Sarah Bils is the founder of DD Geopolitics, an independent media and news outlet with contributors, journalists and analysts from across the globe. DD Geopolitics is one of the fastest-growing independent media outlets in recent years, with hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter, Telegram, and YouTube. Sarah herself frequently interviews high-profile figures on video livestreams via YouTube, Rumble, etc., and also often holds public talks and debates on Twitter, via the platform’s Spaces.
Hello, Sarah, and thank you so much for agreeing to be interviewed by Eagle Eye Explore. Now, cutting straight to the big topics, especially as an American citizen yourself – the Trump Administration tariffs. To say that Trump’s new tariffs have shocked the global markets would be a bit of an understatement, given the unprecedented nature of the tariffs. In your view, as a US citizen and a geopolitical analyst, what do you personally think is Trump’s ultimate objective by imposing these new tariffs on most of the world?
Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to speak with you. In my view, President Trump likely believed that imposing sweeping tariffs would pressure other nations to align more closely with the United States, decouple from China and bolster America’s economic position globally. However, the reality has unfolded quite differently. Instead of isolating China, these tariffs have prompted many countries to strengthen their ties with Beijing, seeking alternative partnerships to mitigate the impact of US trade policies. For instance, during a recent visit to Vietnam, Chinese President Xi Jinping signed 45 co-operation agreements, emphasizing enhanced supply chain integration and infrastructure development, including a significant $8 billion railway project connecting the two nations. This move not only deepens China’s influence in Southeast Asia, but also showcases its commitment to regional connectivity and economic collaboration. Similarly, European nations are increasingly engaging with China to advance their industrial and technological capabilities. The European Union, recognizing China’s leadership in electric vehicle (EV) technology, has pursued strategic partnerships that involve technology transfers and local production requirements. This approach aims to strengthen Europe’s industrial base, while fostering mutually beneficial ties with Chinese firms. These developments suggest that the tariffs may have inadvertently accelerated global efforts to diversify economic alliances away from the US, undermining the intended objective of reinforcing American economic dominance. Moreover, the resulting market volatility has created opportunities for financial insiders and political allies to profit, often at the expense of broader economic stability. Considering these outcomes, it’s challenging to discern a coherent, strategic objective behind the tariffs. Rather than serving as a calculated tool for global economic realignment, they appear to reflect an improvised policy approach that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term stability.
Arguably, two of the biggest surprises surrounding the tariffs were the imposition of them against Canada and Mexico. Most of us are already aware of Trump’s frosty relations with Mexico – not least due to the issue of illegal migration from Mexico and the cross-border activities of various Mexican cartel groups – but why Canada?
While tensions with Mexico were somewhat expected, due to longstanding issues over migration, security and trade imbalances, the decision to impose tariffs on Canada caught many by surprise. Canada is traditionally viewed as one of America’s closest allies, economically, militarily and culturally, so targeting them seemed counter-intuitive on the surface. However, if we dig deeper, we see a few underlying factors at play. First, the Trump Administration has consistently framed trade through the lens of transactionalism – every relationship is measured by perceived “wins” and “losses”. In this framework, even traditional allies like Canada are not exempt, if they are seen as benefiting at America’s expense. Trump and his trade advisors frequently pointed to disputes over dairy, lumber and steel as examples where they believed Canada was exploiting the US through favorable trade terms negotiated decades earlier. Second, targeting Canada served a political purpose domestically. By framing even friendly nations as unfair trade partners, Trump reinforced a broader nationalist narrative – that previous US administrations had allowed allies to take advantage of American generosity, and that he alone was willing to “stand up” and reset those terms, no matter who the counterpart was. This fit neatly into his broader “America First” agenda. That said, like the tariffs against other countries, the move has had unintended consequences. Canada has since accelerated efforts to diversify its trade relationships, including expanding agreements with the European Union and deepening economic ties across the Pacific through the CPTPP (Comprehensive & Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership). Rather than consolidating North American unity, the tariffs risk fracturing it at a time when geopolitical competition would have benefited from a more cohesive bloc. In short, the tariffs against Canada were less about specific grievances and more about sending a message – but that message has come at a strategic cost.
