How Trump's 2nd Term Will Change Europe Forever

as you already know by now the United States reelected Donald Trump to the White House again for a second term that'll begin in a couple months after he gets sworn back in office on the 20th of January 2025 Trump's second term in office will then last for the next four years through January of 2029 close to the end of this decade by which point he will be 82 years old and during those four years Trump's powers and influence as America's president will shift the course of world history and American foreign policy in ways that were

similar to his first term as president right now before he's even retaken office there is an absolutely enormous amount of speculation about what his return to the White House could ultimately end up meaning and anybody who tries to tell you exactly what will happen has no idea what they're talking about including myself Trump's foreign policy dar's first term was defined by impulsiveness and shifts in unexpected directions and his second term will likely be more of the same therefore this is all extremely speculative so please take everything that I'm going to say in this video with

a huge grain of assault but with that I'm going to attempt and explain what I think Trump's return to the White House could end up meaning for American foreign policy with a particular focus on what that could end up meaning for Europe first off let's dive in what is probably going to be the biggest foreign policy implication for Trump's return to the White House Ukraine the ongoing conflict with Russia and NATO for the past several years as the war between Ukraine and Russia has dragged on Trump has often been highly critical of the large amount

of financial assistance that the United States has provided to Ukraine in order to survive at a campaign rally in Georgia back in September Trump labeled Ukraine's president bamir Solinski as the greatest salesman on the earth for his ability to convince the United States to send his country so much money and assistance in the wake of the Russian invasion according to the Keel Institute for the world economy the United States has so far to date provided nearly 91 billion do worth of combined military economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in early

2022 with US military aid representing nearly 2third of that total amount at roughly $60 billion now that number for the military aid to Ukraine is what particularly seems to anger Trump the most because it's about half of the total foreign military aid the Ukraine has so far received from everywhere abroad the European Union by contrast has only provided the ukrainians with about 45 billion doar worth the military aid since the invasion began for a war that's taking place directly at their own door step though in terms of overall Aid when factoring in economic and humanitarian

assistance the EU has provided much more to the ukrainians overall than the Americans have at a total of about $133 billion in total nonetheless Trump has long argued in public during his speeches that the US is shouldering too much of the financial burden in continuing to support Ukraine during its war and that Europe should take on an even greater share of the financial support than it has already and with the idea of continuing to send more American Aid getting less and less popular within the Republican party all the time that will now largely control the

whole US government for the next 2 years there is plenty of room to believe that a second Trump Administration will likely significantly reduce American Aid to Ukraine if not even cut it down to zero altogether but that's not necessarily what might end up happening though Trump has famously promised that he will somehow end the war in Ukraine within the first 24 hours of him assuming the presidency in January by getting together Ukraine and Russia's lead ership and making a deal between them Trump's history of speaking very highly about Russia's President Vladimir Putin is very well

known and the two men are believed to have spoken directly with one another as many as seven times just since Trump left office after his first term but less welln have been Trump's generally positive comments about vomir zalinski as well despite the two leaders having a bit of a troubled history with one another Trump was impeached in 2019 because of a scandal that involved him holding up hundreds of Millions ions of dollars worth of American military aid to Ukraine in order to pressure zinsky to uncover dirt on his chief political rival Joe Biden that he

wanted to use to influence the 2020 election in more recent times however Trump has derly referred to zinski as the world's greatest salesman but he has also personally met with zilinski as recently as this September that was described by zilinski himself as being positive and within only a few hours of Trump's most recent election Victory zilinsky telephoned Trump tog congratulate him and zilinsky described the following conversation as having been constructive more than a year ago during an interview with Fox News back in July of 2023 Trump made the case that he would force a deal

to end the war by threatening to sever All American Aid to Ukraine while also simultaneously telling the Russians that he would dramatically increase American Aid to Ukraine unless they both agree to whatever his deal is what exactly Trump's deal to end the war will ultimately look like is unclear right now but but there have been some hints Trump's selected vice president JD Vance outlined a fairly detailed peace plan during an interview a few months ago back in September on the Shawn Ryan Show where he was specifically asked about what Trump's plan to end the war

might look like Vance then suggested that Trump's deal would involve freezing the front line in Ukraine wherever it stands at the time of the negotiations and that the front line would then transform into a demilitarized zone and the new deao border between Ukraine and Russia similar to other demilitarized zones in the world that froze other conflicts like between North and South Korea on the Korean Peninsula or between the Greek and Turkish communities across the island of Cyprus this kind of a deal would essentially solidify Russia's military gains in the war but it would also deny

Russia their full objectives Vance also suggested that while what remains of Ukraine beyond the demilitarized zone would still be an independent and Sovereign Nation his idea of a deal would also give Russia a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality from what remains of Ukraine as well blocking Ukraine from joining NATO for either an agreed upon time limit or indefinitely Vince's suggested plan would still leave room for the remainder of Ukraine to establish deeper economic and social ties with Europe such as through the European Union and it would still be allowed to purchase European and American Weapons Systems

but there wouldn't be any NATO membership and no treaty obligations towards defending Ukraine from another attack in the future instead in order to deter Russia from launching another invasion of the rest of Ukraine in the future Vance's plan suggested building out a series of fortifications along the new demilitarized zone on the Ukrainian side and Staffing the area with International peacekeepers potentially from either the UN or european States who' volunteer their own troops but no American troops would participate in this interpretation of a deal Ukraine would effectively be divided between a western and an Eastern Ukraine

with one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world separating them in a situation that would look very similar to the end of the Korean war that left the Korean Peninsula divided the critics of this plan from Vance have since blasted it as essentially being surrender terms to the Russians while proponents of it have argued that it's the only realistic peace option still remaining on the table but for one thing it's unclear if Vance's plan and suggestions are going to end up being the same as Trump's and for another it's also far from clear

that even if it was the same if either the Russians or the ukrainians would even accept it the spokesperson for the Kremlin Dimitri pesov recently stated during a press briefing in Moscow that Russia's War AIMS in Ukraine remained unchanged from the most recent peace terms that Putin offered in June of 2024 and the Advan this suggested deal was consequently going to be unacceptable to the Kremlin contrary to what Vance suggested for a deal Putin's current demand for peace is that Ukraine fully withdraw all of its troops away from the current front line entirely out of

the provinces of luhansk Donetsk zapia and hiran you Ukraine would then have to formally recognize the territorial losses of all four of these provinces in their administrative entireties to Russia in addition to Crimea and also commit to a constitutional status of permanent neutrality barring what remains of Ukraine from ever being allowed to join nato in this scenario Ukraine would surrender huge amounts of land in the dones saparia and hiran provinces that they currently still hold and that Russia hasn't yet even managed to occupy in addition to their entire enire heavily fortified front line that they

spent years constructing major urban areas around the cities of hiron zapia chromator and slans collectively home to more than a million people would all have to be surrendered and the fates of those 1 million plus people would be uncertain and likely Grim moreover surrendering the whole of the hiran and zapia provinces would Place Russian territorial control and troops onto the West Bank of the denro river in large sections of the South undermining one of Ukraine's biggest geographical barriers against another Russian assault in the future who would no longer have to focus as much on crossing

the river in the South and meanwhile Ukraine also still hasn't abandoned their own terms for peace either that go directly against Vance's suggested deal as well Ukraine's peace demands continue to be that all Russian forces must fully withdraw back to the 2014 recognized borders of Ukraine including Crimea and the port of Sebastapol and then on top of that that the fully restored Ukraine will then be fully admitted into NATO afterwards so when Trump assumes power as the president in January and if he then attempts to make a deal that looks like some kind of variation

of what JD Vance suggested in September it's unclear if either Russia or Ukraine would actually be willing to compromise on their stated objectives even with the variation of carrots and sticks the Trump will offer and threaten to both sides like Trump himself suggested back during his Fox news interview in 2023 he may threaten to completely withdraw all American funding to Ukraine if the Ukrainian side rejects his deal while he may also simultaneously threaten Russia with dramatically increasing American Aid to Ukraine if the Russian side rejects his deal too but on the face of it Russia

