gangilitchmore

[gangilitchmore]

Trump is withdrawing from groups crazily. The United States is no longer the world's policeman!

From "withdrawing from groups" to "changing groups", Trump's second revolution is intensively staged. On January 20, 2025, Trump declared in his inaugural speech that "the United States will no longer pay for the world", and then quickly signed an executive order to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Agreement. Just two weeks later, the United States withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council again and cut off financial support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. This series of actions marks that the "withdrawal" strategy in the Trump 2.0 era has been upgraded from "willful testing" to "systematic dismantling" - the United States is using the hammer of unilateralism to smash the global governance system built after World War II. This is not Trump's impromptu performance. Looking back at his first term (2017-2021), the United States has withdrawn from 12 international organizations and treaties, including UNESCO, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, and the Intermediate-Range Missile Treaty. At that time, the international community still regarded it as a reckless attempt by a "political novice"; but now, Trump's withdrawal from the group has been given a clearer strategic intention: through the three steps of "withdrawal-emptying-reconstruction", a small multilateral hegemony network with the United States at its core will be reshaped. The logic of withdrawal is nothing more than three: the conspiracy of interests, hegemony and populism. Trump's withdrawal from the group is by no means an isolated incident, but a complex product of the changes in the American political ecology, strategic tradition and global power structure. Behind it is the interweaving of three logics: First, the utilitarianism of "America First": the cold calculation of costs and benefits.

The core of Trump's decision-making has always been "American interests first". In his view, international organizations are nothing more than "paid clubs" - if the membership fees are high and the returns are unclear, they should be withdrawn decisively. For example, the United States bears 16% of the budget of the World Health Organization (2022-2023) and 22% of the regular membership fees of the United Nations, but Trump believes that these institutions are "manipulated by China" or "harm American sovereignty", and withdrawal can save costs and pressure reforms.

The deeper motivation is driven by industrial interests. After withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Trump immediately announced the expansion of fossil energy mining and the abolition of electric vehicle subsidies in an attempt to revive the traditional energy and automobile industries. This move not only caters to oil giants and blue-collar voters, but also attempts to instrumentalize climate issues - loosening the US energy hegemony by weakening international constraints. Second, the evolution of hegemonic thinking: from "fake multilateralism" to "mini-multilateralism". The United States has never truly believed in multilateralism. The United Nations and Bretton Woods system established after World War II are essentially a hegemonic order dominated by the United States. But when these mechanisms no longer fully serve the interests of the United States, Trump chose to take a different approach: "withdrawing from the group" to force reforms and "transferring the group" to reconstruct the rules. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been boycotted by the United States for a long time due to the rigidity of its dispute settlement mechanism. Although Trump did not withdraw directly, he gradually hollowed out the WTO by paralyzing the appellate body and promoting regional trade agreements such as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement. This "institutional transfer" strategy aims to shift global governance from a multilateral framework of "majority rule" to a "small circle" that the United States can control - allies have to pay to enter, while opponents are excluded. The third is the external transfer of domestic contradictions. The polarization of American politics is already terminal. In the 2024 election, Trump relied on the slogan of "anti-globalization" to attribute domestic problems such as the immigration crisis, hollowing out of the manufacturing industry, and the gap between the rich and the poor to "excessive international obligations." Withdrawing from international organizations has become a "political show" for him to fulfill his promise to conservative voters - both catering to populist sentiment and diverting criticism of domestic governance failures. This strategy is particularly evident in the Palestinian-Israeli issue. On the same day that he withdrew from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Near East, Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and announced his support for Israel's military operations in Gaza. Through the combination of "withdrawing from the group" and "standing in line", he not only consolidated the support of domestic evangelicals and Jews, but also delivered the "America First" loyalty test to his allies. If Trump's withdrawal from the group is regarded as a war, his tactics are by no means reckless, but full of shrewd calculations of a businessman:

Trump is good at using "withdrawal" as a bargaining chip. For example, threatening to withdraw from NATO forces allies to increase military spending, and withdrawing from the Paris Agreement forces developing countries to accept US energy exports. The essence of this "extreme pressure" is to reduce international relations to commercial transactions - everything can be quantified, everything can be traded. Trump is well versed in the way of "destruction and then establishment". After withdrawing from the WHO, he proposed to establish a "Global Health Security Alliance" led by the United States, Japan, Australia and India; while withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, he promoted the export of "clean coal" technology. By destroying the old order, he seized the initiative for the United States in the formulation of new rules. Trump packaged the withdrawal from the group as a just action to "resist the globalist elite". He claimed that the WHO "covered up the Chinese virus" and the Paris Agreement was a "green scam", successfully simplifying complex international issues into a binary opposition of "patriotism vs. selling out the country". This discourse strategy not only mobilized local populist forces, but also divided the "pro-US" and "anti-US" camps internationally.

