alt.hn

1/23/2026 at 2:37:58 AM

U.S. Formally Withdraws from World Health Organization

 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/us/politics/united-states-withdraws-world-health-organization.html

by reaperducer

1/23/2026 at 3:01:50 AM

China will fill this gap as well: https://www.hematologyadvisor.com/news/china-donates-500m-to...

by lateforwork

1/23/2026 at 1:52:18 PM

They are currently eating our biotech lunch. Between cuts to NIH, chaos at FDA and CDC, and China’s intensive investment and buildout of their biomedical infrastructure the US is going to be getting lapped soon. Ask a biotech VC about it.

But who knows, maybe if we keep the tariffs for another 10 years we can host the chemical manufacturing facilities that produce the drugs their biotechs sell to us after ours are no longer competitive.

by pfisherman

1/23/2026 at 5:35:14 PM

Moderna is now curbing vaccine trials because of US policy. Ironic that the same crowd that insists “healthcare companies want to keep you sick” is now cheering policies that reduce access to one time, preventative solutions in the form of vaccines.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

by _DeadFred_

1/24/2026 at 8:36:03 AM

It's OK, the med beds will cure everyone so the US won't need vaccines. And if they don't, you've got the rapture to look forward to, so it's a win/win.

by pseudohadamard

1/23/2026 at 3:06:45 AM

China is likely to use its influence to push "TCM" further into the narrative. Not that the US national health agenda is exemplary in its use of evidence and scientific knowledge at the moment either.

Sad all round.

(Edit - downvoters, do you not agree that this is likely, or do you think that it's OK?

If the former, it's been done before so it seems very likely to me. If the latter then I have to say I agree with this take in scientific american - "To include TCM in the ICD is an egregious lapse in evidence-based thinking and practice."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...)

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 3:27:35 AM

Traditional Chinese Medicine and International Classification of Diseases - for people who didn't click the link

by speff

1/24/2026 at 8:37:38 AM

TCM is mostly used by people in China too poor to afford standard medicine. If they've got the money, they go for non-TCM. That's all, nothing to do with the evil CCP bogeymen.

by pseudohadamard

1/24/2026 at 11:31:23 AM

While this seems true and may be true within China, the Chinese government does push for this to be accepted around the world by pressuring for its inclusion in WHO documents, and is trying to open up new markets for TCM “Pharma” in poorer nations.

I consider that quite evil as it’s not evidence based and undermines actually good, useful medicine. Just as I would/do consider anyone trying to increase take up of homeopathy in poorer parts of the world to be evil.

In the case of China and TCM there appear to be nationalist and financial motives.

by Nursie

1/25/2026 at 4:52:37 AM

It's not necessarily bad, these probably aren't hard figures but a GP once told me that of the cases he gets, if you do nothing much then 70% will get better by themselves, 20% will stay the same, and 10% will get worse (may have misremembered the numbers there). A lot of people just need a bit of reassurance and something to make them feel like they're doing something and they'll be OK, for which very affordable TCM is fine. Albert Schweitzer was once asked why he was OK with witch-doctors (as they were called then) practising outside his hospital, and he said they treated the stuff they could and sent the serious cases to him. It was an arrangement that worked for both sides.

by pseudohadamard

1/26/2026 at 8:33:21 AM

I think that promoting quack medicine as if it was legitimate is a problem in itself.

Beyond that, some of the remedies are actively harmful, and we know that alt medicine practitioners have often kept people away from vital treatment.

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 3:19:08 AM

I haven't seen them push it internationally. There's just occasionally official support for highly questionable studies claiming that it was real all along.

Edit: It's dumber and worse than I thought.

by platinumrad

1/23/2026 at 3:21:51 AM

They have previously pressured the WHO to include TCM remedies in its literature.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-health-...

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 3:29:31 AM

It's very stupid, but I don't think it's going to have any international effect outside of countries like Singapore and Taiwan with signifiant populations of highly superstitious older ethnic Chinese. It's not like TCM doctors are being sent to Africa.

by platinumrad

1/23/2026 at 3:38:31 AM

You said it, so I had to look it up:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/10/chinese-traditiona...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3326972/ho...

https://rhinos.org/tough-issues/promotion-of-traditional-chi...

It actually is like they're sending TCM doctors to Africa!

I had no idea...

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 3:40:32 AM

Thanks, we live in an ever stupider world than I thought. I do wonder about the prevalence and traction, and whether it's mostly ingredient sourcing rather than "treating" locals.

by platinumrad

1/23/2026 at 7:15:52 AM

According to those sources above, they're not only 'treating' locals but starting up training centres. It seems to be about exporting culture as well as opening up new markets for TCM 'pharmaceutical' companies.

No doubt ingredient sourcing is in the mix too.

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 4:06:00 PM

I believe it’s ok due to shortfalls (namely, rigidity) of evidence-based thinking and practice, which leads to pretty depressing outcomes for a lot of people when it comes to medical practice. With western medicine it seems as though people are driven to mental illness, premature death, and bankruptcy. I’d also love to medicines that focus on fixing people instead of making a profit and I believe TCM narratives are more aligned with that viewpoint.

by mapotofu

1/24/2026 at 4:00:28 AM

There must be a name for this sort of fallacy of thinking.

“A isn’t perfect therefore I choose to believe in B.”

Where A is an evidence-based discipline with some shortcomings and B is unevidenced woo. I’d rather something that works and can be proven to work over a good narrative, myself.

Several of your criticisms there also only apply to the American way of running a health system, that’s a choice that’s not taken everywhere.

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 3:12:43 AM

Why would they do that? Genuinely makes 0 sense to me. Even India with its nationalist authoritarian govt doesn't push Ayurveda on the global stage (for domestic customers though it's obv a big business whose magnates have close ties w the govt)

by aprilthird2021

1/23/2026 at 3:50:46 AM

1. What does nationalism and authoritarianism have to do with anything? By gratuitously sticking these words into your argument you undermine your credibility as a neutral commentator.

2. Even if they didn't push it, the west has been stealing ("appropriating" in liberal speak) Ayurvedic remedies for years. Take turmeric for example. The GoI had to sue to keep turmeric patent free.

by SanjayMehta

1/23/2026 at 6:25:11 AM

1. Because both states are nationalist and authoritarian, and both states have an alternative medicine practice that's culturally tied to them. It's a pretty good analogy imo, and it helps to understand how such a state would act by having an anlogue to compare it to

2. Ayurvedic and TCM largely refers to those things which haven't undergone clinical trials to understand their efficacy as prescribed medicines. Anything from that sphere which is clinically proven to work and is dispensed as prescription medicine just becomes part of medicine. It's not about "stealing" or whatever, it's about whether people should be given proven effective medicines or hopefully effective medicines, the former being what we should promote globally

by aprilthird2021

1/23/2026 at 10:25:37 AM

> Ayurvedic and TCM largely refers to those things which haven't undergone clinical trials to understand their efficacy as prescribed medicines.

Interestingly enough, RCTs of acupuncture (with sham needles) show pretty large effect sizes for many treatments but only in China, which is super weird. The most likely explanation is that the blinding doesn't work (which is a perennial problem in basically all RCTs), but it's interesting nonetheless.

by disgruntledphd2

1/23/2026 at 5:06:01 PM

> clinical trials

Keep in mind that the Western system is not perfect either. Many good natural medicines are ignored by western countries because they have not undergone clinical trials. Why haven't they undergone clinical trials? Because that takes large amounts of money and no one is going to make that investment unless they can patent the molecule.

Of course, natural medicines that have been in use for hundreds if not thousands of years are not patentable, so no one will do a clinical trial for them. As a result, when you go to a doctor in a western country they are completely ignorant about natural medicines and will only prescribe drugs pushed by big pharma.

by lateforwork

1/23/2026 at 8:14:30 PM

> Why haven't they undergone clinical trials? Because that takes large amounts of money and no one is going to make that investment unless they can patent the molecule.

The Ramdevs and Patanjalis of the world could easily afford to do this and would boost their sales 100x if they could. They already sell unpatentable remedies and powders with great profit (but decamp to Western hospitals when they are actually sick)

by aprilthird2021

1/23/2026 at 9:47:13 PM

We don't have to look at TCM or Ayurveda. Let's consider a simple, well-known, natural molecule: magnesium. Go to Amazon and search for product reviews for magnesium and magnesium l-threonate supplements. You'll see tons of people using magnesium effectively for muscle tightness, and insomnia. Yet doctors never recommend it, and are confused when told that it works for you. Why is this? It is because big pharma is not pushing it. There are no major clinical trials going on for it in order to prove that it is safe and effective for these purposes. Why? Because it is not patentable.

by lateforwork

1/24/2026 at 7:20:49 AM

This is absolute nonsense.

Doctors test for deficiencies in vitamins and minerals and recommend cheap effective supplements to address them and other conditions all the frickin time.

My partner is currently taking completely unpatentable iron supplements for a deficiency and I am taking cheap, unpatentable psyllium husk for gut health and cholesterol management, both on the advice of our (Western, evidence-based) doctors.

This meme that ‘western’ doctors are only interested in peddling expensive pharmaceuticals and don’t look ‘holistically’ at patient health, or recommend cheap, effective treatments … it’s just not true at all.

by Nursie

1/24/2026 at 1:39:31 PM

It is absolutely true for certain conditions. If you have insomnia and go to a doctor they want to put you on Ambien CR for the rest of your life. There aren't even any reliable tests for magnesium deficiency. Psyllium husk for cholesterol? Never heard a doctor mention that, all they recommend is statins. Your experience is clearly different from mine. The notion that Western doctors recommend natural medicines when possible is extraordinary. If they did, naturopathic doctors will not have jobs.

by lateforwork

1/24/2026 at 1:58:40 PM

‘Western’ doctors generally recommend things that work and are proven to work. They don’t always get it right but in general that is at least the driving idea. Psyllium husk is a source of dietary fibre and has been shown to to absorb cholesterol from bile as it passes through the digestive tract, hence it can be recommended as an evidence-based first attempt at reducing levels. Statins are likely to be an escalation from there if it doesn’t help.

Magnesium blood tests exist - https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/amp/article/magnesium-blood-...

Naturopathic ‘doctors’ have jobs because the credulous believe they’re something other than quacks. Naturopathy is a grab bag of unproven, alt-med bullshit and should be regarded as nothing more than charlatanry.

Your view of western medicine is nonsense driven by antipathy. Yes, there are problems with money from big Pharma corrupting the system. That doesn’t mean any of the woo-woo alt systems are any more real. They’re all far worse because they don’t even start with an evidence base.

by Nursie

1/24/2026 at 3:00:15 PM

> Your view of western medicine is nonsense driven by antipathy.

The same could be said about your view of natural and traditional medicine.

> ‘Western’ doctors generally recommend things that work and are proven to work.

That's true of traditional medicine as well. The difference is how they are proven. Western medicines prove using a double blind study. It is expensive and you can't get funding for such studies unless an investor is assured of returns for their investment, which is only possible for novel, patentable medicines. And that means many natural medicines that work are ignored by the Western system. Traditional medicine on the other hand prove that something works not using double blind studies but 100s years of actual experience.

An example is magnesium. Doctors don't know that it works for muscle tightness and insomnia because no one has done a double blind study on it with thousands of patients. And nobody will because magnesium is not patentable. And so they prescribe Ambien CR, a very harmful and addictive drug. It is a very broken system, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge those limitations. (And no, no reliable tests exist for magnesium deficiency but that's a side point.)

> Naturopathy is a grab bag of unproven, alt-med bullshit and should be regarded as nothing more than charlatanry.

Yeah.. this attitude is the problem.

> They’re all far worse because they don’t even start with an evidence base.

They do, perhaps not in a way that satisfies you, but they do. The evidence is based on 100s of years of experience.

by lateforwork

1/23/2026 at 1:13:55 PM

[flagged]

by SanjayMehta

1/23/2026 at 4:27:47 PM

I don’t know what this comment is, but it is totally missing and underselling Chinese capability in biotech. They are not coming to push TCM. They are coming to dominate high end drug discovery and development. Perhaps they are looking to dominate both the high end and the low end bro science segments of the health market…

by pfisherman

1/24/2026 at 3:45:41 AM

I didn’t claim that Chinese biotech isn’t great. I am sure that like most Chinese research, engineering etc it is world class.

But there is evidence from all around the world that the Chinese government is actively pushing TCM, that they push it with the WHO, and that they are actively trying to open up markets for TCM “pharmaceuticals” and practice in African and other nations.

I put links in some of the sibling comments showing this.

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 5:19:44 PM

Hi, would there be a a way to contact you? I have an email in my profile. Would love to exchange some thought on that.

China is not only a strong player in biotech. Their capability in chemical R&D and market transfer is very strong, too both in small and industrial scale. And let’s not speak about electronics …

by wuschel

1/23/2026 at 3:14:40 AM

[flagged]

by FridayoLeary

1/23/2026 at 12:46:29 PM

Look up why it was called SARS-2 in the beginning (and most of all what SARS was) and you're going to understand a lot more why they reacted how they did...

by garte

1/23/2026 at 3:37:50 AM

I mean, it’s “Not A Good Thing” for the US. Chinese people are proud of their accomplishments in the past couple of decades, and deservedly so. Now they can do the whole realpolitiks as well.

Sure, I don’t agree with lots of their stuff, but I’d rather a guy who doesn’t flip flop his mind every 4 years.

by tokioyoyo

1/23/2026 at 3:09:36 AM

More evidence that Carney’s speech marks the end of American global “leadership”

by ks2048

1/23/2026 at 3:15:31 AM

I didn't need Carney's speech to mark that, Jan 6 2025 was the date.

by jacquesm

1/23/2026 at 3:29:38 AM

I'd posit that Jan 20 2017 marked the beginning of the end.

It's a daily challenge to keep track and not spiral into despair. It's not just that one man, it's that so many citizens love him. It truly boggles the mind.

by pstuart

1/23/2026 at 12:40:42 PM

December 12, 2000.

The US might have had a president who was knowledgeable about technology and dedicated to solving climate change.

Who might have chosen differently about invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm sure Gore would have made mistakes, but it's hard to see a path where he wasn't a better president (for the US and for the world) than W Bush.

by ethbr1

1/23/2026 at 5:42:00 PM

> The US might have had a president who was knowledgeable about technology and dedicated to solving climate change.

might have had? Ha, you should read up a bit on Jimmy Carter.

> A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.

That was him when he put solar panels on the roof of the White House, which Ronnie Ray-Gun removed and sent to a museum.

by stockresearcher

1/23/2026 at 7:44:02 PM

It wasn't intended as an exclusionary statement.

by ethbr1

1/23/2026 at 1:46:08 PM

Yep. He made a mistake in conceding as he could have won that battle:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections200...

by pstuart

1/23/2026 at 7:45:37 PM

Yes and no. It would have been corrosive to democracy to fight too hard. Gore cared more about the country than his own ambition.

See: Trump

by ethbr1

1/24/2026 at 3:06:35 PM

Insisting that the proper process is followed, when that process is known to be good, is fighting the good fight. Sure, the fight would've been corrosive, but I don't think the burden of moral responsibility for such a thing is on the defenders.

by wizzwizz4

1/25/2026 at 4:57:06 PM

If Gore had fought harder and won, Gore would have been president but democratic legitimacy and belief in the voting process would have been damaged (in half the country).

If Gore had fought harder and lost, Bush president and same.

The public wouldn't have believed / understood voting recount nuances: longer battle in courts = less faith in voting.

So it came down to weighing the corrosion of the voting process against goodness of Gore v Bush as president.

I don't think in 2000 anyone (including Gore) could have predicted that W's (and Cheney's) choices would be as poor as they were.

by ethbr1

1/23/2026 at 1:33:13 PM

Completeley agree. It's such a stark contrast between Bush senior and junior, too-- GWB put the US on such a bad trajectory (middle east interventionism, surveillance state, etc.), altough 9/11 probably deserves a lot of blame for it.

I also blame the republicans for turning elections more and more into polarized shit slinging personalized attacks instead of policy based arguments, and I'd argue that this really took off in the Clinton era, and then got really bad under Obama/Trump.

by myrmidon

1/23/2026 at 1:47:02 PM

I think that in the scheme of things GHWB was the most qualified and "best" of their offerings I've seen in my many years.

by pstuart

1/23/2026 at 4:41:54 PM

mccain seemed quite respectable and i liked the spirit of his campaign reform efforts. they were probably more strategic than altruistic. on the other hand palin seems like shed fit right in with the clown show conservatives trot out now

by boogieknite

1/23/2026 at 3:39:15 AM

It does indeed, and I agree that is a good alternative date but a lot of people still had the excuse that they did not know how bad it could get. For the re-run they knew exactly what to expect and still voted for it.

by jacquesm

1/23/2026 at 3:43:30 AM

It can always get worse, and it has.

by istjohn

1/23/2026 at 3:45:19 AM

Prediction: it will get worse still.

by jacquesm

1/23/2026 at 3:47:28 PM

I wish you were wrong but you aren't.

The big question is how far until we bottom out, and what does "recovery" look like. The fact that the political divide has grown so that realities do not converge is rather terrifying.

by pstuart

1/23/2026 at 6:13:49 PM

The scala of possible outcomes here is so broad it is terrifying. The best the rest of the world can hope for is that it will remain contained but I think we are already seeing plenty of evidence that will not be the case.

by jacquesm

1/23/2026 at 3:28:51 AM

[flagged]

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 5:06:56 AM

For a more focused point, sticking to just one here:

> we’re tired of funding the world’s defense

Reads like "The outrageously high R&D costs of modern weapons systems are being subsidized across many customers. This must end immediately!"

What other business wants fewer customers to spread R&D across, or less revenue from fewer units sold?

Are we instead discussing how much the US spends internally on defence, then exports the largest military in the world to protect the country and her interests? Because not only is that an example of America choosing to spend her own money instead of being coerced by other nations, but the guy that just ran a snatch'n'grab on a foreign leader was enabled by that same policy. Forgive my disbelief that he'll dismantle that system any time soon.

by xethos

1/23/2026 at 2:04:11 PM

I think this is a scarily prevalent view, and I strongly disagree.

Regarding defense: The US is not the world policeman and never really has been. Police enforces higher laws-- but the only law the US enforces is its own, which sometimes becomes very obvious (e.g. Hague invasion act, or inaction when there's only humanitarian gain, like civil wars in Africa).

Regarding research/drugs: Why would you think the US is owed anything here? Drugs are (typically) not gifted to rest of the world for free. The view that high healthcare prices in the US "pay" for medical advancement is pure propaganda BS: You pay such high prices because you allow the industry to extract so much from you, not because of any kind of altruism.

Don't get me wrong: I don't blame the US for doing things wrong-- I believe the last half century was largely mutually beneficial for US and its allies, but the notion that the US is owed by its allies or even the world is almmost absurd to me; you don't accrue credit by acting in your own interests.

by myrmidon

1/23/2026 at 4:35:49 AM

"funding the world’s defense" - where do you think that money goes?

by ks2048

1/23/2026 at 3:51:31 AM

Not downvoting, but boy is this off the mark. America was the only country to invoke Article 5 of NATO. America has benefited greatly from brain drain, what you call "funding the world's research". Pharma is something like the 7th or 8th largest export for the US.

Military misadventures in the Middle East, trickle up economics, prioritizing corporate profits over things like low cost healthcare, good jobs, or a solid industrial base... These are all products of American culture and politics, not imposed by any other country.

by sxyuan

1/23/2026 at 3:58:55 AM

Appreciate your response. I’m just frustrated, because while I vote one way (in California ) for liberal policies, the rest of the country seems to vote another. Americans are a varied group and we all get lumped together with these idiots. I thought it was stupid when we dismantled USAID but I’m powerless to stop it.

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 4:23:17 AM

I get the frustration. I hope though that the opinion of the people who matter the most - i.e., your friends and family, and not random Internet strangers - will be based on who you are as a person, not on your identity as an American. Don't worry so much about the noise on social media, it's part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

At the same time, there are things you can do besides voting. Maybe you already know or do these things, but just putting it out there... You can call your representatives (and they might actually listen, if you're a Democrat in California), you can donate to candidates in other races if you have the means (there are probably going to be some pretty consequential senate races this year), you can join a protest (peacefully, and especially if you don't have any dependents).... And who knows, maybe none of these things will make a difference in the end, but I think the bottom line is that if you truly care about some of these things that are happening right now in the US, it's better to find ways to act on your convictions than to stay frustrated and fume online.

Just my 2 cents.

by sxyuan

1/23/2026 at 3:40:57 AM

You can say you're 'x' while acting as 'y'.

by jacquesm

1/23/2026 at 3:56:29 AM

Thanks for your feedback. I didn’t vote for this administration, I think they’re idiots, and yet I still get blamed for them. It’s exhausting.

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 4:17:01 AM

I suppose we'll see in the coming years whether funding the world's institutions gave us more back than we spent or not

by thatguy0900

1/23/2026 at 11:40:31 AM

I sympathize with your frustration but your understanding of how things hang together is way off the mark.

You do not seem to understand how America's position in the world has been used to benefit the country in a massive way post world war II. You can throw that position away, that's your privilege, but the result will be a much smaller economy in which your costs for various items will go up rather than down because a lot of money will no longer flow to the USA.

The amounts you are paying for healthcare, medication etc are not coupled to that but are coupled to your broken political system. You could fix that easily enough but neither the democrats nor the republicans have ever followed that path because you (plural) have been deluded into thinking that that is socialism.

Reducing the USA's standing in the world is not going to fix your political problems but is going to harm your economy in a massive way. The position you are taking here is not consistent and whether you voted for Trump or not is not relevant because it effectively carries water for him: this is precisely the kind of thing that an uninformed Trump supporter would say.

by jacquesm

1/23/2026 at 2:09:45 PM

I believe you're deluded into believing that 'we' are deluded. French and British TV news have little snippets of anecdotal dummy Americans being paraded around to make the entire country look stupid. It's not the entire country that's stupid - we DO have a socialized healthcare system called Medicare - it kicks in when you're retiree age. A Yougov poll from July 2025 showed:

59% of U.S. adult citizens support “Medicare for all” (27% oppose, 14% not sure)

So are "we" voting against our own interests? Have you considered that neither party, including the Democrats we're supposedly too foolish to vote for, support this. The political system is infiltrated with a large amount of money which we call "lobbying". This lobbying is illegal in the major democracies in Europe, leaving the impression that "Americans are voting against their own interests."

Hope I've made a better case than BBC or French TV5!

by mancerayder

1/23/2026 at 5:43:13 PM

Exactly. The Democrats are the lesser of two evils, but they still carry water for the billionaires. Neither party represents what people really want (Medicare for all, at least as an option, lower defense spending, etc)

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 6:11:55 PM

I have lived for many years on the border of the United States and Canada, have many friends on both sides of that border (probably more in the USA) and I don't watch French or British TV news.

Your 'socialized healthcare' is a very weak version of it, there is no other country where medical issues can spiral out of control financially in the way they do in the United States.

I know the political parties are as corrupt as they get but that is your problem to fix, even so Trump's talking points, that the USA has been financing the rest of the world are plain bullshit.

by jacquesm

1/23/2026 at 7:12:38 PM

I've lived in a few countries including the UK and France, by the way. And I don't think any Canadian would compare their healthcare system to either of those countries, they'd rather use the U.S. insurance system than be given paracetamol while waiting a few weeks to get a CAT scan. In fact, according to Gemini googling 'Canadian healthcare wait times':

Key Figures & Trends (from Fraser Institute & CIHI reports, late 2025): National Median Wait: ~28.6 weeks (down slightly from 30 weeks in 2024). Longest Waits: New Brunswick (~60.9 weeks), PEI (~49.7 weeks). Shortest Waits: Ontario (~19.2 weeks). By Specialty: Neurosurgery (49.9 weeks), Orthopaedic Surgery (48.6 weeks) were longest; Oncology (Radiation 4.2, Medical 4.7 weeks) shortest. Diagnostics: CT (8.8 weeks), MRI (18.1 weeks).

That's pretty bad. In the U.S. you wait one week for an MRI and it's paid for, minus copay, by your insurance if your insurance is good. The U.S. healthcare is pretty great if you a) work b) work in a place that gives you good healthcare or c) are old enough to qualify for Medicare. It also depends on which state you are in, since the state laws differ on healthcare (Texas and New York are not the same).

But I don't think your point is fact-finding, it's hating on the U.S. or provoking.

I know the political parties are as corrupt as they get but that is your problem to fix, even so Trump's talking points, that the USA has been financing the rest of the world are plain bullshit.

Not sure the point of this angry statement.

by mancerayder

1/23/2026 at 10:34:40 AM

NATO is/was a major contributor to the success of the dollar and US economic activity. It was never a cost center, it's a core enabler. Whoever thinks otherwise is setting the US up for an epic owngoal.

by croon

1/23/2026 at 8:02:47 AM

The military is basically a jobs program. We do it because it pumps money into the economy and gives us our own little socialism. It's our little New Deal kingdom.

by array_key_first

1/23/2026 at 3:42:03 AM

I mean, I like living in the country that everyone wants to come to for an education and work. We're giving that up.

by ottah

1/23/2026 at 10:22:25 AM

Not everyone wants to come to the US, get real. There is no way I would leave Europe for the US. Absolutely zero chance.

And that's not even considering the direction the US is heading, I mean in it's current state.

by Gud

1/23/2026 at 11:52:05 AM

Its current state is worse than a year ago and even worse than 10 years ago, etc. As a fellow European, it's a fact that the US for many decades have attracted global top talent for both universities and industry. That definitely hit a hard reversal during the current term with the war on universities/education as well as immigration policies though.