would stand against significantly more from this kind of a deal than Ukraine would Ukraine would survive but it would still be pressed to effectively surrender roughly 20% of its 2014 recognized territory while Russia would be granted a reprieve to consolidate the gain territory and to further incorporate all of the conquered land and resources into Russia this is also why at the moment the Russian side of the war is greatly increasing the pace of their attacks all along the front line in an attempt to seize as much territory as physically possible before any potential Trump Le

negotiations to freeze the front lines where they stand while they're also undertaking a truly huge effort to try and push the ukrainians out of all of their occupied areas in kers as much as possible too in order to reduce reduce the leverage on the Ukrainian side Russia would be significantly more hard pressed to agree on freezing the front lines where they stood at if it also included the front lines in K within Russia proper too sealing some of Russia's own territory behind the Ukrainian side of the demilitarize zone and this is why Russia has currently

thrown around 12,000 North Korean soldiers and around 38,000 of their own troops against the Ukrainian lines in kers to try and push the ukrainians out from here as much as possible by the time Trump assumes office again in January if they manage to fully push the ukrainians out of curse by the time Trump takes office the ukrainians will have significantly less leverage entering into the Trump L negotiations and they will be in a much more vulnerable position either way what is the most clear is that Trump will be Hasty and eager to get America out

of the Ukraine war and to end Washington's Financial commitments to it as quickly as possible and whatever he ultimately believes will be the quickest way to end America's involvement in the war will likely be the method he will choose and if there's any precedent from Trump's first term in office regarding negotiating an end to a war that can give us some Clues as to how this all might go it would be how Trump handled the negotiations with the Taliban on ending America's war in Afghanistan frustrated and eager to secure a quick deal ending America's Decades

of war in huge financial commitments in Afghanistan Trump in early 2020 simply decided to go over the heads of the US supported government in Afghanistan and enter directly into negotiations with the Taliban themselves without the presence or input of the Afghan government Trump then agreed in February of 2020 to fully pull out all American troops from Afghanistan by May of 2021 strategically selected to be after the next presidential election and he then immediately began reducing air strikes on the Taliban and lifted certain sanctions on them all in exchange for just some vague unenforceable promises from

the Taliban to commit to counterterrorism and agree to certain fighting restrictions but by almost eliminating American air strikes on the Taliban Trump's decision undermined the capabilities of the Afghan government Security Forces who were then left to fight against the Taliban without critical air support and the Taliban almost immediately reneged on their agreed upon finding restrictions and ramped up their attacks on the government instead then after Trump lost the 2020 election in November he deliberately pulled out thousands more troops from Afghanistan than he' even originally agreed to do which essentially left behind a skeleton crew of

US forces in Afghanistan that made the situation even more unstable in the face of the increased Taliban offensive which left the incoming Biden Administration with a difficult decision to either reinforce the country with a troop surge to make the situation more stable leading up to the agreed upon Handover date but face accusations of escalating the conflict and breaking the deal with the Taliban or not doing that and just hoping for the best Biden then largely stuck to Trump's previous agreements with the Taliban on the withdrawal timeline and on the dangerous unstable true Productions and chose

to hope for the best the Afghan government completely collapsed the Taliban returned back into power and Trump managed to somehow win the pr battle by getting the credit as the president who negotiated the peace without receiving any of the blame for the surrender and the collapse that It ultimately resulted in during Biden's Administration Trump's Hasty peace agreement with the Taliban in 2020 that completely sidelined the Afghan government in its interests therefore set the stage for the Afghan government's complete collapse the following year and the question is if Trump has learned anything from that experience or

not if he hasn't learned anything from it and if Trump's Hasty deal making Legacy with the Taliban is any kind of a guide for how he might handle making a similar deal with Russia and Ukraine a similar outcome could well be plausible as well the only possible deal that Trump and his team could offer Ukraine and Russia within 24 hours of him assuming office will be the ceasefire deal that will freeze the front lines where they stand and there's the very real possibility that if both Ukraine and Russia refuse those terms or if Ukraine refuses