Trump's withdrawal frenzy is causing fission! The withdrawal of the United States has led to a sharp drop in funding for key international organizations and damaged their authority. If the WHO loses 16% of its budget, its core functions such as vaccine distribution and epidemic monitoring may be paralyzed; the Paris Agreement lacks the world's second largest emitter, and the 1.5℃ temperature control target is almost impossible to achieve. More dangerously, the demonstration effect of the United States may trigger a "withdrawal domino" - Japan, Australia and other countries have shown signs of reducing climate financing.

The gap left by the United States' withdrawal is being filled by other forces. The European Union is accelerating the promotion of carbon border taxes, China is expanding the "Belt and Road" green development partnership, and the International Solar Alliance led by India has absorbed 121 countries. Global governance has shifted from "US-centered" to "multi-center competition and cooperation", but the lack of coordinated fragmented pattern may intensify confrontation between major powers. Trump's "American exceptionalism" has completely torn off the mask of multilateralism. When the United States publicly declared that "Greenland should belong to us" and "Canada can become the 51st state", its allies realized that: The United States is no longer a defender of the rules, but a plunderer of the rules. This collapse of trust will accelerate the process of "de-dollarization" and "de-Americanization", and even shake the foundations of traditional alliances such as NATO. Trump's withdrawal from the group, on the surface, is a resurgence of isolationism, but in fact it is the evolution of hegemony. The United States is no longer willing to bear the cost of "global police", and instead pursues "precise hegemony" - maintaining influence at a lower cost through small multilateral mechanisms, energy control, and technology monopoly.

This shift implies huge risks: if the United States completely abandons the supply of global public goods, its soft power will accelerate its decline; and the "new hegemony" that relies on military deterrence and economic coercion may trigger a more intense backlash. As Australian scholar Eugene Doyle said: "Trump is cutting the last few strands of the 'rules-based international order', but the United States will eventually find that no rag can cover the nakedness of the empire."

Trump's withdrawal from the group is both a projection of American hegemony anxiety and the pain of the transformation of the global order. When multilateralism becomes a bargaining chip in the game of power, the challenges facing mankind - climate change, epidemics, and wars - will become even more unsolvable. Perhaps the real answer lies not in Washington's executive order, but in the carbon market agreement in Brussels, in the vaccine factory in Nairobi, and at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's security dialogue table. The world is learning to live without the United States, and the United States will eventually find that the price of withdrawing from the group is not the victory of freedom, but the cage of loneliness.

[gangilitchmore]

Trump really took a ruthless approach. USAID failed to resist and a large number of staff were suspended late at night.

Overnight, the $50 billion "US aid empire" collapsed! Trump and Musk teamed up to shut down the Agency for International Development in a flash, and the world was shocked!

On February 3, 2025, the lobby of the headquarters of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was affixed with a yellow seal, and employees received a notice that "there is no need to go to work on Monday." This huge organization with an annual budget of $50 billion and 10,000 employees was paralyzed overnight: the official website was inaccessible, social media accounts were cancelled, at least 600 employees' permissions were frozen, and some people could not even retrieve their office items.

Musk "Twitter declared war": Trump supports it and must disappear!

"This is not an apple with worms, but a worm nest!" In the early morning of February 3, Musk, head of the U.S. Department of Efficiency (DOGE), posted a message on the X platform, announcing that Trump had agreed to shut down the Agency for International Development. He denounced the agency as a "criminal organization," saying that it "funded the development of biological weapons" and "eaten away the money of American taxpayers," and emphasized that "there is no cure and it must disappear." Power struggle: Senior officials refused to hand over confidential information, and Musk attacked to "seize power"

This storm had been foreshadowed. Starting from January 27, Trump signed an executive order to freeze all foreign aid for 90 days. 60 employees of the Agency for International Development were forced to take leave, and 600 people from cooperative institutions were fired. On February 1, Musk's team tried to obtain confidential documents but was rejected, and two senior security officials of the Agency for International Development were suspended. The next day, the Department of Homeland Security directly blocked the headquarters, and Musk took over control in the name of "presidential authorization." Trump's final conclusion: "Radical lunatics must go!"

