It's blocked behind a paywall so I can't quote from it, but so far we have the following:
Key Treaties & Agreements Targeted:
Paris Agreement (Climate Change): A second withdrawal from this accord, with effects starting in 2026, ending U.S. commitment to carbon-cutting pledges.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Withdrawing from this foundational treaty aims to exit the entire international climate negotiation framework.
World Health Organization (WHO): Withdrawal from this global health body, effective January 2026, reverses a previous withdrawal.
UN Human Rights Council: Another re-withdrawal from this body focused on human rights.
Other Organizations & Frameworks:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The key scientific body for climate change reports.
UNESCO: The UN's cultural agency.
UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF).
International Energy Forum (IEF).
Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF).
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Next up, NATO? UN Court so he can try to claim immunity to prosecution for War Crimes?
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
US President Donald Trump has withdrawn the US from dozens of international organisations, including many that work to combat climate change.
Nearly half of the 66 affected bodies are UN-related, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change - a treaty that underpins all international efforts to combat global warming.
Groups working on development, gender equality and conflict - areas the Trump administration had repeatedly dismissed as advancing "globalist" or "woke" agendas - are also included.
The White House said the decision was taken because those entities "no longer serve American interests" and promote "ineffective or hostile agendas".
The memorandum was signed on Wednesday following a review, with the White House describing the organisations as "a waste of taxpayer dollars".
"These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities," it said in a statement.
It added that many of the organisations promoted "radical climate policies, global governance and ideological programs that conflict with US sovereignty and economic strength".
As well as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the US has also withdrawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the world's leading authority on climate science that pulls together the most respected reports on the science of rising global temperatures.
Sources within the organisation told the BBC that they were concerned about the potential impact of the Trump administration's withdrawal on US scientists involved in producing the body's next set of studies.
The White House has already blocked US scientists attending a meeting in China.
Any restrictions on travel or the participation of US researchers could significantly delay the release of the next set of IPCC reports, including potentially its mitigation report - a key document guiding governments on how to tackle climate change.
Non-UN organisations affected by the US withdrawal include those focused on clean energy co-operation, democratic governance and international security, such as the International Solar Alliance, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum.
Trump has already stripped many multilateral organisations he dislikes of funds and previously rejected the scientific consensus of man-made climate change as a "hoax".
It will take a year for the US to be able to fully withdraw from the UNFCCC - but in reality the US ceased effective participation in the UN's climate change body long ago.
It remains unclear whether the move will be challenged in the US courts, as many campaigners are now urging.
While the US constitution allows presidents to join treaties "provided two thirds of Senators present concur", it does not specify what happens if they were to withdraw. As such, it is uncertain a future president could reverse Trump's decision and opt back in simply by applying.
These latest withdrawals come after the president took the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time last year, and declined to send a delegation to the COP30 climate summit in Brazil.
The US has also already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN's cultural agency, Unesco.
European leaders have criticised this latest decision, warning it would weaken global co-operation.
EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the UNFCCC "underpins global climate action" and called the US retreat "regrettable and unfortunate", while the EU's clean transition vice-president Teresa Ribera said the administration showed little concern for the environment, health or human suffering.
A member of a US-based non-profit advocacy group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the step as a "new low".
Senior policy director Rachel Cleetus told news agency AFP that it was another sign the administration, which she described as "authoritarian" and "anti- science", was determined to sacrifice people's wellbeing and destabilise global co-operation.
I've started seeing random social media posts about Trump, Epstein and snuff videos. Haven't seen actual evidence yet but we're well past the point where I can just assume that's crazy bullshit.
Venezuela’s acting president Delcy Rodríguez said Sunday she has had “enough” of Washington’s orders, as she works to unite the country after the US capture of its former leader Nicolás Maduro.
Rodríguez has been walking a tight-rope since being backed by the US to lead the country in the interim; balancing keeping Maduro loyalists on board at home while trying to ensure the White House is happy.
Now, almost a month into her new role, Rodríguez has pushed back on the US, amid ongoing pressure including a series of demands for Venezuela to resume oil production.
“Enough already of Washington’s orders over politicians in Venezuela,” she told a group of oil workers in Puerto La Cruz city, at an event broadcast by state-run channel Venezolana de Televisión.
“Let Venezuelan politics resolve our differences and our internal conflicts. This Republic has paid a very high price for having to confront the consequences of fascism and extremism in our country.”
