I found that whoever wrote Trump's speech made a bit of sense in that the current status quo has been on-going for generations. It could be premature to outright say the US will gain nothing, since it is something different that hasn't been tried before and none of us can see the future.

The US gains nothing from this. This is only true in the most shallow senses of the word. Yes the US doesn't gain anything directly. But if we assume (and obviously this is highly controversial/not clear cut) that Israel is on the 'correct' side of the middle east debate (as the Trump admin believes), then declaring Jerusalem as their capital is a crucial step towards strengthening the 'correct' solution. (Again, obviously the basic premise of that is hotly debated, but if you take it from the point of view of the Trump administration then the gains are very obvious).

@DavidGrinberg Also, aside from which stance one considers 'correct,' this move is to support a long-time U.S. ally. If nothing else, the U.S. regains goodwill with Israel, some of which was lost during the Obama administration, especially with a U.N. vote on an anti-Israel resolution at the end of Obama's 2nd term. Frankly, this answer is just wrong, no matter how one feels about the situation between Israel and the West Bank.

@reirab Do you believe that the perceived gain of goodwill from Israel balances the loss of goodwill from allies such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia? One would expect a net loss of goodwill and the US has probably weakened their influence in the Middle East further with this move.

FYI this decision has been a big news even here overseas (at least on non-tabloid media) and this oversimplifying answer seems really spurring from an anti-trump sentiment that from reasoning on the very politically significant fact itself. See @Brythan answer and the included links if you feel about understand the thing and not just "But Trrrumppp is baaAAAaad".

@Roland The question was about what the U.S. gains, not whether the perceived gains exceed the perceived losses (which, even if it had been asked, would probably have been closed as opinion-based.) Whether the sentiments 'balance out' or not is irrelevant to answering this question.

@reirab I disagree. If you gain less than you lose, you have a net loss. Your previous comment also only expresses an opinion. It's not at all obvious that the Trump administration gains any additional goodwill from Israel with this move. Israel has been and still is very dependent on US support. Why would the US even need any additional goodwill from Israel? Additional goodwill from Arabic countries would seem much more useful. Btw. I don't know if the US gains nothing, but your argument is not very convincing.

@Roland This question asks only about what the potential positives are. If you want a question about the potential negative consequences, I suggest asking it, but this isn't it. Which outweighs the other is yet another question and probably too opinion-based for this site. Whether the U.S. needs additional goodwill from Israel is a matter of opinion. That they gain it from this move really isn't a matter of opinion, considering Israel itself has been calling for this for decades.

"as the only fallout is anger from foreign leaders" Only if you don't consider the people who are going to die in violence this causes as "fallout"

Well, the only fallout for Trump. Unless this results in a US embassy being attacked.

@Roland - Turkey has been an ally in name only ("with friends like this...") for many years, thanks to Edrogan's policy. And Saudi Arabia was far more upset with USA for pro-Iran policy than with pro-Israel policy, because they know what their actual problem is (Iran axis); so trading anti-Iran but pro-Israel Trump policy is a good upgrade for them. Let's not forget that Al-Sisi also lost lots of goodwill due to Obama's support of Morsi and un-support of Al-Sisi

"The US gains nothing from this." That statement is totally false. Nobody does something for nothing. Israel helps the US with a lot of things officially and unofficial. I don't need citations for that but what about stuxnet (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet) for example.

"Although neither country has admitted responsibility, since 2012 the worm is frequently described as a jointly built American/Israeli cyberweapon" You think that's it? That's just what we know about

Judea being the ancestral homeland of the Jewish nation and Jerusalem being the historic capital of the Jewish nation are ones of the best historically documented facts ever. These alone should tell you how the US could benefit. The US wants to be on the truth side. Not on the fake history side.

@LateralTerminal but that has nothing to do with the US recognizing anything. Israel needs the US. We were already allies. There was no risk of that ending.

@rapt we're talking religion--not 'truth'. But...going with your line of reasoning, it's also the ancestral home of 2 other major global religions.

@blip "it's also the ancestral home of 2 other major global religions." Not really. And actually, this answer does not talk about religious truth but about politics as affected by religion. Evangelical politics is based on the history of the Jewish people. Which is well documented and has nothing to do with religious convictions. For Arabs/Muslims Jerusalem never was of cardinal importance. It's just enough to notice that never during its many centuries under Muslim/Arab occupation, did they bother to make it their capital... until it came again under Jewish sovereignty.

@rapt If you think there's any more "truth" in politics than religion, well, good luck with that.

@blip Reading comprehension? I wrote that history is in the foundation of both religion and politics when it comes to Jerusalem. But it smells like you first had an opinion and only then picked the evidence. I was talking about history. Well documented history over many centuries. Corroborated by archeology. Part of it is reflected in books that also have a religious meaning, most not. The Jewish historic - not only religious - case for Jerusalem is the best, by several magnitudes. Nothing in the Arab/Muslim arguments gets even closer. You don't have to agree. It's a matter of academic honesty

@rapt I don't disagree on the history part, but since when does history correlate to politics? Historically, all sorts of people 'owned' all sorts of lands. Just here in the US we have yet to make amends for the lands we stole from the original residents. It's way more complex than just saying "Well, history says..."

@blip "since when does history correlate to politics?" It does not usually. Most politicians are not motivated by a strong sense of truthfulness. I simply said, in answering the OP, that there are long-term benefits for standing by the historic truth. In the Jerusalem case - telling the Arabs: "With all due respect, Jerusalem is not yours. You are occupiers there." It may be more difficult, but eventually you will reap the rewards. As for the US (and the Arabs), it's their own growing up process to recognize their history and work it out.

@rapt I do get that...but note that it's incredibly hypocritical for the US to be saying that given our own history. So not really a sincere way to make friends on this planet. /2cents

@blip Notice I said growing up process. At some age, some people realize that there are in life things more important than friends. It's a matter of mental maturity. Admittedly, the US, a very young society, is very far from there. In many ways, it is just leaving now the infantile egotistical stage & starts going through what Europe went in the 19th century - learning about the concept of society & the needs of others. To recognize the sins of the past generations is still a very long way to go. So I do understand why many Americans & Europeans really believe that history started in 1948.

@rapt I'm sorry, if we're using the phrase "mental maturity" when talking about a Trump decision, I'm out. :)