them and Russia kind of accepts them or if Russia tries to push hard over Putin's proposed peace offering Trump made a sign to Simply go over the heads of the ukrainians and negotiate with the Kremlin directly on a hasty deal to get America out of the conflict as quickly as possible just like he did when he went over the Afghan government's heads when he negotiated what for all intents and purposes was a surrender directly with the Taliban in 2020 were that outcome to happen and the US just completely removed itself from the war altogether it

would be a devastating blow to the Ukrainian war effort and the Gap left behind in weapons and supplies worth tens of billions of dollars could only be realistically filled in by the European Union the EU for all of the tremendously huge amount of support that it has already given to Ukraine would then be left with a very difficult choice on how to proceed the EU could decide to either dramatically increase its own Aid to Ukraine to the tune of 10 T of billions of additional Euros at a minimum or not do that and save the

money and see what ends up happening the ultimate question for Europe if Europe decides to not step in and fill the Gap left behind by the United States is what exactly are Putin's ultimate intentions regarding Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet Union will Putin's Ambitions be limited to his June 2024 peace proposal the demands luhans donet zapia hon and Crimea with a cut down to size and neutral Ukraine remaining or are his ultimate Ambitions larger than that and include more or even the entirety of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics like mova and

the three Baltic states the question for Europe is of whether or not the situation evolving before in Ukraine today is more similar to Munich in 1938 or to Finland in 1940 in mid 1938 Nazi Germany had just annexed Austria during the enlas and was agitating for the incorporation of the 3 million ethnic Germans who were left behind in Czechoslovakia that followed the collapse of the austr Hungarian Empire after World War I this German inhabited region of Czechoslovakia was known as the Sudan land and Germany initiated a low intensity war in the area against the czechoslovak

state by training and arming Sudan German paramilitary groups and sending them into the Sudan land to wage a violent campaign of Insurgency as the situation continued escalating and Hitler threatened War over the Sudan and land and the millions of Germans who lived there the leaders of the European Democracies at the time of burden and France met with Hitler in Munich in September of 1938 and came to a settlement that became known as the Munich agreement despite Czechoslovakia having an alliance and a military pact with France at the time the French and the British agreed with

Hitler's demands that the Sudan land would be seated over to Germany and then faced with the overwhelming military pressure from Germany and now the Diplomatic pressure from Britain and France Chuck Slovakia essentially had no choice and yielded the suda land in Germany and withdrew its Army back to the new borders by doing so czechoslovakia's Geographic defenses against Germany and the Sudan mountains that they had spent years building out a series of dense fortifications through were completely undermined and stripped away from them Hitler had promised in Munich that the Sudan land would be his final territorial

demand made in Europe which is part of why the Allied democracies agreed to yield the territory to him but in the end merely months later after the agreement was made with the czechoslovak state that stripped it of its Geographic armor the Germans invaded and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia as well in a flagrant disregard for the treaty they had signed at Munich which led to the Czechs and the slow boox later describing the Munich agreement as the Munich betrayal the occupation of the whole of Czechoslovakia then enabled the Germans to outflank Poland in the South

geographically while their pillaging of the czechoslovak armories gave them hundreds of additional tanks and thousands of artillery pieces that would quickly be turned on the Allies ever since Munich has been used as a byword for the policy of appeasement toward dictators Hitler was given the Sudan land under the promise that it would be the end of his territorial Ambitions in Europe and Hitler lied in modern times considering Russia's prior track record since the 1990s will giving Putin eastern Ukraine be the end of his territorial Ambitions in Europe as well or could it be another Munich

the other potential historical outcome if you assume that Putin's Ambitions in Europe are more limited is what happened to Finland in 1940 in late 1939 the Soviet Union launched an allout invasion of the country with the likely objective of conquering all of it and returning it all back under moscow's control as Finland used to be a part of the Russian Empire until the Empire collapsed in 1917 and Finland achieved its independence but the invasion turned into an unexpectedly costly and bloody Quagmire for the Soviets that cost hundreds of thousands of casualties and after little progress

