U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies
whitehouse.govAn organization that is contrary to the interests of the US: that's exactly the sort of thing you want no American representatives in. Ideally, you don't even want second-hand information about what they are talking about and what decisions they are making.
Reminds me of Brexit: let’s leave Europe; we’re still going to be affected by its laws because they’re our closest and biggest neighbours, but now we don’t even have a seat at the table to further our interests.
Welcome the era of political own goals.
Britain distinctly claims part ownership of a foreign county, which had complicated trade with said country and its trade union.
own goals is apt for Brexit, but for the US it'd be more of a footgun
> interests of the US
To achieve your goal, you have to go one step further and remove deviators from parliamentary bodies too.
In your opinion, what's an example of such an organization? And why? What are the US's interests in that case?
S/he's being sarcastic.
Thanks.
I know, right!? Wait! You don't?
I guess what you really want inside bodies that are contrary to your interests is not your official representatives, but moles pretending to be representatives of other states. (But not nobody at all.)
Aren't all official reps moles? That's what a diplomat does - represent your best interests with a big smile talking to their guy or gal that also has a big smile. We're all friends here... until we're not.
pretty sure that all decisions are published. protocols of the meetings as well
> American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, while they often criticize U.S. policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results.
>By exiting these entities, President Trump is saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First priorities.
Taking a look at the actual list, many of these organizations deal with issues such as climate change, environmental protection, and education. I think this means two things: One, the U.S. is further breaking away from the rest of the world. Trump's "America First" policies have effectively broke alliances and trust. Two, the current administration is quite heavily biased against clean energy. A majority of the organizations left are governing/advising on environmental issues, namely renewable energy and climate change. Trump frames the decision as "pro-America"; Trump says "our" values, he means his/his party's. I don't think that many people who have put at least a little research into the subject would agree that a) Climate change is not an issue and b) Renewables are (or at least getting to be) a good alternative to our currently climate-change exacerbating sources of power. The U.S. is going to be divided more and more along party lines, and it's going to get harder and harder to stop.
> with little return
It's like they don't realise the bulk of their power is a consequence of the rest of the world agreeing that some kind of world order, no matter how flawed, is more desirable that a world of empires fighting for power and bullying everyone else into submission.
That's going to be an interesting century, and I very much doubt the US will be as relevant as today by the end of it.
For a long I've wondered when, in the view of the current administration, the US was great the last time. I'm trying to decide when in the 1800s that was.
There's one date they'll always point to because it fits all their stereotypes. Sixth of June, 1944. Lots of young men dying fighting a valiant war against a seemingly insurmountable enemy surrounded by icons of American military might, all to show those pansy Europeans how it's done.It's always something to do with World War II because that was the last time the U.S. got into a war and came out the other side being nearly universally praised instead of being broadly condemned.
It's also before second wave feminism, the Civil Rights Movement, and the eco friendly shift that began in the 1960s. 1967 haunts the American regressive right wing in more ways than they ever want to acknowledge, as that's the year when they finally lost control.
Years ago someone tracked this down by looking at interviews Trump has done over the decades, and IIRC it was the 1980s or so when he switched from "is great" to "was great". They put together all the clips they found on youtube somewhere.
Trump loves the tariffs they did in 1890. Didn't end well back then and won't now.
That creates a lot of work for the next administration.
This is fairly routine -- for Democratic executive administrations to unfuck financial / other poor performance / bad health promulgated by prior Republican ones:
Republicans since Reagan have prioritized tax cuts as an end in themselves, treating deficit concerns as secondary
Democrats have generally accepted the post-1990s norm of PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) budgeting more consistently
Trump has been remarkable effective and impactful, for a US President.
His term makes me think maybe we DON'T want Presidents, as they're too powerful and it's too risky a structural design.
> His term makes me think maybe we DON'T want Presidents, as they're too powerful and it's too risky a structural design.
Or we could go back to actually following Constitutional intent. In that, the executive branch isn't the most powerful at all. Congress is.
I wonder if that idea would support enhancing the Congress with more members + more true-representational (not Gerrymandered) membership, and eliminating the Senate?
I have Zero fundamental understanding of governing, or best-practices for representational government, nor for my own / USA's system. And I wonder wtf should I actually know, in order to fore-arm myself for this upcoming period where the USA must adapt to the perils of this new age.
We're well beyond what a democratic administration following the Trump one can undo, there is a large amount of permanent damage.
Democratic measures against Republicans is always one step forward for every two steps back. It’s not enough and has never been enough because liberals don’t fight a fraction as hard to help people as conservatives do to fuck people over. Every single democratic administration wastes months to years trying some sort of reconciliation path with people who actively hate them and wonder why politics as usual isn’t working.
I agree, but believe jacquesm is pointing to a larger problem: even with diligent and committed efforts by a different administration or a series of them, the rest of the world is not going to trust the US any more for a very long time. Partly thanks to social media, it's obvious that the political realignment we're seeing is not just the work of a few political strategists and manipulators, but that about a third of the US is consumed by a revanchist mindset with whom accommodation is impossible.