"The Agency for International Development is managed by a group of radical lunatics, and we must drive them away!" Trump set the tone for this struggle in his speech on the evening of February 2, supporting Musk's "clean-up operation."

The fall of the "American aid empire" in 60 years: from a symbol of soft power to the "center of color revolutions" Founded in 1961, the Agency for International Development was once the core agency of the United States' foreign aid, claiming to promote "soft power" through health and poverty alleviation projects. But in recent years, its role has become increasingly sensitive: in 2023, its aid to Ukraine reached $37.6 billion, accounting for one-fifth of the total US aid; it was also revealed that it funded NGOs in various countries through environmental protection, education and other issues, paving the way for "color revolutions". The Republican Party has long criticized its "ideology leaning towards the Democratic Party", and Trump has bluntly stated that it "serves globalism rather than America first". The truth about "reducing costs and increasing efficiency": cutting 50 billion, Musk wants to save 2 trillion? As early as 2024, Musk proposed the goal of "cutting federal spending by 2 trillion dollars in four years", and the annual budget of the International Development Agency is as high as 50 billion US dollars, making it the first target. By merging it into the State Department (with an annual budget of only 70 billion), the budget will be greatly reduced. The new acting director Rubio appointed hardcore MAGA Peter Malloch to power, completely turning to the "America First" diplomatic tool.

Global shock wave: Ukraine is in crisis, and the ability of color revolution has been severely damaged The short-term impact is directly aimed at the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield-if the aid of the International Development Agency is interrupted, the Ukrainian army may lose one-fifth of its resources; in the long run, it will shake the United States' ability to "subvert other countries". The organization was originally a funding hub for NGOs, creating opposition through social issues, and then launching a "color revolution" through the National Endowment for Democracy and others. Now that the channel is broken, it will take several years to rebuild, and the Democratic Party will find it difficult to recover even if it governs in the future. The fight between the two parties escalates: the Democratic Party denounces "tyrannical behavior" Democratic Senator Murphy criticized the move as "unconstitutional", and Ocasio-Cortez warned that "letting billionaires control secrets threatens national security." But Trump hit back hard: "Musk can't do anything without my approval!"

A showdown between "America First" and globalism kicked off with the collapse of a trillion-dollar institution. When the "American Aid Empire" becomes a political bargaining chip, the global geopolitical pattern may usher in a deeper shock. The only certainty is that the combination of Trump and Musk is rewriting the rules of the American power game.

Article link:

[gangilitchmore]

马斯克曝光：美国国际开发署资助武汉病毒实验室研究产生了新冠病毒

[gangilitchmore]

Trump is angry, Musk publicly accused USAID of funding coronavirus research

[gangilitchmore]

Elon Musk Links US Govt Agency To Bio-Weapon Research, Covid & Wuhan 

[gangilitchmore]

Elon Musk discovers that USAID funded and created the bioweapon “COVID-19” that killed millions. This is a breakdown of funding exceeding US$40 million.

[gangilitchmore]

Elon Musk threatens to shut down major US aid agencies

Reuters, CNN reported: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by billionaire Elon Musk, announced on Wednesday that it is shutting down the U.S. foreign aid agency USAID, and said President Donald Trump agreed with the move.

Musk said in a post on the X platform that USAID is "beyond repair" and accused the agency of engaging in "CIA rogue work" and "Internet censorship" and of being "a criminal organization." "Did you know that USAID used your tax dollars to fund biological weapons research, including COVID-19, killing millions of people?" he wrote.

Mr Musk's move has been backed by Mr Trump. Trump said that USAID is "run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we're going to get them out."

USAID is the world's largest single aid agency, with more than 10,000 employees. The agency provided $72 billion in aid around the world in fiscal year 2023. The official USAID website was offline on February 1.

Trump also accused South Africa of "confiscating land" and treating certain classes of people "very badly." Until a full investigation is completed, he will "cut off all funding to South Africa."

South African President Ramaphosa responded on the 3rd that the South African government has not confiscated any land, and the government recently passed the "Acquisition Bill" to ensure that South African citizens get land in a fair and just way. He stressed that the United States has not provided significant financial support to South Africa beyond PEPFAR assistance.

[gangilitchmore]

What is this ? Why is nobody answering for this? Elon Musk says The COVID virus was developed in the Wuhan lab which was funded by US dollars. US Tax dollars were used to kill Americans. This is insane!!

[gangilitchmore]

Musk forced donations of nearly $6 billion. Where did the money go?

Despite his astronomical net worth, Elon Musk has never been a big philanthropist.

As of February 15, Musk's net worth was approximately $246 billion. A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission document on February 14 showed that the Tesla CEO transferred approximately 5 million Tesla shares between November 19 and 29, 2021, which were worth $5.7 billion at the time, and the purpose was shown as "charity."

If the news is true, this is approximately equal to 2.3% of his net worth. Although the proportion is not large, it is more than 20 times all his previous donations.

When the document was first exposed, some people speculated that Musk, as the world's richest man, had been forced to donate money by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), and that the donation must have been provided to the WFP to solve the world hunger problem.

Back to the month before he transferred his shares, Musk said on Twitter that if WFP could detail how to solve world hunger with $6 billion, he would donate $6 billion to the organization. Of course, some people think that there is no need to take Musk's tweet seriously.

But WFP told the American media Forbes on February 15 that it had not received the donation. David Beasley, the organization's executive director, was the one who "forced" Musk to donate on Twitter. He said in a statement: "WFP has not received the money yet, but I am very happy to hear that Musk has joined the charity team."

No other charities have announced receipt of the donation, and Musk did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Based on Forbes' understanding of the world's richest people, the media analyzed that this huge donation may first flow into a donor-advised fund (DAF) or Musk's own charitable organization, the Musk Foundation, and then be donated to other non-profit organizations for charitable purposes.

A DAF is like a charitable bank account. It has fewer rigid requirements, such as annual distribution percentages or public disclosure of grants tied to specific donors, allowing funds to sit in a DAF for years without flowing to an operating nonprofit.

That’s why Forbes doesn’t count such funds in its assessments of philanthropists unless these billionaires disclose details of what their DAFs actually disburse.

The tax avoidance function of DAF is one of the reasons why it is so popular among the world's richest people. Once Musk donates his stocks, he can immediately get a tax deduction, exempting up to 30% of his adjusted gross income in 2021 from taxes.

This alone makes it very likely that Musk's donations will flow into DAFs. Forbes estimates that of the $280 million Musk has donated to charity (excluding this latest large donation), about 20% has been donated through DAFs.

The second scenario is that Musk could put the money into his own foundation, in which case he would still get the money tax-free immediately.

However, unlike donating directly to a DAF, the foundation is required to distribute approximately 5% annually. If the foundation distributes more than 5% in a year, it can carry the excess forward for five years. If it does not reach this ratio, it will need to pay more taxes.

Musk has, at least so far, been one of the world’s less philanthropic billionaires, but there are signs he may be stepping up his efforts in that regard.

In February 2021, he announced a $100 million "XPRIZE" program to fund teams that create scalable mechanisms to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

So far, Musk has given just over half of the prize money to the X-Prize Foundation, which oversees the award, according to a representative for Musk. The foundation has awarded $5 million to 23 student teams to support the early stages of their carbon removal projects, but the full competition doesn’t end until 2025.

Musk donated $55 million to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in 2021. He also donated about $30 million to various public schools and nonprofits in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, where SpaceX builds its rockets.

The donations were all announced in March 2021, amid growing criticism of Tesla from local activists who say the company is harming the area's ecosystem and squeezing out longtime residents.

In the fiscal year ending June 2020, the most recent fiscal year for which documents are available, the Musk Foundation had total assets of $941 million, of which less than $24 million was distributed, about $20 million went into the DAF, and the remaining $2.9 million was spent primarily on education.

Musk has, at least so far, been one of the world’s less philanthropic billionaires, but there are signs he may be stepping up his efforts in that regard.

In February 2021, he announced a $100 million "XPRIZE" program to fund teams that create scalable mechanisms to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

So far, Musk has given just over half of the prize money to the X-Prize Foundation, which oversees the award, according to a representative for Musk. The foundation has awarded $5 million to 23 student teams to support the early stages of their carbon removal projects, but the full competition doesn’t end until 2025.

Musk donated $55 million to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in 2021. He also donated about $30 million to various public schools and nonprofits in the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas, where SpaceX builds its rockets.