was made the Soviets agreed on a peace deal with more limited aims that granted them about 10% of finland's territory but also left the rest of Finland that remained as an independent nation after the conclusion of the second world war the cut down to size Finland was then heavily pressured by the Soviets into a position of geopolitical neutrality which made it essentially a neutral buffer State between the Soviet dominated order in Europe and in the western order for decades up until the collapse of the Soviet system in the early 1990s this was the model of

painful neutrality that Finland was pressured into between the East and the West a model that has since been referred to as finlandization and in this finland's model of force neutrality after having given up territory throughout the Cold War has also been proposed as a potential settlement to the Ukraine question today indeed in early 2022 immediately before the Russian invasion of Ukraine was about to begin the president of France Emanuel macron traveled to Russia and suggested to Putin that the finlandization of Ukraine was one of the options on the table at the time in recent years

since then macron has grown significantly more hawkish on Russia and has quit suggesting that as a potential outcome but it could still be a potential model that'll be suggested by Trump during his deal after he assumes office if it's believed by the negotiators that Putin's Ambitions in Europe are indeed more limited like he claims right now would they then potentially agree on Ukraine's seeding territory and making the cut down to size Ukraine assume a finlandization model of neutrality between East and West like Finland was forced to endure for decades during the 20th century would they

pressure Ukraine into accepting such a deal and would Ukraine yield to that pressure or continue fighting Dawn are Putin's Ambitions in Europe limited to Eastern Ukraine or do they extend further and by extension will any deal on peace look more like Finland in 1940 or ch Slovakia in 1938 these are the big questions for the negotiators to ask but perhaps even more troublingly for Ukraine and Europe at large is Trump's blun antagonism towards NATO as well during his first term in office Trump routinely blasted members of the NATO alliance who had not increased their military

spending to at least 2% of their national GDP a standard that all NATO members agree to adopt in 2014 within the next 10 years as a response to Russia's first more limited invasion of Ukraine When They seized and annexed Crimea 4 years later by 2018 however during Trump's first term only five countries in the entire NATO alliance besides for the United States were at the agreed upon 2% of GDP on defense spending Target and the only NATO countries that had raised their defense spending enough to at least match that Target from 2014 were Estonia ltia

and Poland the ones closest to Russia and the most fearful Russian aggression while none of the others had bothered yet this situation immensely frustrated Trump during his first Administration and he frequently asserted that the US was shouldering too much of the financial burdens of European Defense While most European countries were enjoying the Free Ride provided by America's continued protection umbrella he demanded that more members of the alliance in Europe increase their defense spending to the 2% of GDP Target and failing that he frequently flirted around with the idea of simply pulling the United States out

of the NATO alliance altogether out of frustration which would remove nearly all American troops and equipment from Europe and revoke the American Security guarantee for practically the entire continent in the process leaving the Europeans behind to take care of their own defense and Security in the end Trump never withdrew the US from NATO and his threats to do so helped encourage several NATO member states to finally begin increasing their defense budgets and then Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 in encouraged even more defense spending increases in Europe but still not quite to the level

that Trump and others would probably like even still today near the end of 2024 after years of fullscale warfare in Ukraine and a full decade after they originally agreed to do so there are eight NATO member states who are still spending less than 2% of their GDP on defense Canada Portugal Spain Italy Slovenia Croatia Belgium and Luxembourg moreover in the current environment of the Russian army marauding across Ukraine and large numbers of North Korean soldiers on Europe's doorstep and an incoming second Trump Administration that is already very ambivalent towards NATO and European Defense many officials

within the alliance in Europe have argued that the old 2% of GDP on defense agreed upon back in 2014 is no longer relevant to deal with Europe's increased levels of security threats today and that in order to make up for decades worth of under spending on defense since the end of the Cold War in order to deter Russia from committing any attacks outside of Ukraine and to convince a new wary Trump Administration to remain committed to European Defense the new Target should be updated to a minimum of 2.5% of GDP and ideally up to 3%

of GDP on defense for NATO members Instead This policy has been heavily advocated for by the government of Estonia and others but at the moment only four members of The Alliance outside of the United States contribute 3% or more of their GDP towards defense and they're the ones who are the most fear fearful about an attack from an aggressor Estonia laia Lithuania and Poland all in the case of Russia and Greece in the case of turkey but regardless of whether or not that would all be enough to convince Trump to stay in NATO or not