The White House has maintained steady pressure on Venezuela since Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were seized in a raid in early January and taken to the US, where the former leader is facing charges.
Rodríguez, Maduro’s former deputy, has insisted in recent weeks that the US does not govern Venezuela but, equally, has not sought confrontation with Washington.
US President Donald Trump had claimed the US was “going to run” Venezuela in the immediate aftermath of Maduro’s capture, but he later backed Rodríguez as the country’s interim leader. Earlier this month, Trump said he had spoken by phone with the acting Venezuelan leader and praised her as a “terrific person.” “I think we’re getting along very well with Venezuela,” he added.
CNN has contacted the White House for comment on Rodríguez’s latest statement.
Seeking stability
For the past 25 years, oil-rich socialist Venezuela has been in constant confrontation with the US. But after deposing Maduro, Washington is now seeking to secure a stable source of authority in Caracas.
Internally, there are divisions among Maduro loyalists, left-wing fractures who have opposed the direction of the government and “Chavistas No-Maduristas” – supporters of the late Hugo Chávez who reject Maduro, accusing him of betraying 21st-century socialist ideals.
Meanwhile, leaders of the Venezuelan opposition continue to watch how things unfold in the country and their future involvement remains unclear. Last week, Trump said that he would like to see Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado “involved” in the country’s leadership in some capacity. Machado had lunch with Trump at the White House earlier this month, where she presented him with her Nobel Peace Prize.
Days after the US strikes on Caracas in early January, the Trump administration outlined a number of demands that Venezuela must agree to, including cutting ties with China, Iran, Russia and Cuba, and agreeing to partner exclusively with the US on oil production, two senior White House officials told CNN at the time.
Rodríguez was also expected to prioritize the Trump administration and US oil companies for future oil sales.
Venezuela’s main economic driver is oil. The country has the world’s largest reserves of extra-heavy crude, a variety that requires a more complex and expensive refining process but which is also compatible with US refineries.
Prisoners released
The US has also demanded that Venezuela release the many political prisoners it has locked up across the country.
On Sunday, at least 104 people were freed, according to the rights group Foro Penal. The group said it marked one of the highest daily figures since the government announced on January 8 that it would release “a significant number” of detainees as a “peace” gesture to the US.
According to Foro Penal, the total number of releases since then has reached at least 266.
CNN has reached out to the Venezuelan government for more information.
Trump on Monday thanked the leadership of Venezuela for agreeing to free prisoners, which he called a “powerful humanitarian gesture.” He said the rate of releases would be increasing “over the coming short period of time.”
Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said Monday that 808 people had been released since December, as part of a process that he said had been ordered by Maduro “for coexistence and peace.” Cabello and Rodríguez have both said that country is open to a visit by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk to verify the list of releases, which has not been made public despite demands from activists and opposition members.
This seems like it's going to be a big surprise for Trump when he notices.
The Trump administration didn’t have a whole lot to work with after a federal officer shot and killed someone again this weekend in Minneapolis.
About the best defense it could muster was pointing out that Alex Pretti had a gun – even though he was legally carrying it, even though there’s no sign he brandished it, and even though video showed he was disarmed before he was killed.
Perhaps predictably, that didn’t go well.
It turns out the party’s base full of Second Amendment supporters didn’t like the idea that merely being armed might give the government more of a right to kill you. You can understand how people who view guns as a bulwark against government tyranny might see that as a potentially troublesome standard.
So when a bunch of Trump administration officials raised this talking point, gun rights groups pushed back.
The issue might have then faded, with the administration generally taking a more conciliatory posture on the shooting in Minnesota. But President Donald Trump has now pushed it right back to center stage. And in fact, he’s gone further than the administration officials who initially inflamed gun groups.
Speaking with reporters Tuesday, Trump said he disagreed with White House adviser Stephen Miller’s baseless claim labeling Pretti a “would-be assassin.” But then he went on.
“With that being said, you can’t have guns,” Trump said. “You can’t walk in with guns. You just can’t.”
A reporter asked Trump how that squared with the Second Amendment. But Trump didn’t back down.
“You can’t walk in with guns, you can’t do that,” he said. “But it’s a very unfortunate incident.”
Trump then echoed the comments later that afternoon in Iowa.
“Certainly, he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun,” Trump said.
Trump added: “I don’t like that he had a gun. I don’t like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That’s a lot of bad stuff.”
Trump’s comments go further than others who had generally couched their criticisms as being about confrontations with law enforcement and about Pretti’s intentions. They hadn’t suggested it was wrong to have guns at a protest, period.