I'm not sure you're disagreeing with GP.

by croon

1/23/2026 at 6:24:32 PM

Pedantic

by ottah

1/23/2026 at 4:01:21 AM

Did you vote for this mess? I sure didn’t, I live in a state with almost 50 million people and feel like we’re powerless to stop this nonsense.

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 7:42:07 AM

"funding the world's defence' - this kind of thinking is whats turning everyone against you. Ask the venezeulans, iraqis, iranians, nicuaraguans, vietnamese, afghanis, panamains, etc if they want your "world defence".

by ozlikethewizard

1/23/2026 at 5:44:06 PM

I didn’t support any of those wars. I wasn’t even alive/of voting age for most of them.

by ta9000

1/27/2026 at 7:39:18 AM

Americans intrinsically benefit from imperialism, whether you support its constant imperialism or not (look at Yemen, Syria, Lybia for more recent examples, it truly is constant), if you do not take direct action against it you are complicit.

by ozlikethewizard

1/23/2026 at 3:35:19 AM

no offense but the US spent about a billion on the WHO. That's a lot of influence for chump change. US defense sits at only 3% of GDP compared to 8% during the height of the cold war.

The argument always seems to be that the US is getting these rough deals, but objectively what it has spent the last few years be it in terms of soft power for organizations like this or in weapons to Ukraine, a few decades ago people would have opened champagne bottles getting that much bang for your buck.

This is British "the EU is stealing your NHS money" stuff, like it doesn't work at a basic level of arithmetics. What's driving spending in the US is entitlements, literally a straight line up

by Barrin92

1/23/2026 at 3:37:13 AM

No offense taken. Clearly I’ve already upset a lot of people though. It’s not just the WHO, which is “only” 1 billion apparently.

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 5:35:04 AM

I get that it all adds up, but you're railing against 0.1% of a budget that's over a trillion dollars. Not only do household and national budgets work differently, the numbers are also so much larger that they give a sense of vertigo instead of understanding. If we compare for 0.1% of your budget, would you stress over that amount? Because I know I'm not about to panic over spending $100 annually for a safer, healthier, and more stable world

by xethos

1/23/2026 at 6:21:52 AM

I feel like there’s a logical fallacy in your response. I’m down for cutting significantly more than $1 billion. Halving the defense department budget would be a good start.

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 6:43:38 AM

In which case we disagree fundamentally on America's place in the world, and how best to lead - and that's okay. We can politely disagree (on this), and neither of us has to be an asshole, because neither view is objectively wrong

I applaud the consistency you put on display regarding the US budget though, and I gotta say you view (on this) probably should count more than mine - I'm a Canadian citizen, not American

by xethos

1/23/2026 at 4:16:58 AM

Didn't downvote you, not upset, but you definitely overstepped with your use of "we".

And even if you think this is the right move, it's important to acknowledge that it's for all the wrong reasons.

by cosmicgadget

1/23/2026 at 3:38:03 AM

Why do Americans think that? It's very self centered. You will be surprised by how much Canada spends around the world. For example of an important project, Canada paid UNicef $850k to combat open defecation in Ghana.

by myth_drannon

1/23/2026 at 3:54:44 AM

I’m happy to spend on supporting the poor worldwide; I’m just tired of the US playing team America world police. I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 6:13:28 AM

> US playing team America world police

I always find it so weird to assume such things are done out of good heart. The US has always been dependent on their ability of world wide power projection, because that's a level that always works. Through 'America first', in the next years the US will experience a decline of beneficial trade deals and US-interest friendly foreign politics. It's net negative for everybody except China and Russia to some degree.

> I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.

That's not about foreign politics though. If you didn't want Billionaires to get richer, you shouldn't vote for one of them being the president.

by bulbar

1/23/2026 at 6:20:57 AM

I didn’t.

by ta9000

1/23/2026 at 10:30:16 AM

> I’m happy to spend on supporting the poor worldwide; I’m just tired of the US playing team America world police. I also want Americans to get the same deal Europeans and Canadians get on prescription drugs.

Then you should fix your laws. Like, until a year or two ago Medicare was forbidden from negotiating drug prices. Coupled with the absurdity of direct to consumer advertising of drugs (only allowed in the US and New Zealand), plus your massively complicated health care system, it's a recipe for disaster.

On the world police thing, I'm definitely sympathetic, but this was something your government did for a mix of selfish and altruistic reasons, and the consequences of not doing it will be bad in some ways for Americans. I do think that Europe/EU need to step up here, and it looks like we're finally doing this. I'd also note that of the current potential world police (US, Russia, China) you guys are the least worst.

by disgruntledphd2

1/23/2026 at 9:09:07 AM

This is one way to improve the average health of the WHO countries.

by apexalpha

1/23/2026 at 3:09:45 AM

Anything to keep the news cycles engaged in busywork.

by perfmode

1/23/2026 at 3:08:02 AM

One of the worst parts of the Trump presidencies has been the absolute non-stop onslaught of bad news. Every single day. Day after day. Absolute terrible news.

The bar is so low, but god I cannot wait until we have another president that I don't think about more than a few times a year.

If we just didn't have a president at all for a term it would be an improvement.

by spicyusername

1/23/2026 at 3:16:03 AM

I once had someone argue that a point against Biden was that he wasn't omnipresent in daily life. It wasn't the 24/7 Joe Biden show. They somehow thought that the correct form of American politics is just truly nonstop antics from the White House.

It's like these people think they're watching WWE.

by estearum

1/23/2026 at 3:28:03 AM

The current guy is nothing if not a documented professional wrestling fan

by alexilliamson

1/23/2026 at 3:28:38 AM

As someone not in the US, but who listens to a lot of UK and Australian news here in Australia, it is noticeable how often the words "Donald Trump" are the first things spoken in any given bulletin.

Can't imagine what it must be like on the inside, I am looking forward to that no longer being the case, one day.

by Nursie

1/23/2026 at 3:53:22 AM

[flagged]

by SanjayMehta

1/23/2026 at 4:32:02 AM

208 weeks of that? Really? And that's on par with this insanity?

by cosmicgadget

1/23/2026 at 6:15:20 AM

[flagged]

by SanjayMehta

1/23/2026 at 7:40:57 AM

He really isn't. Unless you are speaking specifically of neurological decline.

by cosmicgadget

1/24/2026 at 3:24:52 AM

Biden was clearly just a dementia patient. He was only coherent while the meds were working.

Trump is a highly functional dementia patient.

From the comedic value, I prefer Trump.

He blurts out whatever nonsense is in his head, it's hilarious. I also appreciate his straightforward criminality, he's not playing the usual "rules based order" games, just a real estate thug in power. It's so refreshing to watch.

by SanjayMehta

1/24/2026 at 4:27:49 AM

> The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence, and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances.