From tariff wars to hot wars, the two conflicts dominating headlines today continue to be the Russo-Ukrainian War and the wider collective military campaigns of Israel in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Syria. Regarding Russia and Ukraine, it is evidently clear that Ukraine’s ultimate desire would be for NATO to directly intervene in the conflict against Russia, completely disregarding the potentially devastating consequences – the outbreak of World War III and nuclear war. In your view, why is the Ukrainian leadership specifically so non-chalant when it comes to putting Europe and the wider world at risk by constantly demanding NATO military intervention against Russia? After all, Ukraine often claim themselves to be the “defenders of peace in Europe”.
The Ukrainian leadership’s persistent demands for NATO intervention, despite the obvious risks of escalation, can be explained through a combination of desperation, political survival and a calculated gamble on Western support. From Ukraine’s perspective, their survival as a state – at least in the form they envision – is increasingly tied to external military backing. After suffering significant territorial losses and facing the reality of a prolonged conflict with Russia, Ukrainian leaders have little incentive to show restraint. Instead, by framing themselves as the “defenders of European peace”, they attempt to elevate their struggle into a moral imperative for the West – to suggest that defending Ukraine is synonymous with defending the entire European order. There’s also a political logic at play. For leaders like Volodymyr Zelensky, maintaining international attention and sympathy is crucial. As fatigue sets in among Western populations and governments, Ukraine’s strategy has been to continually raise the stakes, portraying the conflict not just as a regional war, but as a frontline battle for the survival of Western civilization itself. This narrative pressures NATO states to remain involved and minimizes calls for negotiated settlements, which Kyiv likely sees as unfavourable, under current conditions. At the same time, there is a significant element of recklessness. Some Ukrainian officials seem to genuinely believe that Western deterrence will prevent Russia from escalating to nuclear war, assuming Moscow would not risk direct confrontation with NATO. This assumption is dangerous. It discounts the broader risks of miscalculation, accidental escalation or political shifts in Washington, Brussels or Moscow that could change the calculus overnight. Ultimately, Ukraine’s leadership is trapped between existential fear and the belief that constant escalation – rhetorical or real – is their best hope for survival. Whether this strategy will serve them or backfire remains one of the defining uncertainties of the conflict.
From Europe to the Middle-East, there have been many rumours and reports hinting at potential military action by Israel against Iran – specifically against Iranian nuclear facilities. Judging by Israeli and Western claims that Iran is building nuclear weapons, would it be an exaggeration for people to suspect that we could potentially be witnessing a repeat of the 2003 Western invasion of Iraq, based on very similar claims – the alleged building of WMDs by an enemy of the Western powers?
There are echoes of 2003 in the way Iran’s nuclear program is being discussed with many familiar themes – the accusations of hidden weapons programs, the calls for pre-emptive action and the pressure campaigns in the media. However, I don’t believe we are likely to see a repeat of the 2003-style invasion scenario. First, there’s a significant difference in political will. While Israel has been very vocal about striking Iranian facilities, the United States – even under the Trump Administration – appears far more hesitant. In fact, President Trump himself recently stated that he refuses to be dragged into a war with Iran. That kind of clear signalling matters. Unlike the early 2000s, when there was a co-ordinated push across US political, intelligence and media spheres to sell the Iraq invasion, today, there’s a healthier amount of scepticism, even within the US establishment.
Second, the military and geopolitical context is different. Iran is not Iraq circa 2003. It has extensive asymmetrical capabilities, strong regional allies and the ability to retaliate in ways that would destabilize not just the Middle-East, but global energy markets – something the Trump Administration seems keenly aware of. A direct war with Iran would be exponentially more complex, costly and unpredictable than Iraq was. That being said, the risk of limited strikes – particularly by Israel – remains real, and any limited engagement carries the risk of unintended escalation. But a full-scale ground invasion of Iran, in my view, is unlikely at this stage. There’s plenty of posturing, but so far, there’s also been a noticeable line of restraint from Washington, and that restraint matters.
Sticking to the subject matter that is foreign interference, of course, such things are not limited only to armed conflicts and proxy wars, but also election interference and colour revolutions. One of the most notable socio-political events currently taking place are the mass protests across Serbia. Again, from an American perspective, to what extent do you believe that foreign actors could exploit the socio-political situation in Serbia, regardless whether they are on the side of the protestors or on the side of the Serbian Government (or perhaps neither)?
