominant: China in post-carbon energy (nuclear, solar, EVs, supply chains, critical minerals) and the U.S. in artificial intelligence (hyperscalers, chips, compute). At present, the primary driver of global uncertainty and geopolitical volatility that "feels so dangerous to people is that the most powerful country in the world has decided that they, we, do not want to play the leadership role by the old rules." From Bremmer's perspective, that means saying "no" to U.S.-led collective security, a global trade system shaped by Washington, and American-backed international law and democratic values. And this change, he said, "profoundly impacts U.S.-aligned democracies that relied on this leadership." Image source: Eric Tompkins on Unsplash Before reports emerged of Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear and military sites, Bremmer said the U.S. was strategically using leverage to push Iran toward a nuclear enrichment deal – a key priority for President Trump. Bremmer noted Iran's weakened position, citing setbacks involving Hezbollah, Bashar al-Assad, and Hamas, along with Gulf States' support for a deal, as factors making an agreement more likely. He acknowledged the possibility of Israeli military action if Iran delays but maintained that a deal remains the expected outcome. Trump's recent warning of "even more brutal" attacks if Iran refuses a deal may further increase pressure on Tehran. According to Bremmer, Trump's success stems from identifying "exactly what the pain points are for the bulk of the American population: ending wars, achieving fair trade, and securing borders. "His positions on these issues," Bremmer said, "are more popular than the Democrats." To be fair, Bremmer said Trump has "almost no interest in the specifics of policy." And unlike in his first term, President Trump now appoints individuals fiercely loyal to him, not necessarily to the Republican party or establishment, Bremmer said. "They may be great, really smart, they may not, but they are going to be fiercely first and foremost loyal to [Trump]," said Bremmer. Related: These are the most tax-friendly states if you work in retirement The president also relies heavily on his own judgment, believes he is always right, externalizes blame, and is less concerned about market reactions. "He's completely convinced that he's right on these issues," said Bremmer. "If things go wrong, it is someone else. It is not him." What's more, his top advisers are much less likely to tell him when they disagree, leading to a lack of critical feedback. "Trump is less concerned about market reaction to what he is doing than he was [in his] first term," said Bremmer. "So, he's more willing to see a longer period of economic impact." And "he's much less aware that anything he's doing might be problematic because he's not hearing it from his top advisers." The new global driver is the U.S., the most powerful country, willing to use its leverage, not lead historically, and unconcerned about whether it causes pain in other parts of the world. That same approach is also reshaping global trade dynamics. Bremmer noted, for instance, that the International Trade Court's ruling against Trump's broad use of emergency tariff powers under AIPA will prolong uncertainty in global trade – something "markets hate" - as the case likely heads to the Supreme Court, with a decision expected by late fall or early winter. Regardless of court rulings, Bremmer predicted that blended U.S. global tariffs will rise to 12-15% (1940s levels), a cost not yet priced into markets. He said this would lead to supply chain disruptions, potentially resulting in empty shelves at retailers over the summer, causing panic and increasing trade tensions. "Most of the things out there that we buy are not yet affected by the supply chain challenge you're about to see," said Bremmer. "They will over the course of the summer. You won't get stuff on Amazon Prime. You'll go to Walmart. A lot of shelves will be empty. That will cause a level of panic and unease and anxiety." Bremmer also noted that Mexico is capitulating to U.S. demands on issues like fentanyl and illegal immigration due to its heavy reliance on the U.S. economy (over 80% of exports to the U.S.). And Canada, despite a new politically consequential prime minister, is structurally built for North-South trade with the U.S., making a significant pivot away difficult due to its infrastructure and provincial power. Bremmer said Trump has realized "he's not getting a deal" with Putin. As a result, he's now prepared to continue supplying intelligence and weapons to Ukraine. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement Meanwhile, European allies are ramping up defense spending – NATO targeting 5% of GDP, the UK at 3.5%, and Canada at 2% - largely under pressure from Trump. "NATO will be stronger," Bremmer said. The downside: the war isn't ending anytime soon. Sanctions on Russia will remain, and Bremmer warned that Moscow is likely to escalate its attacks, "killing more Ukrainians." According to Bremmer, recent interactions, including a call between Trump and Xi Jinping, are stabilizing but do not represent a breakthrough. "I wouldn't call it positive," said Bremmer. "I would call it stabilizing. It's less negative than what we've seen for the last few months." The U.S., he said, remains focused on export controls for semiconductors and pressuring allies to choose the U.S. over China in advanced technology. But China is in a "wait and see" mode, believing that U.S. actions (undermining allies, making itself less attractive for high-skilled immigration) will ultimately benefit China long-term. "They know that this is going to cause more economic pain to China than the U.S.," said Bremmer. "But they also feel like they are politically stronger. They're more patient. They can wait the Americans out." So Bremmer's bottom line: "I do not believe that we are set for a U.S.-China breakthrough." While not a bond market expert, Bremmer said Trump's quick reversal on firing Fed Chair Powell shows that the bond market remains a "clear red line" for Trump, given the potential for severe fallout. "The one area where Trump was hit in the face hard by everyone and backed off completely was when he said, 'I'm thinking about firing Fed chair Powell,'" said Bremmer. "I think that that does say something – that even in this environment, where Trump is more willing to push and is getting less information, there still are some clear red lines. And this is a clear red line." Despite high debt, Bremmer said the U.S. benefits from its reserve currency status, technological dominance, and military umbrella, making it difficult for other countries to "derisk" from the U.S. Bremmer suggested that in the age of exploding AI, short-term spending as much as humanly possible might be market and geopolitically positive for the U.S., provided it's spent wisely (e.g., chips, education). While historically overdue for a recession (averaging every seven years post-WWII), the massive Covid stimulus and the unprecedented growth of AI capabilities (doubling every six months) could fundamentally alter economic cycles, making traditional definitions of recession less applicable, said Bremmer. It is "inconceivable," said Bremmer, for the U.S. to return to being a manufacturing economy as it once was. "The U.S. is not a manufacturing economy anymore," he said. Any new manufacturing will be driven by robotics, automation, and AI, requiring far fewer workers, which could ironically put more pressure on existing manufacturing labor. This shift is part of broader "incoherent, angry, anxious" movements that will focus on economic displacement. Bremmer suggested that likelihood of war in the near term is "very low." China aims to appear "more responsible and more stable" while the U.S. undermines its own allies. However, China will continue to squeeze Taiwan's leadership with military exercises and economic sanctions, said Bremmer. This remains a long-term concern, but not for the immediate future. Bremmer stated definitively that Trump has never said he will run again and is not running again, despite media questions. Bremmer also believes Elon Musk understands he "damaged his interests" by fighting with Trump, and "that getting into a long-term fight with Trump was unsustainable." And Musk, according to Bremmer, is expected to support Trump's political goals and candidates in the midterms. The Democratic Party is not expected to settle on a coherent platform until closer to 2028 due to a broad range of views among potential leaders, according to Bremmer. And the midterm elections will be a decision about Trump. While Trump is currently doing well on immigration and the economy, his economic standing is expected to weaken over the summer due to trade issues, said Bremmer. What's more, a much stronger push to the economic populist left is anticipated, a phenomenon not seen since the post-Gilded Age. According to Bremmer, current populism from the right is driven by disaffected industrial working-class men in former industrialized places like Appalachia, the Rust Belt, and former East Germany, focusing on manufacturing and anti-immigrant sentiment. Bremmer predicts an enormous spike of populism from the left in the next electoral cycle, driven by college-educated, urban, white-collar professionals losing jobs due to AI. This movement, he said, will be more progressive on cultural issues but strongly opposed to the "deep state," major corporations, banks, and technology companies. Got questions about retirement, email Stagflation Risks: Shield Your Retirement Portfolio The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
India Today
03-06-2025
- Business
- India Today
Is India a weak country or can it stand up to Trump? What Ian Bremmer said
Can India assert itself on the world stage — particularly in its dealings with Washington? In an interview with India Today Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai, President of the Eurasia Group and geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer said that India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, still lacks the geopolitical clout to firmly stand up to a transactional Trump-led United States.'India is not China. India is not the United States. It is geopolitically much weaker,' Bremmer being the world's most populous nation, the fourth-largest economy, and a nuclear power, India finds itself in a tricky position when engaging with a leader like Trump, who is known to pressures allies with tariffs and threats, Bremmer noted. 'Trump says, 'I want to work with you, you're part of the QUAD, I like you.' But then he says, 'I'm going to hurt Apple if they decide to move their iPhone production from China to India. I'm going to tariff them.' He says there are going to be trade consequences and other consequences if you don't have a ceasefire with Pakistan,' Bremmer to Bremmer, powerful countries are able to prioritise their own interests and push back when Trump imposes demands.'Trump puts major tariffs on China. China puts tariffs back on the United States. Trump says we're going to hurt you. China says, we can take the pain more than you and Trump is the one that blinks,' he said. 