Indeed. Even Canadians, who - as a rule, and of course only in my experience - are fairly mild mannered are now outright aghast at the way their Southern neighbor is behaving. This is something I never expected to see and here we are, and that little bit of damage alone is going to last for a decade or more if it doesn't get much worse compared to where it is today.
The damage we're talking about will last for generations.
> "don’t fight a fraction as hard to help people as conservatives do to [f] people over"
I attribute this more to the relative difficulty to destroy compared with the effort required to create.
It's easier to burn bridges than build them.
It's easier to forfeit external relations saboteurially than to be a decent f person and listen.
They just forfeited 66 very big deals. When they run away like that, they forfeit.
He will likely run again. Already signalled that
In my opinion he doesn't stand a chance a 3rd time around. Also he's too old for that, he'd be 83 yo and by the end of his 3rd term would be 87.
His age or mental capacity never seemed to be a dealbreaker for his supporters previously. I'm not sure how or why that would change. Obviously number go up but if they still trust him it doesn't really matter. They will handwave and talk about advances in medicine & health
ICE is going to have a hell of a time feeding the souls of a thousand foreigners to the golden throne every day to keep him alive. Maybe that's what Venezuela's for.
If he has a third term, it's likely the end of it won't be based on some preset number of years but his eventual dirt nap.
You're recklessly optimistic assuming damage is temporary, reversible, and that there will be a different kind of administration subsequently when the current occupant has already voiced that _their next inauguration_ will be held in the forthcoming demolished east wing Epstein-Trump memorial ballroom.
Pre-WWII the US was largely isolationist, but it's hard to argue this is a return to those values while we're funding the war on Gaza and electively invading Venezuela. This regime's policies are incoherent.
It's pretty clearly "we're going to advance American interests and we don't care what others think." Taking matters into their own hands rather than relying on allies.
The Trump administration seems eager to pit America against the rest of the world's nations, which altogether comprise 8 billion people.
The USA has a population of around 0.4 billion.
Until a future administration corrects course, the future will be one demoralizing failure after another.
I wrote "pit America against the rest of the world's nations" not based on this news alone, but on the totality of the past six months. For example:
https://whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-Natio...
It's hard to think of a plausible scenario in which America carries on like this using hard power alone.
I am sorry, but the damage is already done. It cannot be repaired. NEVER!
With a little bread and circus, the voters and "the allies" will forget everything. Happenes all the time.
> I am sorry, but the damage is already done. It cannot be repaired. NEVER!
I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but Germany was once the most reviled country in the world and is now, arguably, the most influential country in the European Union. Clearly, damage much worse than what the US has done over Trump's two terms can be repaired over time.
Unfortunately, that path back for Germany required holding those responsible accountable, in some cases fatally so. I don't see that happening here. Nothing will prevent or dissuade Trump's political allies from continuing his movement. Yes they may lose an election here or there, but I don't see any indication that MAGA is anywhere close to becoming politically toxic. Until a post-WWII style reckoning can be had, I am not optimistic that reputational repair can happen.
> Yes they may lose an election here or there, but I don't see any indication that MAGA is anywhere close to becoming politically toxic.
I think we're on the cusp of it right now. The ICE murders make it more and more untenable and indefensible for the average American to defend without sounding crazy. But even if this doesn't do it, or an invasion of Greenland somehow doesn't do it, the big question will be: can MAGA even survive as a movement without Trump?
> Until a post-WWII style reckoning can be had, I am not optimistic that reputational repair can happen.
I fully agree. A third Reconstruction is needed in this country.
> A third Reconstruction is needed in this country.
Arguably the first two didn't go far enough.
Germany didn't really do a lot of that though.
More proof that a nuclear nation can do whatever the hell it wants until the money runs out.
More proof that a nation with "world reserve currency status" can do whatever the hell it wants until the world decides to move to other currencies. Alas, such nation is using violence (abduction+piracy+war), threats and coercion to ensure that never happens.
Isn't that what happened to Russia? Didn't slow them down
If negative 38 TRILLION dollars is not “run out”, what is?
US net worth, including government and private wealth, composed of financial and other assets, comes to around $200 trillion USD, including the $38T in debt.
Total governmental assets come to around $25T. $38T in debt is bad, but that doesn't represent net worth.
Let's not forget that all that net worth is not liquid and pumped up with hot air.
People being unwilling to loan you more.
Which, at present, seems quite a ways off still.
Hold that thought.
How long? I remember folks freaking out about $5T when I was in middle school.
I reckon the coming war, no elections and then civil war ought to get it done.
Three years, tops.
Watching the two new ICE shootings, could be next week though.
It happens in levels as the credit rating defaults
is he planning to do a third term as well?
He's done planning, it's in execution stage now. Speaking from my experience of living unelected/farcically elected governments for ~20 years.
"Freedom Online Coalition"
actual list https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/with...
any way to update url in submission ?
Thank you!
I don't understand why this is downvoted. It contains the actual list, while the main submission does not.
Unsurprising. In his first mandate he withdrew the US from the TPP after 7 years of negotiation and the Iran nuclear deal (JOPA), the TTIP negotiations.
America was likely forced to pay the bill for these elitist organizations. Good riddance
Good riddance. American taxpayers were likely funding the bill for these elitist organizations. The world has moved on.