US President Donald Trump has plenty of reasons to dislike the UN. For one, it is located in New York, where his family made its fortune, but where he has never won a single vote. That is why he relocated to Florida, home to his Mar-a-Lago estate. Secondly, New York is politically and culturally liberal, which is tantamount to socialism and failure in his book. Thirdly, the UN embodies the antithesis of everything he believes in politically. All he can see is bureaucrats who receive inflated salaries for doing nothing useful, while meddling in matters that should be left to market forces, whether economic or political.
In the fourth place, the UN is not only unable to preserve international peace and security, it also involves itself in matters beyond its remit, such as global warming, which as far as Trump is concerned is just hype about a natural fluctuation in the planet’s temperature. Likewise, the UN interferes in public policy areas like education, health and culture in ways that are ostensibly harmful to humanity. This is why withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organisation and UNESCO were among the first steps he took as president. In the fifth place, he regards the US contribution to the UN budget – 22 per cent – as too high, especially given how it pays for policies that harm the interests of UN members, such as those regarding migration and asylum.
Despite this “principled” stance, Trump upheld the US presidential tradition of addressing the UN General Assembly during its annual session. After attacking the UN, he turned his fire to European NATO allies and then to other countries in the world that do not toe the line with his political and economic views. The basic thrust of his speech was that the UN was not created for “us” – namely the people of the world – but for a globalised liberal elite bent on corrupting their own countries and then exporting that corruption around the world.
His first charge against the UN on its 80th anniversary was incompetence. To illustrate, he spoke of the escalator that stopped on its way up while he was on it and then the malfunctioning teleprompter. This forced him to read out his speech from a hardcopy, robbing him of his spontaneity. In addition to being unable to manage its own affairs, he said, the UN was unable to solve the wars in Ukraine or Gaza or any other international conflict.
Trump’s address was not without humour. A notable instance involved a chance face-to-face encounter with Brazilian President Lula da Silva, whose political views are diametrically opposed to Trump’s. But in that awkward moment – lasting precisely 39 seconds – there was “excellent chemistry” and the two men embraced. The significance of this episode remains unclear. Was it about a triumph of human feeling over ideological divides or simply the ironies of fate?
Still, the speech pointed to some new and more serious shifts in Trump’s handling of international relations, starting with Ukraine. Recall that during his electoral campaign, he vowed to end that war within 24 hours, drawing on his close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Soon after taking office, he gave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s a dressing down in the Oval Office, insisting that Zelensky had no real leverage and would ultimately have to cede territory to Russia. This was followed by the Alaska Summit with Putin. But, instead of the envisioned peace talks, Russian aggression escalated, and it now involved drone flights not only over Ukraine but also Estonia and several other European countries. Trump has failed to deliver peace. So, he has decided to resume military aid to Ukraine on condition that European NATO members cover the cost.
Another striking point relates to the recognition of the state of Palestine, which dominated this year’s General Assembly session. Trump rejects any such recognition. Inside the chamber, however, he focused on blaming Hamas for the continuation of the war on the grounds that it has not yet released the hostages. For Trump, the issue was Gaza, a renewed attempt to promote a ceasefire, and then the question of the enclave’s future to be worked out after consultations with a group of Arab and Islamic states. Left unaddressed was not only the question of Palestinian statehood but also the ongoing situation in the West Bank.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 2 October, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: