I keep seeing people say that Trump is “destroying the post–World War II global order”, which is then usually followed by outrage, panic, or psychoanalysis.

All that might actually be true, the order is definitely cracking. But the way most people are reacting to it is somwehat strange. It’s all emotion, very little curiosity.

This isn’t a defense of Trump. I don’t trust him, and neither should you. But shouting “betrayal” doesn’t tell us much about what’s actually breaking.

A lot of the outrage seems glued to worst-case interpretations that get treated as fact. Alternative explanations don’t even get a hearing most of the time.

Take vaccines. Trump cut the mandatory childhood vaccine schedule by 55 doses. At the same time, he kept pushing the COVID jab well into 2025, last time we checked. That alone should make anyone cautious about clean narratives.

Or Venezuela. Trump “kidnapped” Maduro despite promising no regime change. That criticism is fair. But when you point out that he didn’t actually install a new regime, and explicitly refused to endorse María Corina Machado, the response immediately goes psychological. Trump did it because he’s jealous of her Nobel Prize. Case closed. Evidence optional...

The problem isn’t that Trump deserves criticism. He does. The problem is the refusal to admit that nobody outside his inner circle really knows what he’s doing or why and that maybe clinging to one moralised explanation is more comforting than admitting uncertainty.

After the Caracas furore, we briefly wondered whether Trump’s move had something to do with the drug war, which has been eating the American poor and middle class for decades. Then a few days later, this shows up:

“Trump Orders U.S. Withdrawal from 66 International Organizations…”

Instant hysteria. Trump is insane. Trump is isolationist. Trump is tearing up global cooperation. Maybe. But here’s a more interesting question: which institutions are being weakened?

A huge part of the postwar global order consists of international organisations that operate with extraordinary legal immunity.

Corey Lynn documented this in her series Laundering with Immunity. She lists 76 international organisations and banks that enjoy sweeping privileges under the International Organisations Immunities Act of 1945.

Some examples:

The Bank for International Settlements.

The World Health Organization.

The World Trade Organization.

The International Organization for Migration.

The World Meteorological Organization.

GAVI.

Various other UN bodies.

The Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Kosovo.

These entities and often their officers, contractors, and affiliates, are immune from prosecution, search and seizure, taxation, and sometimes even immigration controls.

As Lynn put it: they don’t operate above the law. They operate entirely outside of it.

That should make anyone uncomfortable. Every U.S. president since Truman expanded these protections. Trump is the first not to.

If the U.S. actually strips these organisations of their legal shields, this doesn’t mean freedom is around the corner. More likely it means chaos, selective exposure, and quiet power struggles over who gets burned and who walks.

Legal immunity attracts corruption. Removing it doesn’t clean the system, it merely destabilises it.

Whether this leads to real revelations or another Epstein-style dead end is an open question.

There are subtle signs that U.S. and Russian interests might be converging against certain supranational structures. If so, this isn’t some moral awakening, but really more of a tactical alignment between states trying to survive a changing landscape.

Nothing of this is good news though. When institutions collapse, power doesn’t vanish, it either leaves a vacuum or it reorganises.

Does any of this mean freedom for people in the U.S. or Russia? Obviously not. The fiat system is still centralised, extractive, and global. Swapping managers or redrawing alliances doesn’t change that.

At a global, macro level, we believe that Bitcoin is the only real exit from a system built on legal immunity, monetary debasement, and unaccountable power. It doesn’t care which flag you wave or which strongman you root for.

And that leads to the uncomfortable question nobody in power wants to ask out loud:

If Bitcoin keeps working… what exactly is the nation-state for anymore?

That question scares every government equally. For good reason....