> The term [stupidity], he said, wasn’t a description of intellectual acuity, but of social responsibility. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person, or to a group of persons, while deriving no gain for himself, and possibly incurring losses.

https://www.onthewing.org/user/Bonhoeffer%20-%20Theory%20of%...

by estearum

1/23/2026 at 4:37:26 AM

Yeah man, remember when Biden called people retards and piggy, used his position to make millions off memecoins, draped his mug and name over government institutions, bulldozed half the White House, wanted to take over multiple countries, sicced masked idiots on the poor, pulled out of the WHO, the list goes on.

by pupppet

1/23/2026 at 6:16:14 AM

[flagged]

by SanjayMehta

1/23/2026 at 12:24:11 PM

"I have clear evidence of wrongdoing in one case, and admittedly not very good evidence of wrongdoing in the other... I prefer the former."

Epistemologically insane, and that's not to mention the plainly obvious fact that even if the corruption were equal (which you openly admit actually doesn't comport with visible evidence), doing it visibly is clearly much more harmful to our society.

Taken to the extreme, someone can be the most rotten, corrupt soul on the planet, and so long as they truly keep it to themselves, none of us would even know about it, much less be affected by it.

by estearum

1/23/2026 at 1:11:52 PM

[flagged]

by SanjayMehta

1/23/2026 at 1:28:38 PM

A tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it is in fact of far less nuisance and risk than a tree that falls on top of a house.

A more important question: How would someone look if they walked around insisting that a tree had recently fallen, but they can't tell you when/where/how because no one was around to hear it?

"But trust me, it was just as big as the one that fell on Bob's house, so I don't even see what anyone is upset about."

by estearum

1/23/2026 at 3:48:12 AM

I don't think it's bad that our elected officials tell us what they're doing. Yeah, it sucks when they're doing heinous shit like Trump, but it's awesome that Zohran Mamdani is doing what he can to tell New Yorkers about all the great stuff he's doing, whether it's fixing bike routes, funding universal child care, or undoing the corruption of the previous admin.

It's bad that Biden was silent. This enabled the mainstream media, which is captured by conservative oligarchs, to define Biden's presidency. There's going to be an onslaught of news either way, and it's already an uphill battle for anyone who isn't right wing to get a fair shake. So, you shouldn't let others make the news for you. Biden expanded overtime pay and oversaw a number of worker and consumer protections. It's bad that he wasn't tooting his own horn about this stuff!

Additionally, for America to ever return to being the shining example of democracy it claims to be, the next administration needs to very publicly make an example of the current administration. Americans, and the world, need to know that authoritarians have no place in America.

by dfxm12

1/23/2026 at 6:08:20 AM

> the next administration needs to very publicly make an example of the current administration

There is no chance of that happening. Trump will pardon every single person in his administration and anyone else who carried water for him. The next President will say "we have to move on" and Trump himself will ride off into the sunset with the billions he made for himself and his family.

by hackingonempty

1/23/2026 at 1:50:14 PM

The problem is not Trump "telling us what he's doing".

The problem is what he's doing.

Not needing to think about the president, or politics in general for that matter, has nothing to do with how much media coverage there is. The whole point of delegating professionals to handle making all the decisions is exactly so that you don't have to think about them yourself.

by spicyusername

1/23/2026 at 2:39:21 PM

This is naive. You have to hold your elected officials accountable, lest they walk all over you. This requires thinking about them, what they're doing and thinking about politics.

by dfxm12

1/23/2026 at 3:06:38 PM

No disagreement.

I fear you're interpreting what I'm saying the wrong way.

Imagine you have two children. As with any loving parent, doing what you can to support your children is paramount.

One of your children has substance abuse issues and has been struggling to keep a job and the other is running a few successful bookstores in a vacation town and recently got married.

Of course you don't have favorites. And of course you will do what you need to do to make each child successful.

But one of those children you're going to spend a lot more time thinking and worrying about than the other. But that does not mean you're not taking your job supporting either of them seriously.

I'm saying I'm getting real tired of thinking about which rehab center is best and googling the effects of barbiturates, if you know what I mean.

by spicyusername

1/23/2026 at 4:16:52 AM

Mainstream media, including and especially the White House press corps, hated Biden. I don't think Biden was at fault, I think mainstream media, captured by oligarchs, didn't report on good news, which looks like silence from Biden.

by bediger4000

1/23/2026 at 8:12:29 PM

they've been fighting democratic presidents hard since clinton

no one remembers the constant mud slinging at obama?

by red-iron-pine

1/23/2026 at 4:26:17 AM

You're giving Biden no agency in this situation when he was the freaking president of the USA. He could have done more if he wanted.

by dfxm12

1/23/2026 at 1:03:53 PM

Sure, he could have done a Trump and ruled by executive fiat? Biden Admin had some pretty good wins, like CHIPs act is a standout. But man lucky we didn't backrupt the Country by forgiving some student loans amirite?

Biden removed troops from Foreign Wars, Donald Trump does the opposite and instead pretends he stopped 8 wars or something.

This is just poor memory. Us Americans are notorious for this, unfortunately.

by jonway

1/23/2026 at 5:15:12 AM

Some questions:

- why did the Trump administration decide to leave the WHO?

- what impact will this have?

- is this at all beneficial to other countries that aren't the US?

by kegsy

1/23/2026 at 5:21:08 AM

Another question.

Why did Covid cause every government to become authoritarian on the directions of the WHO which couldn't even, itself, verify what stance to hold authority on.

by throwerxyz

1/23/2026 at 5:34:38 AM

Simple. They didn't know how bad the virus could or could not get ahead of time before it went through several iterations of mutations and wide spread infections. It's the same reflex for boarding up the house, huddling up and waiting for the storm to pass. It could be a Category 5, or turn out to be a weaker Category 2, can't guarentee it ahead of time.

by sillyfluke

1/23/2026 at 11:53:28 AM

The inmates taking over the asylum progresses apace.

by zombot

1/23/2026 at 3:08:58 AM

I think the WHO have a lot to answer for over the Covid debacle, international health cooperation is important but i don't care if WHO dies so another body can be built on it's ashes.

by FridayoLeary

1/23/2026 at 9:03:07 PM

The US government has introduced a whole new stance for a developed country: disrupt and poison allied relations, retract from established cooperation and take a hostile position. And all that not because of any MAGA bs but to keep and increase the benefits of his billionaire patrons.

by tsoukase

1/23/2026 at 3:06:18 AM

I don't comment very often on political posts and this is borderline off topic but if Trump had handled the pandemic by following the science we were putting to work and championed doing the best we could for saving lives he would have won his second term.

Instead we have been sold to someone(s) that only want to see us divided internally and externally expanding our isolationist stances.

It just feels like everything is taking polarization to the extreme.

I feel really terrible imagining what my daughter will inherit from all of this.

by leetrout

1/23/2026 at 3:23:16 AM

1000%, crazy to look back on spring and summer of 2020 and if he just played it cool and not rocked the boat so much, no doubt he would have been reelected. Not that I agree with many of his policies; if anything it speaks more to his incompetence and inability to remain calm than anything else.

by golden-face

1/23/2026 at 8:33:53 AM

> championed doing the best we could for saving lives he would have won his second term

No one appreciates the hard work when lives are saved. Let some people die and you can rile your base

by kjsingh

1/23/2026 at 3:35:36 AM

Don't forget Trump had a hand in starting the pandemic.

Here's what we know: In 2014, Obama administration halted the so called "gain of function" research because of risk of laboratory accidents. In 2017, the Trump administration restarted this dangerous research. See links below.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/white-house-to-cut-fun...

Excerpt: [Obama] White House announced Friday that it would temporarily halt all new funding for experiments that seek to study certain infectious agents by making them more dangerous. The White House said the moratorium decision had been made “following recent biosafety incidents at federal research facilities.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih...

Excerpt: [Trump administration] on Tuesday ended a moratorium imposed three years ago on funding research that alters germs to make them more lethal. Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic.

So, Trump restarted the dangerous research that Obama had shut down. You may be thinking, what does that have to do with Covid? Covid started in Wuhan, China, right?

It turns out that the Trump administration, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), provided funding to the EcoHealth Alliance, an American non-profit organization focused on studying emerging diseases. The EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, provided funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China for researching bat coronaviruses. The rest is history.

by lateforwork

1/23/2026 at 3:14:42 AM

Am I wrong or Trump was the one who initiated the first shutdowns. Trump was the one who said we'll have a vaccine quickly, etc.

What should he have done that he didn't do, in your opinion? Fwiw, it was the economic shock from COVID that caused this situation where he's come back to ruin our lives again. Any further disruption to the economy during COVID would have exacerbated that

by aprilthird2021

1/23/2026 at 3:28:07 AM

> What should he have done that he didn't do, in your opinion?

I’ll just run down the record and stop at the first obvious error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._federal_government_respon...

> One month after [March 16, 2020, when the administration first recommended social distancing], epidemiologists Britta Jewell and Nicholas Jewell estimated that, had social distancing policies been implemented just two weeks earlier, U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 might have been reduced by 90%.

So there’s a concrete thing he could have done differently.

> Any further disruption to the economy during COVID would have exacerbated that

More stringent restrictions done earlier may have shortened the duration of the economic impact, who knows, we can’t exactly observe those alternate timelines directly.

The administration had zero discipline on messaging and so nothing was done with any consistency. As you say, he was initially positive that a vaccine would arrive quickly; when it was available, he flipped and endorsed alternative treatments of all kinds, many of them harmful. Formerly a champion of Dr. Fauci, then later his worst detractor and chief prosecutor in the court of public opinion.

by TimorousBestie

1/23/2026 at 6:01:45 AM

so what you’re saying is we needed just 2 more weeks to flatten the curve

by ndjeosibfb

1/23/2026 at 3:27:33 AM

It's less what should he have done, than what shouldn't he have done. Specifically, he pushed conspiracy theories, demonized his health experts, and touted ineffective cures, and ultimately cast doubt on the safety of the vaccines. All to pander to his base. He had a remarkable chance to build trust in government via a truly extraordinary vaccine rollout, to a crowd which is historically distrustful. Instead he squandered that goodwill on petty fights and self aggrandizement.

by LargeWu

1/23/2026 at 3:28:35 AM

And it was the scientists and doctors of the WHO, who denied the existence of Covid until after every country in the world had shut down. I thought covid denial was a bad thing, but you're still getting downvoted... In response to your last question i've got no idea. I don't have any confidence the vaunted scientists got it right back then either. Just look at the disasters inflicted on countries and states that imposed heavy handed and IMO largely unnecessary covid measures.

by FridayoLeary

1/23/2026 at 3:33:56 AM

> And it was the scientists and doctors of the WHO, who denied the existence of Covid until after every country in the world had shut down.

Doesn’t line up with WHO’s record of events.

https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline

by TimorousBestie

1/23/2026 at 6:20:55 AM

It's easy to say COVID measures were unnecessary when you live in a timeline where you were spared from the worst case scenario of an immediate global pandemic. The economic harm was huge, but we don't know what it would have been if we had not taken any protective measures and we didn't know back then either how dangerous the disease could be

by aprilthird2021

1/23/2026 at 3:00:09 AM

[flagged]

by nephihaha

1/23/2026 at 3:04:20 AM

The WHO has no power to "override" "our supposedly democratic institutions"

by airstrike

1/23/2026 at 3:47:38 AM

It already did a few years ago and issued contradictory advice based on its Event 201 tabletop exercise in October 2019, which was implemented six months later. (Such as suggesting international commercial flights continue during a pandemic, while saying time outdoors should be limited.)

It has spent the entire 2020s trying to push through a global treaty allowing them to declare situations independently of national governments. The backlash has been huge, especially since this can have consequences going beyond healthcare.

by nephihaha

1/23/2026 at 3:20:37 AM

Do you have any examples of how WHO has overridden the power of a supposedly democratic institution in mind, or are you just making a generically anti-establishment argument?

WHO is, like every scientific or humanitarian endeavor, imperfect. But the list of goods they've done in the world dwarves the list of failures.

by overtone1000

1/23/2026 at 3:27:20 AM

Can you talk a bit more about situations where WHO or UNESCO have overridden a country's health system? As a US citizen I see WHO as 1) offering guidance and 2) funding programs in poorer countries' health systems.

UNESCO, well, I'm looking at its website and Wikipedia article now, and I don't understand what it does. (Or maybe it would be easier to list what it doesn't do, since even its list of sponsored institutions is mind-numbingly long.)

by throwworhtthrow

1/23/2026 at 3:42:41 AM

UNESCO claims to protect things of historical and cultural importance. Like good health, this sounds a noble goal in itself. In practice it is often more of a junket/gravy train, as are most of these NGOs.

The WHO has been trying to push through an international treaty since 2020 which would allow them to override national governments on health matters.

by nephihaha

1/23/2026 at 4:29:06 AM

Which countries give up their sovereignty when they sign treaties?

by cosmicgadget

1/23/2026 at 3:16:35 AM

> The problem with a lot of these UN bodies such as the WHO, UNESCO etc is that they do not have proper external scrutiny, and instead have become overarching institutions which pass down diktats from on high.