Trump will almost certainly not actually be able to formally pull the United States out of NATO even if he wants to do so anyway because of an act that the US Congress passed in 2023 that now requires a presidential decision to withdraw from NATO to be approved by either a 2/3 majority in the US Senate or to be authorized through another act of Congress and with the Republicans not having close to that large of a majority in the Senate it's unlikely that such a decision by Trump would pass legally regardless though even without formally pulling

out from NATO Trump could still decide on undermining America's commitment to the alliance from within by withholding ambassadors from member states closing down military bases and installations and pulling out soldiers and equipment and refusing to participate in joint military exercises among several other options all of which could still serve to effectively hollow out America's commitment to Nato and undermine Europeans faith in America's actual commitment to their defense especially if Trump basically withdraws all usaid from Ukraine and then leaves the problem there entirely to Europe to sort out as well the Europeans May then be faced

with an even more difficult decision in the event that the second Trump Administration not only ends American support for Ukraine but also begins shutting down most of America's commitments to Nato in General European Defense as well in order to further assist Ukraine in the scenario and to deter against future Russian aggression elsewhere Estonia has argued that all the remaining NATO States in Europe should pledge 0.25% of their GDP to the continued defense of Ukraine on top of their argument that all NATO States should increase their own defense spending to at least 2.5% of their own

GDP but to do all of that would entail enormous increases of defense spending for basically all of Europe's countries and that will present them with a number of challenges that will be difficult to overcome the only three methods of doing so will be by either one greatly taking on additional debt in order to pay for it and adding on to the piles of debt that they're already heavily burdened with like in the case of the 14 EU countries who already have debt to GDP ratios at or higher than 60% two increasing taxes in order to

pay for it which was some of the highest tax rates in the world already all across Europe would be deeply unpopular or three slashing some of their generous social and Welfare policies in order to pay for it instead which would rupture the social contract with European governments and their people that have been well established for decades now there would be even more deeply unpopular to help Shore up Ukraine's defenses even further Estonia has also argued that in the event of a trump sponsored peace deal in Ukraine that freezes the front lines and establishes a demilitarized

zone that also keeps crine out of NATO European States including the baltics Poland and the United Kingdom should agree on sending large numbers of their own troops as peacekeepers to man the DMZ in order to deter any future Russian assault on Ukraine that way even if the US largely abandons Ukraine and NATO and NATO membership is an offer to Ukraine the Europeans themselves will take on Ukraine's continue defense though it remains to be seen just how willing the European States will be to actually commit to to something like this if the Europeans decide on not

extending that firm of a commitment to a post-war Ukraine there's also the probability that faced with a scenario of abandoned us support no increased European support to fill in the Gap and no invitation to join NATO the ukrainians would logically conclude that the only way to safeguard themselves against Russia going forward would be to begin acquiring their own arsenal of nuclear weapons this October vomir I himself even hinted at this possibility during his speech to the European Council in Brussels when he plainly stated that the only two possible options available to Ukraine going forward were

either Security in NATO or security through nuclear weapons was zalinsky has since walked back that statement he's probably only done so because of heavy diplomatic pressure and he was almost certainly very serious and Ukraine might not even be the only country in Europe or in the rest of the world to develop their own nukes as a consequence of all of this Poland ever wary of Russia and their intentions on the continent as well would be highly likely to develop their own independent nuclear weapons Arsenal as well if the US security guarantee they currently have was

withdrawn or weakened from NATO and other European countries further away from Russia like Germany and France didn't satisfactorily step up to fill in the Gap essentially the looming Prospect of trump potentially ending America's support for Ukraine and weakening America's ties to Nato presents Europe with a set of very very difficult decisions and choices that they will probably have to make over the next four years in regards to Ukraine and Russia and which will have lasting tertiary consequences that will affect the entire continent in currently unforeseen ways and the situation could get even more dire for

