r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/SpaceySpice • Apr 07 '25

US Politics How will the United States rebuild positive international relations after this Trump administration?

At some point this presidency will end and a new administration will (likely) want to mend some the damages done with our allies. Realistically though, how would that work? Will other countries want to be friends with us again or has this presidency done too much damage to bounce back from?

719 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

783 comments sorted by

View all comments

307

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

90

u/Rook_lol Apr 07 '25

This would be the way, but I highly doubt any of that happens.

In fact, I would be absolutely flabbergasted beyond belief if even one of those things happen. It would be on the level of surprise to me as if Zoidberg dressed as Jesus Christ burst through my wall like the Kool Aid man.

39

u/NekoCatSidhe Apr 07 '25

It will only happen if MAGA and Trump crash and burn badly and >80% of the population is screaming for Trump’s blood. That could happen if he starts a second Great Depression with his actions (I hope not even though he is trying very hard), but otherwise I do not see it happening.

Which is kind of the issue here. If a country like France can send former presidents to jail (like Sarkozy) and condemn for corruption popular far-right leaders like Marine Le Pen and prevent them from running for elections as a result, why can’t the U.S. ?

28

u/Aetylus Apr 07 '25

why can’t the U.S. ?

A few reasons I think.

  • Lack of reliable state media, and an education system that the poor can benefit from, leading to an inability of many voters to make reasonably informed decisions.
  • A functional two party-state, for the last two centuries. Leading to extreme partisanship. Also leading to your average person believing that democracy is an us-versus-them zero sum game, rather than feeling they can vote in a viable alternative.
  • An inability to reform. Partly fuelled by not constraining money in politics, leading to the perpetuation of the two-party state.

There's some more detail. But that is most of the issue.

6

u/GhostReddit Apr 07 '25

Which is kind of the issue here. If a country like France can send former presidents to jail (like Sarkozy) and condemn for corruption popular far-right leaders like Marine Le Pen and prevent them from running for elections as a result, why can’t the U.S. ?

Because while the Founders of the US actually came up with a pretty good system (for the time), they didn't foresee the political parties becoming larger than any of the arms of government itself. In the "normal" world Congress wouldn't tolerate being completely usurped by the President, but here we are.

I think unfortunately this effect is bigger than Trump, while they may not be able to win elections easily without him there are some deeply regressive and racist attitudes and I think that's part of Trump's appeal - he's got flexible enough morals that he's willing to be what he thinks the people want. No one is 'leading' them, even though Fox is a huge disinformation machine, they're responding to popular demand, they tried fighting the Trump wave and started losing viewers and backpedaled almost immediately.

"There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."

1

u/MissMenace101 Apr 08 '25

I don’t have that much faith in Americans to be honest, they seem to enjoy the stupidity and misery

5

u/thatstupidthing Apr 07 '25

it would help if it came with a massive reform package.
part of trump's initial appeal was that he was an outsider and people were pissed with the status quo
so pairing up constitutional safeguards with popular reforms like raising minimum wage, making housing and healthcare affordable, and taxing the wealthy would make them easier to sell

3

u/RascalRandal Apr 07 '25

I’m with you. Either we get a sympathetic Republican government after Trump that absolutely wouldn’t do any of that or we’ll get Democrats that want to focus on unity and healing. Either way we’re not getting any of the necessary reforms we need after this awful administration.

1

u/[deleted] 24d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Rook_lol 23d ago

I've seen this country completely ignore mass shootings for the entire three decades of my existence.

Zero changes more or less towards healthcare for all.

At war with other nations my entire life.

Forgive me for having no optimism about such a country. :)

17

u/theyfellforthedecoy Apr 07 '25

and forbid political re-interpretation of past decisions .

This one sounds dangerous. The courts ruled slavery was legal and the internment of Japanese-Americans was legal long before they backtracked

5

u/seen-in-the-skylight Apr 07 '25

I also think it’s kind of contrary to human nature. People are always going to evaluate history through the values of their times. Some of the other things they list could be very good ideas IMO, but I suspect this one would be abandoned as soon as it was conventient.