Any example of a diktat from on high which you think was highly negative? Afaik, these bodies typically just promote whatever is scientifically / economically / etc. the prevailing worldview

by aprilthird2021

1/23/2026 at 5:10:09 AM

[flagged]

by sizzleflip5000

1/23/2026 at 6:27:55 AM

The administration is supported and buoyed by many companies and rich people in SV.

Besides that the general decline of the American Empire seems relevant enough for today's world.

by apexalpha

1/23/2026 at 8:54:06 AM

Canadian. Go figure.

by sizzleflip5000

1/23/2026 at 6:22:11 AM

The voluntary rapid disassembly of the world’s largest superpower, which is home to most large tech companies, seems very relevant, even without the tech component. I mean how often do you get to witness something like this?

by kccoder

1/23/2026 at 5:19:49 AM

HN Guidelines allow for poltical posts if they're evidence of new interesting phenomenon. Complaining about a post just because it is about a political topic just pollutes the forum.

by sillyfluke

1/23/2026 at 5:57:40 AM

Just trying to help discourage irrelevant stories in one of the last remaining good tech forums on the net. Sorry if you disagree.

by sizzleflip5000

1/23/2026 at 5:17:12 AM

Tech is basically just a big political echochamber for the last decade. The camps have been built at the oasis for both sides. Sad.

by throwerxyz

1/23/2026 at 3:01:53 AM

Long, exasperated, existential sigh

by Carrok

1/23/2026 at 3:00:15 AM

All bad news man. They are shredding international institutions that might criticize our elites when they do whatever they want, consequences be damned. It's probably true the Democrats wouldn't have done exactly this move, but they aren't going to roll it back either.

by tehjoker

1/23/2026 at 3:04:50 AM

This has literally already happened under the first Trump term, and was rolled back under Biden, by Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/world/biden-restores-who-...

So, like, what exactly is the point of making up reasons to hate Democrats. Obviously it's all the rage on the left (as on the right) to do so, but fabrications from the left are no better than fabrications from the right.

by dralley

1/23/2026 at 3:09:51 AM

That's true, I remembered that after I posted, but at the same time, I suspect that a lot of this round will be more permanent. At least in the former case, the US did not exit the institution (1 year notice required). In this case, there will be more than 1 year between presidential administrations. If Trump doesn't pay up our outstanding fees, it is possible a Democratic administration will use that to say we never really exited, but if it is formally done, I feel rather skeptical they will rejoin.

There is strong continuity on foreign policy between administrations.

You have to put this in context that Trump is also creating what appears to be an alternative venue to the UN with the "Board of Peace" which was originally a colonial authority to impose our will on Gaza, but its charter doesn't mention Gaza at all and talks about international conflict in general.

by tehjoker

1/23/2026 at 3:14:42 AM

>There is strong continuity on foreign policy between administrations.

Again, I feel like you have to live in an alternate universe to think that there is much continuity on foreign policy between Trump and <insert Democrat here>. Or you have to be laser focused on one or two similarities and ignore the vast chasms of difference on everything else.

by dralley

1/23/2026 at 3:26:33 AM

It's true that we are in an era of change, but the Republicans are like the "id" of U.S. elites. Both parties regularly destroy entire countries. The Democrats mostly followed the Republican line on COVID after about 6 months. They are lagging, but they follow along.

There are a number of places where there are superficial differences, and those differences are important to people of color, trans people, etc, but the Dems are always looking for reasons to make a right turn. They track the Republicans who actively move right and create a small space a relative distance from their position.

by tehjoker

1/23/2026 at 3:18:44 AM

> There is strong continuity on foreign policy between administrations.

You realize we just kidnapped a head of state, we're currently repositioning strike forces around Iran, and we just caused NATO to reposition troops to Greenland to defend against imminent US invasion?

Can you please identify events that you see as "continuous" with these ones?

by estearum

1/23/2026 at 3:30:44 AM

Biden did a genocide in Gaza and killed 800k+ Americans with COVID. He created the conditions for the invasion of Ukraine by refusing to exclude Ukraine from NATO and probably destroyed Nordstream 2. He toppled the Pakistani government. Obama toppled Libya and allowed Ghaddafi to be sodomized to death with a bayonet. He juiced the civil war in Syria in Operation Timber Sycamore.

The Democrats are better at dressing things up and making it look like they're the good guys when they do the same stuff.

We are in a reorientation of American policy. Trump isn't doing this without consent from our elites, the same people that fund the Democrats who suspiciously aren't fighting it.

by tehjoker

1/23/2026 at 6:03:55 PM

Hey everyone - learn how to spot a Russian propaganda account. Yikes!

by vpribish

1/23/2026 at 8:53:14 PM

hey now, it could also be Chinese, N Korean, Iranian, Saudi, Israeli, or even just plain ole USA-ian, since all of the evil billionaires trying to collapse the USG also happen to be Americans who own tech companies.

but said account was very like a shillbot, even if proper attribution is hard

by red-iron-pine

1/23/2026 at 9:42:13 PM

I am an American citizen and a socialist and am quite real thank you. I don't know what you are talking about with billionaires trying to collapse the USG, it works for them. You do not have class consciousness.

What I am saying does not compute to you because you are tribalistic in your thinking. As the old quote goes: "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them."

by tehjoker

1/23/2026 at 3:42:03 AM

Haha, thank you. Utterly deranged.

by estearum

1/23/2026 at 3:06:00 AM

No need to be so aggressive about it lol, can just correct the parent poster. Personally I didn't know Biden rolled it back, and I just assumed it would only now take effect after having been 'in limbo'. :)

by Insanity

1/23/2026 at 3:29:14 AM

Maybe people need to have facts told to them aggressively to get them in the habit of not assuming things.

by Cipater

1/23/2026 at 3:44:35 AM

WHO like many other ngos is politicized and subverted by rogue states. It's about time to reject it. There is no alternative for now but keeping with current status quo is counter productive.

by myth_drannon

1/23/2026 at 3:13:35 AM

This has been a long time in concept. Republican opposition to contraception, women's reproductive health issues, AIDS and like were Reagan era concerns and this coincided with uncovering decades long systematic waste and corrupt behaviour across UN agencies.

I do not like this outcome but surely nobody is surprised? The specific act took a year to enact. They had to announce the intent to withdraw back in 24/25.

This is politics. The impact on worldwide health will take a while to emerge but the impact on soft power will be clear if and when other WHO members pick up the slack.

by ggm