The donations were all announced in March 2021, amid growing criticism of Tesla from local activists who say the company is harming the area's ecosystem and squeezing out longtime residents.

In the fiscal year ending June 2020, the most recent fiscal year for which documents are available, the Musk Foundation had total assets of $941 million, of which less than $24 million was distributed, about $20 million went into the DAF, and the remaining $2.9 million was spent primarily on education.

Musk has never earned a spot on Forbes' ranking of top philanthropists, which tracks giving as a percentage of net worth and counts only money that goes to charities, not money that goes into his own charitable foundations or DAFs.

So far, Musk has donated only 0.001% of his $246 billion fortune, and Forbes did not count his latest donation of $5.7 billion because it is unclear where it went.

Many billionaires at Musk's level have better philanthropic records.

Warren Buffett is by far the most philanthropic of all, having donated an estimated $46.1 billion during his lifetime, or 40% of his $115.6 billion fortune.

In 2010, Buffett and Bill Gates co-authored the Giving Pledge, a non-binding pledge for the world's wealthiest people to give away the majority of their wealth during their lifetime or after their death.

Gates and his ex-wife, Melinda French Gates, have donated $33.4 billion together, about 24% of their combined net worth of $140.7 billion.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, the world's third-richest person, has donated $2.1 billion to charity, including about $1.3 billion to climate change, equivalent to 1% of his estimated $188 billion fortune.

Musk signed the Giving Pledge in 2012, committing to increasing his giving efforts in later life.

In 2018, he tweeted that every few years he would sell about $100 million worth of Tesla stock for charity, and increase the one-time donation after about 20 years when Tesla is in a stable state.

Since that tweet, Tesla's stock has surged 1,200%, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to Musk's paper wealth.

Over time, the recipient of Musk's $5.7 billion may be revealed. But Forbes believes that before then, the reason for his gift of stock may be more to avoid taxes. Referring to Musk's previous charitable record, the money may not have been sent to those in need, and it may not be for some time in the future.

[gangilitchmore]

Is the US No Longer the "Boss"? Trump Keeps Withdrawing from International Agreements and Organizations, Showing No Respect to the United Nations

Under the "America First" strategy, successive US presidents have increasingly felt that the United Nations has become something of an obstacle to the US, preventing it from acting according to its own rhythm in many cases. Therefore, after taking office, Trump decided to "cut the Gordian knot".

Trump's Rash Withdrawals and Breaches of Agreements

According to huanqiu.com, Trump has publicly questioned the efficiency of the United Nations on many occasions, even regarding it as a place where people talk more than they get things done. He criticized, "The United Nations has potential, but it really doesn't work well." His sharp words are very much in line with his maverick style, and also reveal his merciless criticism of this international organization.

Therefore, he signed a series of executive orders to lead the US to "withdraw from groups": quitting the Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and cutting off any financial support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. When announcing these decisions, it seemed that the US had lost patience with the United Nations, and Trump intended to force this international institution to reform through his actions.

However, the United Nations did not sit around and wait for doom. Secretary-General Guterres, through his spokesman, made it clear that they have been implementing various reforms to improve the organization's efficiency. It can be inferred from the secretary-general's remarks that despite the pressure from the US, the United Nations still hopes to maintain a constructive relationship with the US.

Russian Foreign Minister Exposes the True Face of the US

Trump's crazy actions have enabled Russia to keenly perceive the opportunities therein. The criticism of this maverick US president by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov seems to be a rebuke on the surface, but in fact it is a clever leveraging in diplomatic games.

Multipolarity is an undeniable trend in today's world, and the status of various countries in international affairs is becoming more and more balanced. However, in this "chorus", the US seems somewhat reluctant to give up its leading role. To some extent, the Trump administration's radical strategy can be said to be a reluctance to face the growing influence of other countries, especially emerging powers like China and Russia.

Lavrov sarcastically said that such unilateral actions by the US are tantamount to "upsetting the table" and breaking the balance in the global governance system. After all, the international system with the United Nations at its core was established after numerous difficult explorations after World War II.

In this regard, Russia obviously doesn't want to miss any opportunity to weaken the influence of the US. By means of sarcasm and refutation, it has shifted the focus to the role played by the US in international cooperation. This can be described as killing two birds with one stone: criticizing the US and trying to gain more say in the trend of multipolarity.