I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because knowing why Trump does what Trump does is something only Trump knows.

@blip - this seems an important decision that is not made by Trump as a private individual. From outside, the US has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and it clearly has political dimension and I expect to also have consequences at political level. It is not a simple political declaration, but an actual political act.

@Alexei Asking about the political impact should be on-topic (eg "What are the benefits for the US/for Trump/for Republicans in declaring this?", "What impact does this have on Israel and/or the middle east?"). Asking how this policy was brought about (was it just Trump declaring it? Is it a new law? What people or committees were involved in the decision?) is also on-topic. As-is, the question is at least perceived as asking "Why did Trump do this?", which is difficult to answer and likely off-topic. You might want to clarify what the actual question is.

@tim - I have used the first suggestion from your list of good questions. They all seem to be interesting questions, but I will settle for this one. Thanks.

@blip It's possible that Trump or members of the administration made public statements detailing the reasons for doing this?

@Carpetsmoker sure it's possible. Not common, though. Most all explanations for why Trump does something comes well after the fact and is more often than not convoluted.

@blip Well, then that's the answer. That the answer may be difficult doesn't mean that the question is off-topic.

Note that your edit changes the meaning of the question; what the "benefits" are will be rather subjective. The first version was better, imho (and the question I answered; didn't see the edit).

@Carpetsmoker you're right, it's not 'off topic'...it's just that's what close reasons provide for you. It's definitely on topic--just not answerable (outside of Trump providing an answer)

@blip - I'd question the part about him actually knowing, himself, but that's a valid close reason. I think the edits have improved it quite a bit in response.

@PoloHoleSet yep. Completely agree. These were good edits.

Related question: what are the costs and the consequences for USA and it's allies?

@blip Trump doesn't run the entire US and create every decision on his own with no influences. Or is that what you think? Because that's a really foolish reason to vote to close a question.

@LateralTerminal not sure if you've been following the Trump presidency, but he has made all sorts of decisions seemingly on his own. He banned transgendered soldiers without talking with the joint chiefs, he's enacted travel bands without consulting his legal team, he proposes and makes decisions via twitter in the middle of the night. His press staff is constantly having to explain things after-the-fact. You don't have to like or hate him to see he is a very different type of president when it comes to how he makes decisions.

@blip I'm not a trump supporter at all. But he didn't ban transgenders. He just didn't want to pay for the transhormone therapy. I don't think there's anything wrong with transgenders in the military. I agree with the decision to not pass that cost on to the taxpayers. Blip, maybe you've been confused by #fakenews?

@blip - You mean he makes decisions by undoing executive orders by Obama that he believed were unconstitutional to begin with? He can do that with no input whatsoever. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld by pretty much unanimous decision that his travel bans are legal. Just because there's activist judges who don't believe in the law that keep trying to block him doesn't mean he's wrong. There's nothing wrong with posting ideas straight to the american public and gauging reaction, it is actually quite a nice change from the secrecy we just finished dealing with....

...his press staff is not having to explain things after-the-fact, they have to correct the lies and misrepresentations of the fake-news media. It is only convoluted if you accept that the media is representing the story in an accurate and truthful manner. They've exposed themselves to be incapable of doing so this last year.

@LateralTerminal I'm not debating his policy. I'm saying he made the policy seemingly in a vacuum...very unlike most presidents who rely significantly on council.

@Dunk I'm not debating whether he can or can't. I'm saying he does.

@blip: This is most certainly not a decision Trump made on his own. He actually is following the existing law here, which his predecessors delayed. "Relying significantly on council" is not a substitute for obeying the duly-enacted law.

It is not allowed to have a embassy there en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

@LateralTerminal You say "But he didn't ban transgenders. He just didn't want to pay for the transhormone therapy". Here are his exact words: "After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." Yes, "medical costs" were one reason he gave, but what he said was "will not allow ... to serve in any capacity".

It's true that a Tweet can't and doesn't have the force of an actual ban, though; blip's comment was less than perfectly precise in that respect. "tried to ban" would have been more accurate.

Is that a rhetorical question?

@Dunk You say "The Supreme Court has consistently upheld by pretty much unanimous decision that his travel bans are legal". But (1) the SC has only considered the matter once so I don't know what "consistently" is supposed to mean, (2) the decision was 7-2 which isn't what I'd call "pretty much unanimous" (though it is interesting that it didn't split on party-ish lines), and (3) they haven't said anything about whether it's legal, only about whether it's OK for it to be enforced while its legality is being argued about in the courts.

@henning Is what a rhetorical question?

@GarethMcCaughan The question title ("what are the benefits etc.") sounds a bit like "there can't possibly be any".

How could the question have been asked so as not to sound that way? It seems to me like the obvious way of asking the question. (I do agree that the questioner is probably skeptical about whether there are any benefits to speak of, but there's no obvious harm in that.)