'When it comes to Russia, so far Trump has been completely unwilling to put tough sanctions on Russia. They continue to engage in their war with impunity in Ukraine.'advertisementIn contrast, countries like Mexico, Panama, and Iran have capitulated under Trump's hectoring.'Look at the tariffs the Mexicans have immediately moved to do everything he's demanded on fentanyl, on border security. Look at Panama, how they try to force the sale of the Hong Kong firm to a American firm, take away the fees on American ships... Even the Iranians are much more willing to talk about stopping highly enriched uranium stockpiling,' Bremmer pointed he said, has shown signs of both resistance and vulnerability. While it rejected Trump's offer to mediate talks over Kashmir and publicly denied that any foreign power brokered its ceasefire agreement with Pakistan, it still ended up in what Bremmer described as an 'uncomfortable position' following Operation Sindoor.'There's still a lot of uncertainty about to what extent Indians can and will really stand up to Donald Trump,' he praised PM Modi's ability to shape domestic and foreign policy at will, calling him 'the most powerful domestic leader of a major democracy in the world today'. But that may not be enough when it comes to dealing with the Trump administration.'At a time when other leaders around the world—the Germans, the French, the Japanese, the Americans, the South Koreans—have much more divided governments, much weaker, not lasting for as long, Modi is in a position to do everything he says he's gonna do. He can follow through on it,' he future, if the US makes demands that India doesn't like, will it be strong enough to say no? That's an interesting question, said InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Donald Trump#Narendra Modi
India Today
02-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Trump blinks before China, scares weaker countries: Ian Bremmer's full interview
In a wide-ranging interview with India Today Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai, Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group and one of the world's foremost geopolitical analysts, described Ukraine's recent drone attacks on Russian air bases as "shocking" and potentially a turning point in the nearly four-year-long also spoke in detail about US President Donald Trump's global engagement style, calling attention to how weaker countries tend to "take Trump more seriously and are scared of him".advertisementHe cited examples of Mexico, Panama, and Iran, where countries quickly fell in line with Trump's demands. However, he argued that more powerful states like China and Russia have been less responsive, forcing Trump to divert his diplomatic attention elsewhere. Discussing Ukraine's recent military strike, Bremmer pointed out that the Ukrainian operation-reportedly destroying up to 30 percent of Russia's strategic bomber fleet-poses a serious challenge to Russia's nuclear deterrence capability. He compared the attack to Israel's dismantling of Hezbollah's military infrastructure in 2006, calling it both an "opportunity" and an "exceptionally dangerous development."Commenting on India's recent 87-hour military standoff with Pakistan, Bremmer said India currently finds itself in a more "uncomfortable" position. While he acknowledged Prime Minister Narendra Modi's international strength, he noted that geopolitically, India remains "much weaker" than the United States or China. He also described China as the "main military backer" of Pakistan, while emphasising that India and China share complex trade and diplomatic are key takeaways from Bremmer's remarks on different themes during the interview:ON RUSSIA-UKRAINE WARadvertisement"It is a shocking development. And it's unclear if it's going to reduce or increase the risks around this three and a half year now war, bloody, expensive and impacting the world. Ukraine has not just shown that they can hit back across all of Russian territory, they can do serious damage to Russia's military capabilities to fight the war, but also they can undermine Russia's nuclear capabilities, their strategic deterrence capabilities, their second strike capabilities, the balance of power between Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO. Some of the strikes that we saw this weekend were at the Russian border with Mongolia... literally thousands of miles away from the Ukrainian front line. My biggest fear is that the Russians refuse to accept that they have fewer cards than they thought they have... and instead take this as a necessity to escalate against Ukraine.""I suppose the most serious concern would be if the Russians decided that this was the reason to engage in a tactical nuclear strike. That would be the worst possible near-term scenario. I don't think it's likely, but it is certainly more likely than it was two days ago. This also plays to something that India and Pakistan... need to understand-that you don't need to be an economic superpower to be able to pose incredible damage to a much bigger country. It should tell us that war should be avoided at all costs."advertisement"A big part of the reason that Putin has felt that he can continue this war... is that he doesn't value the lives of his own civilians and he hasn't felt like there have been serious consequences for him domestically by pursuing this war. Maybe if Russia keeps pursuing this war... Russia is not going to be a military superpower any more. The fact that the Russians are willing to persist with that discussion [in Istanbul], which the Americans, the Europeans, China, India-everyone wants... even just 24 hours after Russia's massive strategic defeat at the hands of Ukraine, is a reason to believe that this is an opportunity."ON TRUMP'S DIPLOMATIC STRATEGY"Trump has spent a lot more time and diplomatic effort and political capital in the past few weeks engaging in the Middle East, talking about perhaps a breakthrough deal with the Iranians but less time on Russia, Ukraine. If Trump is unwilling to spell out exactly what the threats would be against Russia then our basic expectation should be that Trump ends his diplomatic engagement on Russia-Ukraine and walks away."advertisementON TRUMP'S IMPACT ON GLOBAL POWER DYNAMICS"There are countries that are scared of Trump, and they capitulate quickly when he makes demands. Look at Panama, how they immediately try to sell, force the sale of the Hong Kong firm of the ports to an American firm and say, we won't charge the Americans to ship through Panama military, we'll take away the fees, even though it hurts the Panamanians. Look at how the Iranians are in a much weaker diplomatic and geopolitical position, much more willing to accept talks and talk about stopping highly enriched uranium stockpiling, all of these things. Weaker countries take Trump much more seriously and are scared of him. More powerful countries. More powerful countries, I'll give you another example you didn't mention: Trump put major tariffs on China. China puts tariffs back on the United States. Trump says, 'We're going to hurt you.' China says, 'I don't need a phone call with you. We can take the pain more than you can.' And Trump is the one that blinks. And when it comes to Russia, so far Trump has been completely unwilling, unwilling to put tough sanctions on Russia, consequences. Russia has been unwilling to blink. They continue to engage in their war with impunity in Ukraine."advertisementON INDIA-PAKISTAN CEASEFIRE"India said no to some of what the Americans demanded. The ceasefire has stuck. I think everyone's glad the ceasefire has stuck. India is in a more uncomfortable position there's still a lot of uncertainty about to what extent Indians can and will really stand up to Donald Trump. The ceasefire has stuck. I think everyone's glad the ceasefire has stuck. I think it's good for India, Pakistan, and the world. But my point is that I think that there is right now, look, Modi is arguably the most powerful domestic leader of a major democracy in the world today, over 10 years in place. He's able to make domestic and foreign policy pretty much at his will at a time when other leaders around the world: the Germans, the French, the Japanese, the Americans, the South Koreans."ON PM NARENDRA MODI'S POSITION GLOBALLY"PM Modi is arguably the most powerful domestic leader of a major democracy in the world today but India is not China, India is not the United States. It is geopolitically much weaker. And so, I think that there's still a lot of uncertainty about to what extent the Indians can and will really stand up to Donald Trump and Americans, if and when the Americans say, we're making some demands of you that you aren't going to like. Is India a strong country that can stand up to Trump or are they a weak country? I don't think we know that yet."advertisementON CHINA AS A THREAT TO INDIAChina is the military backer of Pakistan but China is also an incredibly important trade partner for India. India and China desire a relationship of stability with each other both want a stable world. And a lot of the goods that go to the rest of the world from China go through India and have value added in India. And India and China, as we've seen from the last face-to-face meeting that Modi and Xi Jinping have had, desire a relationship of stability with each other, don't want to be fighting over their own contested border, and also both want a stable world. They're both part of the BRICS. They're both members in good standing of the G20. They play leadership roles in multilateral institutions. That the United States has been showing less interest in President Trump. So yes, of course, China is a competitor is an adversary in Asia, which is India's backyard. So those things are important. And India and China compete not just on Pakistan, but for influence in places like Sri Lanka and the Maldives and Bhutan and all over the region. So that's really THE STATE OF GLOBAL SECURITY"Absolutely. It's what I call a G-Zero world. That's a geopolitical recession. The United States increasingly is not the global policeman but no other country or group of countries is willing and capable to replace Americans. That is a place where we see much more impunity, it's much more dangerous, it's much more unstable, it's much more uncertain."Must Watch
New York Post
26-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Trump vs. Harvard and the dangerous myth of ‘academic brain drain'
Has President Donald Trump declared war on Albert Einstein? 'America is in danger of experiencing an academic brain drain,' The Economist warns. As soon as the Department of Homeland Security announced Harvard University would no longer be allowed to enroll foreign students, the Eurasia Group's Ian Bremmer — a political scientist well-connected in Washington — declared the move 'fantastic news for China.' Advertisement 4 U.S. President Donald Trump gestures at the annual National Memorial Day Observance in the Memorial Amphitheater, at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., May 26, 2025. REUTERS The government is trying to use its leverage over foreign students' immigration status to compel Harvard to adopt stricter policies against antisemitism and scrap racially charged 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives. But this isn't just another battle in America's culture war: Foreign-policy mavens like Bremmer say what the administration is doing threatens national security and America's technological edge over its rivals. The Manhattan Project was a success thanks to émigré geniuses who contributed a great deal more to America's World War II effort, and subsequent struggle with the Soviet Union, than just the atomic bomb. Advertisement And isn't it true that something like 40% of Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants? Liberals might support high immigration levels, and large numbers of foreign students in particular, simply because they like the new and unfamiliar — though it's hard not to notice that foreign students typically pay more tuition and pad the bottom line of our colleges and universities, just as immigration on the whole gives liberals opportunities to court newcomers with social services and identity politics. 4 New York Post cover for Thursday, October 12, 2023. rfaraino Advertisement Yet supposedly hard-headed realists say it's not liberal ideology but America's need for more scientists and entrepreneurs that's the real reason we have to open our campuses (and borders) to the world's talents. After all, if we don't do that, where else are we going to get the brains we need to compete with China? Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The trouble with this tale, which is an article of faith for The Economist and the likes of Bremmer, is that it's patently false — and largely intended to deceive. Advertisement In fact, very few companies on the Fortune 500 were started solely by immigrants; almost all were founded by Americans, occasionally in partnership with émigrés. 4 Demonstrators gather on Cambridge Common to protest Harvard's stance on the war in Gaza and show support for the Palestinian people, outside Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 25, 2025. AFP via Getty Images The source for the factoid, the American Immigration Council, has to fudge the numbers by lumping 'children of immigrants' into the same category as 'immigrants,' even when those children are born American citizens. As for competing with China, how can it be that China itself is so competitive when it accepts relatively few foreign students or immigrants? China, with a native population of more than 1.4 billion people, had only about 258,000 foreign students enrolled in degree-granting programs before COVID-19. And while China sometimes claims to have nearly 500,000 foreign students overall, nearly half that number appear to be in non-degree programs: They're not even full-time students, let alone Einsteins. China's economic and military competitiveness is home-grown, not a result of harvesting engineers from India. Advertisement America has a great many foreign-born Nobel Prize winners, to be sure. But when America, and America's campuses, have had more restrictive attitudes toward migration in the past, they have nonetheless competed, and won, at the highest levels — while developing countries, even when their most talented individuals have not been able to migrate, have not risen to America's levels. That's not because individual talent doesn't matter; it does, and the most truly exceptional minds, such as Einstein's or other Nobel laureates', should not only be welcomed by America but actively courted by us. But where most people are concerned, even most people of above-average talent, the national environment counts more. Advertisement 4 Violet Barron, a Harvard junior and activist with multiple pro-Palestinian groups, speaks at a protest against Harvard's stance on the Gaza war in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 25, 2025. AFP via Getty Images This is why the outlook of The Economist is so dangerous to America: It encourages lowered expectations of Americans themselves, with more disciplined if not more talented immigrants picking up the slack. That's the real brain drain: It's draining the world's intellectual capital to make up for self-imposed habits of failure in America. The talented foreign student turns into an excuse for having Americans waste their own talents — not least by studying the kinds of highly ideological subjects that give rise to wokeness, antisemitism and 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' in the first place. Advertisement The Trump administration faces another fierce fight in the courts over its attempt to revoke Harvard's ability to host international students. It's a heavy-handed remedy, though perhaps nothing short of such pressure will be enough. The most elite institutions of higher education in this country have long been a force unto themselves, even as they receive hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers and enjoy privileges for importing workers and customers — foreign talent and students — most businesses could only dream of. Advertisement A reckoning is overdue. But Trump's brawl with Harvard isn't just about an institution — it's also about the ideas that have led Americans to think they can't succeed anymore, they can only import someone else to succeed in their place. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.