I think it’s important to recognize that the protests in Serbia are rooted in real, legitimate grievances. Many Serbians are frustrated with issues like corruption, economic stagnation and concerns about democratic transparency. These domestic problems have created fertile ground for widespread unrest. That said, foreign actors are absolutely trying to take advantage of the situation. Western NGOs, media outlets and diplomatic channels are amplifying the protests and framing them in ways that serve broader geopolitical goals – namely, weakening Serbia’s ties to Russia and China, and pushing the country more firmly into the orbit of Western institutions, like NATO and the European Union. So, while the protests themselves are not necessarily manufactured from the outside, the narrative around them and, potentially, their long-term direction, is being shaped by external interests. It’s a classic case of exploiting an organic movement to serve strategic ends. Serbia’s position at the crossroads of East and West makes it especially vulnerable to this kind of interference, whether it comes in the form of political pressure, media campaigns or covert support. Ultimately, it’s a very delicate situation, and one that deserves to be understood in both its domestic and international dimensions.
Following the cancellation of the Romanian Presidential Elections last year and the banning of independent nationalist candidate Călin Georgescu – who ran on a platform that was anti-EU and anti-NATO – we have also seen other nationalist politicians banned from running in their own respective elections, such as Marine Le Pen in France and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Do you believe that there are larger, external factors at play here, against nationalist and populist figures, or do you believe that these are just mere coincidences?
I think it’s difficult to look at these cases – from Romania to France to Brazil – and dismiss them as mere coincidences. While I’m not a believer in sweeping globalist conspiracy theories, it’s clear that nationalist and right-wing populist figures are facing co-ordinated institutional resistance across multiple countries. These leaders often challenge the dominant political and economic structures – particularly the authority of transnational organizations, like the European Union, NATO or global financial institutions. As a result, they become political threats not just within their own countries, but to broader regional, or even global, agendas. What we’re seeing is a pattern where legal mechanisms, media campaigns and regulatory bodies are increasingly used to sideline, discredit or outright ban these candidates, often under the banner of “protecting democracy” – ironically, by limiting voter choice. This doesn’t mean there’s some secret room where it’s all being orchestrated, but there are very real pressures – political, financial and ideological – that converge against movements that advocate for sovereignty, nationalism or deglobalization. These forces are powerful and they tend to move quickly when their interests are perceived to be at risk. In short, it’s not coincidence. It’s the result of systemic resistance to political forces that challenge the existing international order.
Now for something a little bit different – Elon Musk and DOGE. For any of our readers who might still be unsure exactly what the roles of Musk and DOGE are within US politics, could you please explain to us Musk’s position within the US Government now and the exact nature of what DOGE is?
Frankly, it’s challenging to pinpoint Elon Musk’s exact role within the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and that ambiguity seems to permeate the entire initiative. Initially, DOGE was introduced with the ambitious goal of eliminating $2 trillion in government waste, fraud and abuse. Musk was positioned as the visionary leader, bringing his tech-savvy approach to streamline federal operations. However, as time progressed, the projected savings have been significantly scaled back to approximately $150 billion. Compounding this, Musk has announced plans to reduce his involvement with DOGE to just one or two days a week, citing the need to refocus on Tesla, following a substantial decline in earnings.
Beyond the shifting financial targets and leadership changes, DOGE has come under intense scrutiny for its data practices. Reports indicate that DOGE has been granted access to sensitive databases across multiple federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Health & Human Services. This access encompasses personal information, such as Social Security numbers, bank account details and health records. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a federal lawsuit against the US Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act. The lawsuit stems from concerns over DOGE’s attempts to access sensitive federal databases without proper transparency or oversight.
Moreover, DOGE’s integration of artificial intelligence to analyze and potentially restructure government operations has raised alarms about mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy rights. Whistleblower accounts and investigative reports suggest that DOGE’s data acquisition efforts may have bypassed established privacy laws and protocols, leading to potential misuse of personal information. In essence, while DOGE was conceived as a bold initiative to enhance government efficiency, its execution has been marred by unclear leadership, unmet financial goals and serious concerns over data privacy and civil liberties. The lack of transparency and oversight in DOGE’s operations underscores the need for a thorough examination of its practices and objectives.
