What role does U.S. domestic political instability play in increasing global conflict risk according to Eurasia Group?

1. What Eurasia Group says the U.S. domestic crisis looks like

Eurasia Group describes the risk as structural, not merely tactical: a systematic attempt to “dismantle the checks on [presidential] power, capture the machinery of government, and weaponize it against … enemies,” a transformation the firm calls a U.S. political revolution and places atop its Top Risks list for 2026 ^{[2] [5]}. The report’s authors—Ian Bremmer and Cliff Kupchan—frame this as an unprecedented change in American politics, saying the United States is “unwinding its own global order” and that a U.S. political revolution is the principal geopolitical risk for the year ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Mechanisms linking U.S. domestic instability to higher conflict risk

Eurasia Group outlines three interlocking mechanisms: first, erosion of U.S. credibility and leadership which reduces deterrence and coordination with allies; second, the emboldening of rivals and autocrats who interpret U.S. dysfunction as license to act more aggressively; and third, a shift in American foreign policy style—more direct intervention closer to home and less multilateral economic leadership—that changes risk calculations in hotspots ^{[3] [7] [8]}. The firm specifically warns that democratic backsliding in the United States will “embolden autocrats elsewhere,” linking domestic weakness to a global permissive environment for conflict ^[4].

3. Regional and policy examples Eurasia Group highlights

Eurasia Group points to concrete arenas where U.S. domestic politics could alter conflict dynamics: a less predictable U.S. posture in the Western Hemisphere that could lead to new interventions (the “Donroe Doctrine” theme), fractures in transatlantic security as Europe’s political center falters and cannot fill gaps, and economic dislocation from a U.S. retreat from multilateral trade leadership ^{[7] [8] [3]}. The consultancy also flags that immediate neighbors—Canada, for example—face outsized exposure because of deep security and economic ties to a destabilized U.S. ^[9].

4. Limits on American leverage and the paradox of restraint vs. aggression

Eurasia Group cautions that domestic political upheaval will not uniformly translate into greater American military adventurism; on economic fronts, U.S. leverage may be constrained even as political leaders grow less restrained in security matters ^[7]. That paradox—reduced economic leadership but potentially more unilateral or regionally focused security action—creates unpredictable pressures that could spur localized conflicts without clear global management mechanisms ^[7].

5. Alternative readings, possible biases, and reporting limits

Eurasia Group’s argument carries the weight of a major political-risk firm and is articulated by well-known figures (Ian Bremmer and Cliff Kupchan), but it is also part of the same media umbrella (GZERO Media) used to amplify the report, a relationship Eurasia discloses ^{[1] [2]}. The analysis assumes continuity in the policies and impulses it attributes to the U.S. presidency; Eurasia acknowledges “red herrings” where expected great-power clashes (e.g., US–China war) are not the top near-term risk, suggesting a selective focus on domestic drivers ^{[3] [7]}. Independent verification of every downstream scenario is outside this reporting; the conclusions rest on Eurasia Group’s assessment of political trajectories and historical inference ^[1].

6. Bottom line: how domestic instability raises the odds of conflict, per Eurasia Group

In Eurasia Group’s view, the United States’ domestic political revolution increases global conflict risk by degrading deterrence and alliance cohesion, inspiring opportunistic foreign actors, and producing erratic policy that both reduces multilateral economic controls and raises the chance of unilateral security actions—conditions that, taken together, make 2026 a tipping-point year for geopolitical escalation ^{[3] [4] [8]}.