the Europeans if China decides on launching an invasion of Taiwan as I have stated before in multiple videos here on YouTube the most widely expected time timeline for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan if it's going to happen at all will take place sometime between 2027 and 2030 which will now overlap with a significant portion of Trump's second term in office through 2027 and 2028 Trump May believe just as a significant amount of the US military does that the US needs to focus as much of its power and capabilities as possible in the Pacific Theater right

now in order to deter a Chinese attack on Taiwan or in order to prepare for it and that necessarily entails pulling US forces away from other theaters in Europe in the Middle East and relocating them to the Pacific Trump May believe that pulling troops and equipment from Europe and halting the flow of tens of billions of dollars worth a military hardware to Ukraine will conserve and refocus more of those resources towards the defense of Taiwan going into China's likely window of attack beginning in 2027 but it also potentially risks and Bolding Russia to attack elsewhere

in Ukraine or Europe if the Europeans do not fully step up and fill in the Gap they gets left behind of course understanding what's next for Europe and really what's next for the rest of the World includes needing to understand what Donald Trump's moves are in selecting important positions within his presidential cabinet who these people are and how their ideas and policy positions could end up influencing Trump's decision-making and understanding what Trump's moves are and what is Ed cabinet picks me has required a very careful consideration of the biases within my own research on this

topic given how politically charged anything to do with Trump or his selected cabinet positions that become lately when looking for sources and news stories to inform this video and others I produce like it I turn to ground news the sponsor of this video Trump's picks for several of his cabinet positions like National Security adviser and Secretary of State give direct Clues as to which direction his administration's foreign Poli policy is likely to lean all around the world which was a very important element to producing this video but given how politically charged and controversial Trump and

his appointees have been including Senator Marco Rubio for the Secretary of State position and Mike Waltz for the National Security adviser position and given that a lot of the news is overly sensationalized in order to attract clicks and generate ad Revenue I wanted to be able to include these picks into my own thoughts and Analysis without repeating the biases of landed new sources and ground news enabled me to do that by compiling articles on Trump's cabinet choices and characterizing the sources for such stories as Center left or right it also generated a list of the

key points made in left leaning articles and right leaning articles in this case given that so many of the sources come from the center despite the left leaning and right leaning talking points diverging significantly I was able to continue drafting the script with a high degree of confidence that I wasn't simply paring through my own or anyone else's political biases and not only is ground news a massive Aid in spotting biases and slanting the stories that you care about but it also has a feature called blind spot that identifies and introduces stories that are not

getting equal coverage from the right and the left which is so helpful to any and all news consumers because it allows each and every one of us to move beyond our own biased media diets to consider what kind of context we're missing on top a blind spot Crown news also has a local feed so you can plug in your own City and quickly identify the slant and the stories that are getting covered in your own Hometown on top of this there's also my news bias which tracks your reading habits over time with this feature I

can see my most read Outlets the bias of the stories I read and even the topics and people I read the most about it's basically a diet tracker for your news and one more awesome feature that I'd really like to mention here is the ownership feature that ground use has also developed they've analyzed well over 2,000 separate news sources to dis fill the ownership structure of each Source into one of seven different categories ranging from wealthy individual private owners to government owned and operating new sources which again helps me understand why a story is Being

Framed the way that it is the simple truth is that all media to a certain extent contains bias that all media consumers including myself also carry some personal bias so if you want to counter such factors cut through all the rhetoric political positioning and organizational slant ground news is your goat too and best of all I'm offering viewers 50% off of their Vantage subscription which is what I use for unlimited access to all of their features it's their biggest discount of the year so go to ground. newre life floor click the button here on screen

or follow the link Down Below in this video's description to subscribe for less than $5 a month it's a great way to stay better informed in our world and it'll also greatly help out my channel and support what I'm doing here on real life lore at the same time and as always thank you so much much for watching