Do you believe that the highly eccentric nature of Musk and the influence of Twitter/X will help or harm Trump’s tenure as President of the United States going forward?
I don’t believe Elon Musk or Twitter/X will have a meaningful impact on Trump’s presidency in the long run – certainly not enough to help or seriously harm it. Musk’s influence, both politically and economically, has been declining. Tesla’s stock is plummeting, investor confidence is weakening and Musk’s personal brand, once associated with innovation and disruption, now increasingly signals instability and controversy. His relationship with Trump may have been useful early on, but Trump has always been highly transactional. If Musk became a liability, he would be sidelined without hesitation.
As for Twitter/X, while the platform certainly plays a role in shaping narratives and amplifying voices, it’s ultimately just one tool among many. It’s noisy and it can cause temporary headlines, but it doesn’t hold the power to fundamentally shift Trump’s political trajectory. If anything, Musk’s unpredictability could create occasional embarrassments or distractions, but not on a scale that would endanger Trump’s control over his administration or his base. In short, Trump is still firmly in the driver’s seat. Musk, like many others in Trump’s orbit, is ultimately expendable if he stops being useful.
Returning to the subject matter that is foreign interference, USAID is known for being an agency that allegedly works to promote humanitarian aid abroad and overseas civil development projects. In recent months, however, the Trump Administration has revealed that much of the work that USAID conducts overseas and finances involves what can only be described as interference in other countries’ social, cultural and political affairs. The legality of USAID’s projects such as these in foreign countries must be questioned, no?
Absolutely, the legality and legitimacy of USAID’s overseas activities deserve to be questioned – perhaps now more than ever. USAID was never just about humanitarian aid. From the very beginning, it was designed to serve broader US strategic interests, often working in parallel with covert intelligence operations. As Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), openly admitted, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” In other words, organizations like USAID and NED were set up to provide a public-facing, “overt” mechanism for influence that could no longer be carried out in the shadows after the CIA’s activities came under greater scrutiny.
While the Trump Administration has effectively gutted much of USAID’s traditional public funding, giving the appearance of scaling back, the reality is that many of its core functions have simply been moved behind the walls of the State Department and into the hands of private intelligence contractors, like Palantir. This shift doesn’t make foreign interference go away – it just makes it less transparent and harder to regulate or even detect. Recent reports have shown that programs tied to DOGE, Palantir and other shadowy partners have been involved in questionable data acquisition efforts and access to sensitive databases without sufficient oversight. In essence, the tools of influence and manipulation have become more privatized, less accountable and, arguably, even more dangerous than when USAID was operating in the open. So, yes, not only is it legal to question USAID’s activities, it’s necessary, and moving these same activities behind private contractors only deepens the need for public scrutiny.
And finally, given the already-turbulent nature of the Trump Administration mere months into his second term, what do you predict his presidency will bring to both the US and the wider world from now until November 2028?
I have a fairly pessimistic outlook when it comes to Trump’s ability to deliver on the promises he made to his base. Despite the populist rhetoric, I see little evidence that structural reforms, whether in governance, economics or national sovereignty, are truly being implemented. In many ways, the volatility, insider dealings and chaotic policymaking we’ve seen so far suggest that the political establishment remains largely intact, just reshuffled under different branding.
However, when we zoom out and look at the broader global impact, there’s no denying that Trump’s policies, whether by design or by accident, are accelerating the decline of unipolarity and strengthening the rise of a multipolar world. His aggressive tariff policies, transactional approach to alliances and retrenchment from certain global institutions are all forcing other countries to diversify their partnerships, build new regional blocs and assert greater independence from Washington.
As someone who supports a multipolar world order, I can acknowledge that Trump’s presidency, chaotic as it may be, is contributing to that shift. It’s not a clean or ideal process, and accelerationism certainly carries risks, but the end result is a world that is far less dominated by a single power center than it was a decade ago. So, while I remain sceptical about Trump’s domestic agenda and his ability to truly reform the system at home, I also recognize that his presidency is inadvertently pushing the world toward a more balanced and pluralistic international order.
