U.S. is withdrawing from 66 international bodies

Link to actual list

• Commenters share the presidential action document with the full list of 66 bodies, noting confusion about why a more informative link was downvoted.
• Observers point out that many of the targeted organizations concern climate, environment, and education.

Targets, motives, and “America First” framing

• Several see the withdrawals as part of a broader ideological hostility to clean energy, environmental protection, and multilateral governance.
• “America First” is interpreted by many as “party-first,” not reflecting broad U.S. public values or scientific consensus on climate.
• Critics argue that Trump emphasizes short-term budget savings while ignoring long-term strategic benefits of participation.

U.S. power, alliances, and trust

• Multiple comments stress that U.S. power largely rests on a rules-based order and allied cooperation; abandoning institutions may accelerate U.S. decline and irrelevance.
• There is concern that allies’ trust—already eroded over recent years—will be damaged for decades or generations.
• Some note even historically friendly neighbors are “aghast,” and that future administrations will face a large cleanup job, possibly beyond repair.

Domestic politics, polarization, and institutional design

• Thread portrays a pattern: Republican administrations inflict fiscal/structural damage, Democrats attempt partial repair constrained by norms like PAYGO and a desire for bipartisanship.
• Many argue liberals don’t fight as hard as conservatives, allowing long-term rightward ratcheting.
• Some suggest the presidency has become dangerously powerful; others say the solution is to reassert congressional authority per constitutional intent.
• Worries are raised about Trump seeking a third term and a slide into semi-permanent illiberal rule; others think age and politics will limit him, but this is contested.

International organizations, strategy, and Brexit analogy

• One line of argument (often sarcastic) notes that if a body is “contrary to U.S. interests,” presence is even more important—otherwise you lose influence and insight.
• Comparisons are drawn to Brexit: leaving institutions whose rules still affect you, but without a seat at the table, as a “footgun” or “own goal.”

Isolationism vs interventionism and constraints

• Commenters argue this is not classic isolationism, given simultaneous military interventions and support for foreign wars; instead it’s seen as unilateralism: “we advance our interests, ignore everyone else.”
• A side discussion debates whether nuclear-armed, deeply indebted states face real external constraints, with disagreement about when debt becomes binding.