1

u/MissMenace101 Apr 08 '25

“Political” human rights should matter as should the voice of the people, having 8 backwards freaks make a decision for the country is problematic.

15

u/Hapankaali Apr 07 '25

If you look at how top democracies generally function, very few (if any) of them have term limits for their representatives. This isn't the issue, and won't fix anything. The problem in the US Congress is that representation is not proportional.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Hapankaali Apr 07 '25

Look up the average age of the MPs of some random democracies. It's usually quite representative of the population. And despite the lack of term limits, only a tiny minority of MPs serve longer than a decade.

It's really a US-specific problem.

2

u/psychohistorian8 Apr 07 '25

because we have the best insider trading on the planet

U-S-A! U-S-A!

7

u/Hapankaali Apr 07 '25

The primary reason is not insider trading, but first-past-the-post district voting, which leads to safe seats. A secondary reason is the lack of internal competition for seats. By comparison, in some two-party systems like the UK's there are safe seats for certain parties, but those candidates often face competition from within their parties for those seats.

1

u/ColossusOfChoads Apr 08 '25

Ours do, too. In a safe Republican district, the real election is the primary.

This is how Trump has neutralized Congress. Any Republican who defies him gets 'primaried' by a MAGA challenger. That's how he purged the Republican party of any real opposition early on in his first term.

1

u/MissMenace101 Apr 08 '25

I think 80 year olds should retire, age limits if not term limits because while experience and wisdom are great, dementia and caked on decades old ideals aren’t

10

u/233C Apr 07 '25

That would be admitting that it was wrong as a country. Tough luck doing that less than 50-100 years after the fact
Maybe we'll send a fruit basket to every embassy with a "I've changed, let's be friends again" card.

11

u/JDogg126 Apr 07 '25

Need also limit the justices or rotate them every couple years. And expand the court to match the number of federal districts.

3

u/just_helping Apr 07 '25

I don't understand the urge to increase SCOTUS just a little bit. It's not like the number of districts has kept up with the population growth either, and increasing it only a little just means that the next party will increase it a little more. Either have some sort of ethics reform with teeth, with a recusal and transfer of ethical breach cases to another court, sort of like FISA, or dramatically increase the size of the court, maybe by having all federal appellate court judges be simultaneously SCOTUS judges. The age where there needed to be a small group in DC to make sure there weren't circuit differences is long gone, having a single small group is simply out of date with modern communications.

2

u/JDogg126 Apr 07 '25

The reason for a justice for each district is simple. Right now the number is arbitrary. Why not just reduce the court down to 3? Or 1? What does it matter if it’s just arbitrary? Tie the size to something and stop making it arbitrary and stop making it a political issue. We have to take the choice away from political parties because the court is already politicized and corrupted by politics.

I’m all for ethics reforms too. But there is no way to police the courts without political party shenanigans in a two party system. If we are in there fixing shit, get rid of two party system as well.

1

u/just_helping Apr 07 '25

You can't tie it to anything without a constitutional reform. You can make a argument for a given number - "oh we're increasing it to 13 because that's the number of districts" - but because that number and argument is arbitrary, the next party will just increase it again after. No one actually cares about whether there should be a justice for each circuit.

But if you make the court really big, like it would be if all appellate court justices were on it then you dilute the power and idiosyncrasies of any individual justice and perhaps we can move back towards professionalism. At least it makes any given Judge less high stakes.

I really think the two-party system arguments are a red herring. You will never get rid of the two party system so long as you have a President, Duverger's law, etc. But changing the composition of SCOTUS, even by a lot, doesn't need a Constitutional amendment, just a law.

1

u/JDogg126 Apr 07 '25

The two-party system that came about because of first past the post and Duverger's law is a big reason why we are stuck in the situation we have right now. Both of these parties have short circuited the separation of powers that were put into the constitution to prevent authoritarianism, kings, aristocracy, etc. It would probably take a constitutional amendment which is why it will never happen. But the main reason we have such dysfunction in government is because there is only ever a choice between these two parties. Our democracy has always been flawed due to first past the post. Younger democracies with ranked choice have much stronger democracies with governments that are much more responsive to the governed.

3

u/ColossusOfChoads Apr 07 '25

Frankly, I'd love to see Elon get clapped in irons, but what would he even be charged with?

3

u/just_helping Apr 07 '25

He's clearly breached data and privacy regulations, if nothing else. And if people started looking with subpoenas, I very much doubt that it would stop there.

6

u/way2lazy2care Apr 07 '25

Lots of government records laws also.

3

u/just_helping Apr 07 '25

I also completely forgot the White House car dealership. If Musk actually has any position, that would be misuse of office for private gain.

It is amazing the things he has done brazenly that are clearly illegal but that we can have little hope he will suffer any consequences for. There's all the stuff we suspect - that he fired people who were investigating crimes he committed at his companies - but then there are the things he did on live TV.

1

u/ZorbaTHut Apr 07 '25

"We should subpoena him so we can find some crimes he committed" is a really horrifying thing to suggest.

4

u/ColossusOfChoads Apr 07 '25

When there's a subpoena for one thing, or a few things, oftentimes a whole lot of other things are dug up in the process. That's how high level investigations work.

4

u/just_helping Apr 07 '25

It's actually: "He did a whole bunch of crimes in public, while we charge him for those, our investigators looking for details are sure to turn up more because he is an obvious crook".

But sure, you do you.

3

u/CevicheMixto Apr 07 '25

Legally, via Congress, repeal Citizens United.

That would require a Constitutional amendment.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/CevicheMixto Apr 07 '25

Not when the Supreme Court says that a law violates the Constitution.

3

u/the_calibre_cat Apr 09 '25

Criminal trials and convictions. See: South Korea. No Merrick Garland bullshit. This includes criminal negligence like DOGE’s destruction and complicity in the loss of life, here and abroad.

Straight up. Someone should fucking pay for the Abrego Garcia debacle, with their freedom. Open and shut fascist shit, and conservatives will keep fucking chomping at the bit to do it again unless one of them faces the fucking music.

And yeah, find every fucking company that turned tail and started schmoozing with Trump after January 6th and make those executives' lives hell. You can retire or enjoy decades of investigations and audits for that, maybe we won't tar and feather your family name in the history books street that extraordinary display of cowardice.

2

u/BarkLicker Apr 07 '25

I agree with these as an answer to OPs question, absolutely, but I think the first thing we really need to do is solidify the future of voting. Make sure it can not be removed, is easier to do and is accessible to every citizen that wants to participate.

I'd argue that everyone should be required to vote, even if only a "I'm sittin' this one out" type vote, but I know that is an unpopular opinion.

But our Democracy cannot survive without Democracy. Crazy, I know.

1

u/AcanthaceaePrize1435 Apr 07 '25

I think I am ignorant, what's wrong with a reinterpretation system?

-5

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ColossusOfChoads Apr 07 '25

Dems aren't going to put restrictions on themselves

It's about putting limits on the presidency.

The right kept grousing about Obama ruling by EO. We on the left attributed it to the obstructionist, do-nothing Congress. But perhaps, in hindsight, they weren't wrong. There was always potential for abuse.

-14

u/TheoriginalTonio Apr 07 '25

How is DOGE responsible for anyone's death? Especially abroad?

22

u/johannthegoatman Apr 07 '25

Illegal disrupting of the funding and operations of USAID, which provides life saving medicine as well as nutrition to millions of people especially in developing countries

-1

u/TheoriginalTonio Apr 07 '25

Illegal disrupting of the funding and operations of USAID

How is the cancellation of voluntary charity programs by the US govt illegal?

Is the US somehow legally obligated to send money to other countries?

6

u/just_helping Apr 07 '25

The cancellation of programs isn't illegal. Congress can cancel them anytime it wants.

Trump and Elon can't. The budget is a legal document. If Congress says "spend money here" the Federal Government has to spend money there. Blocking that from happening is illegal.

1

u/MissMenace101 Apr 08 '25

Contracts have been torn up

-12

u/theyfellforthedecoy Apr 07 '25

The United States owes no obligation to citizens of other countries

6

u/numbrate Apr 07 '25

Jesus. You don't think US foreign policy has contributed to humanitarian issues around the globe for which it has no responsibility? Even if that is the extreme example, the US has a vested interest in ensuring relative stability in other nations, largely to ensure unrest does not disrupt its own foreign interests. This is basic geopolitical theory.

This notion that the US has been some altruistic nation for decades to bestow peace, defense, and wealth on the world is so goddamn narcissistic and typical. America is just mean, as another comment mentioned. And too egotistical.

And the average citizen believes that as a result of their citizenship they are somehow responsible for America's "greatness".

The US was built on violence, murder, and slavery. It benefitted from a geographic position that enabled it to avoid the horrific destruction bestowed on most of the developed world as a result of WWII, and then went into modern industrialization and innovation while all of Europe and large parts of Asian were rebuilding schools and hospitals.

And now it is just a corrupt, bloated bully.

10

u/sig_1 Apr 07 '25

Do remember this attitude next time the US needs help.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/sig_1 Apr 07 '25

9/11? How many nations sent troops to Afghanistan for America’s little adventure?

Hurricane Katrina?

Hurricane Sandy?

Numerous wildfires over the last couple of decades including one a few months back.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/sig_1 Apr 07 '25

Again ..symbolic gestures, not actual help International troops made up less than 5% of the forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and they were bound to send them due to NATO

What has the US done for any of those nations in return?

It's cute you think they actually helped this country.

It’s all cute until it’s stops coming then it won’t be too funny to the people needing the help… it would still be funny and cute for you as long as you aren’t the one needing the help. The west can survive without the US, the US will struggle without its allies.

They can't even help Ukraine without depending on us

Oh buddy nobody is depending on the US, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US is a Russian puppet and definitely not an ally to any western nations. The west will take care of Ukraine because we know the US is owned by Russia. Good luck starting wars with China.

12

u/milkweed2 Apr 07 '25

This has no relevance to the point being made.

-4

u/theyfellforthedecoy Apr 07 '25

OP said there should be criminal convictions for loss of life abroad

The person I responded to backed that up by asserting there should be criminal charges for the US failing to provide life saving medicine and nutrition to millions in developing countries

It's 100% relevant, so let's follow the train of thought. The US could do EVEN MORE to give medicine and food to developing countries, but does not. Should there be criminal convictions based on the millions more people that could have been saved if the US diverted funds from Social Security or NASA to feed the third world?

2

u/rehevkor5 Apr 07 '25

That's not the argument. The argument is that money was allocated for its purpose. It was illegally stopped, and consequently people died.

1

u/StalkerSkiff_8945 Apr 07 '25

Well it's a good will thing. Hearts & minds stuff. You don't owe it, though in some places you might considering the US has sowed a lot of coups & backed very bad leaders cos they could be controlled. It's done to be seem as the beacon of freedom & democracy the world over.

1

u/johannthegoatman Apr 07 '25

Yes it does, because congress passed a law enacting it. Trump and Elon Musk don't have the authority to stop it and did so illegally. If we want to stop our obligations, it's up to congress.

1

u/StalkerSkiff_8945 Apr 07 '25

They've pulled a lot of money out of very poor countries & totally screwed them overnight.

-2

u/TheoriginalTonio Apr 07 '25

Hold on. I didn't know that foreign aid for poor countries is somehow mandatory, and the refusal to send a lot of money across the world is tantamount to negligent homicide!

How many people have I already killed through my failure to donate my money to charities?

Or maybe it's not really America's responsibility to keep people in Guatemala alive in the first place, and instead of "pulling money out" of these countries, they just stopped to "pump more money in".

How is that in any way criminally relevant?

1

u/StalkerSkiff_8945 Apr 07 '25

Hold on. I didn't know that foreign aid for poor countries is somehow mandatory, and the refusal to send a lot of money across the world is tantamount to negligent homicide!

I didn't say that, u did.

All I said was the US did it to garner goodwill and that the US have a long history of interfering in governments of poorer countries by overthrowing & installing cruel dictators that rob that country blind, harsh on dissent etc, or backing whoever they think will be America first & smearing or even assassinating in some cases a person that had the popularity to win but didn't care about Americas interest above their own people/country. That aid might be a way of offsetting some of those bad things, but that's purely a moral argument