The United States is rich in resources—coal, wood, and an abundance of fowl—offering all the necessary materials for any metaphorical tar and feathers that might be warranted.
Globalist officials at the United Nations ought to familiarize themselves with how American citizens react to what they perceive as unconstitutional taxation.
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the U.N. is reportedly ready to establish what equates to a worldwide tax on carbon emissions—essentially “the ultimate in taxation without representation,” as characterized by the WSJ.
Despite its lack of sovereign powers and enforcement capabilities, the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization (IMO), based in London, may attempt to impose fees on ships ranging from $100 to $380 per metric ton of carbon dioxide exceeding a specific emissions threshold.
Simultaneously, the Trump administration has issued warnings of potential sanctions against nations that endorse such protocols.
Surprisingly, the WSJ framed this as the first recorded instance of a U.N. body asserting the right to levy a tax—revenue that would flow directly into a fund managed by the U.N. itself.
It is the IMO that would both oversee this fund’s establishment and its ongoing management.
Such a power grab certainly stirs the spirits of American patriots, evoking historical grievances faced by their forebears.
“No taxation without representation,” voiced Republican Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida via social media platform X on a recent Tuesday.
The governor then made a point that resonates with historical accuracy that all Americans should grasp.
“Being taxed by the U.N. would be far more offensive than the taxes imposed by Great Britain against the American colonies over 250 years ago. Those taxes ignited the American Revolution,” DeSantis elaborated.
He aptly encapsulated the frustrations felt by many Americans—including this writer—towards aloof international bureaucrats.
“The U.N. should be defunded, not bolstered with new tax revenue,” DeSantis concluded.
No taxation without representation.
Being taxed by the UN would be far more offensive than the taxes imposed by Great Britain against the American colonies more than 250 years ago.
Those taxes sparked the American Revolution.
The UN should be defunded, not seeded with new… pic.twitter.com/D8rdVhN5iX
— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) October 14, 2025
DeSantis rightly asserted that U.N. taxes could be seen as “far more offensive” than those enacted by 18th-century Britain. In truth, British tax lawmakers during the colonial era were likely blindsided by the vehement American backlash.
Take, for example, the 1765 Stamp Act, which levied fees on printed materials like newspapers and diplomas. In their defense, British officials might have contended that this tax predominantly burdened the literate and affluent colonists.
Yet, even then, the leading voices of that resolute, revolutionary era rejected Parliament’s right to impose such taxes. A young John Adams even claimed that the British aimed to suppress the colonists’ access to information by targeting printed materials.
Regardless of British intentions, tax collection proved futile. By November 1, 1765—the date the Stamp Act came into force—violence and intimidation, from tarring and feathering to outright rebellion, had effectively driven almost all stamp distributors from their posts.
Thus, one must question the wisdom of those at the U.N., who should be all too aware that attempting to impose taxes without consent on a nation like America—whose citizens have a deep-seated penchant for sovereignty—could lead to a similarly explosive reaction.
This article was originally published on The Western Journal.