Bill Essayli, a US attorney in California, initially drew gun rights supporters’ ire by saying, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt made a similar point about being “confronted by law enforcement.” Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino invoked having a gun while you “obstruct and impede law enforcement officers.”
When Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel raised the issue of the gun, they suggested that it offered evidence about Pretti’s intentions.
“No one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines,” Patel said.
Trump, on the other hand, has now dismissed the idea that Pretti had ill intentions. And his comments weren’t careful to say guns were dangerous when it comes to interactions with law enforcement. He has now repeatedly said that Pretti shouldn’t have had a gun at a protest, full stop.
So what do gun rights groups do about that?
A couple of them have already spoken out.
Dudley Brown, the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, told CNN that Trump’s comments were “clearly mistaken” and “wrong.” He argued it can actually be a “moral duty” to be armed at a protest.
“I reached out to a great number of people in the administration at a very high level. And I only sent them three letters: W.T.F.,” Brown said of the administration officials’ comments in recent days. “And then this happens.”
Another group, Gun Owners of America, also objected.
“You absolutely may walk around with guns, and you absolutely may peacefully protest while armed,” the group’s senior vice president, Erich Pratt, told CNN. “We have the First and Second amendments to protect the right to protest while armed — an American historical tradition that dates back to the Boston Tea Party.”
The group also sent out a clip of Trump’s comments on X and pledged: “GOA will hold any administration accountable.”
The biggest gun rights group is, of course, the National Rifle Association.
It turned plenty of heads over the weekend by calling Essayli’s comments “dangerous and wrong.”
“Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens,” the NRA posted on X on Saturday night.
Trump’s comments would certainly seem to qualify for that same criticism. The NRA hasn’t yet responded to a request for comment from CNN.
I'm surprised the right are actually sticking to the 2nd amendment. Seen plenty of shit in youtube comments following the 'he had a gun and threatened police with it' line.
This is MAGA fracturing, as it was always likely to. More specifically, this is a split between two threads of American (and other) Right-wing thinking, and it ties into why they backed Trump.
On the one side, you've got the Authoritarian Right. For them, threatening a police officer (or an ICE agent) is morally no different to launching an armed uprising. It strikes at the social contract, at the moral promise that a nation state makes to its citizens; obey the rules, pay your taxes, be a good citizen, and you will be protected. In the modern West, this promise is essentially a civic religion; and it has been failing for decades. For the Authoritarian Right (and others) this is a source of existential dread, and they follow Trump because he promises to fix it.
On the other side, you've got the Second Amendment crowd. Like the Authoritarian Right, they feel vulnerable and alone in a chaotic world; but unlike them, they consider it normal. Whereas the Authoritarians crave order and belonging, the gun owners are individualists. They never entirely (or at all) believed in the promise or the system, so they trust in their guns instead. They followed Trump because it was him or the Democrats, whom they think (not without reason) want to take their guns away.
Now, as with other splits in his following, Trump has to choose between them if he wants to stay in power. He's already annoyed the Tech Bros by cracking down on foreign students; now he's alienating the gun crowd. One wonders how far this will go.
I'm still waiting for the NRA to do something, like they always said they would.
Oh wait, they were always literal more then a poorly disguised corporate lobby, and now it's their masters-masters in power fucking around.
So, they've been muzzled. Like good little dogs.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
In brighter news, that ridiculous "Melania" documentary has absolutely bombed here in the UK - though why it's even showing in cinemas here is a mystery to me. They sold one (1) ticket to the premiere in London.
Critics aren't impressed either, I particularly like Variety's meme-worthy review: "If they showed this on a plane, people would still get up and walk out."
Ha!
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."
Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
Anybody remember "The Roman Republic" and his advocacy of a national strike to get rid of Trump during the first Trump Presidency?
I remember thinking it was a pretty far out idea back then and it's being discussed in the mainstream.
How times have changed.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
Eternal_Freedom wrote: 2026-01-29 06:02pm
In brighter news, that ridiculous "Melania" documentary has absolutely bombed here in the UK - though why it's even showing in cinemas here is a mystery to me. They sold one (1) ticket to the premiere in London.
Critics aren't impressed either, I particularly like Variety's meme-worthy review: "If they showed this on a plane, people would still get up and walk out."
Ha!
If I pirated this movie, I would still want a refund.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi
"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant
"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai
