Opinion column urges Trump to recognize 'statehood for all' at the U.N.

A New York Post opinion column published ahead of President Donald Trump’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, 2025, advocates a sweeping and controversial use of U.S. recognition powers. The author argues that recognizing a broad slate of independence movements would be a symbolic gesture in support of self-determination worldwide.

Drawing on recent international developments, the column notes that Canada, Britain, France, Portugal, Spain and Australia have recognized Palestine as a state and suggests that the United States could extend the same treatment to Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Corsica and the Azores. It also envisions recognizing the Murrawarri Republic in Australia, a move proponents say could align with similar sentiments in other regions.

The column then outlines a provocative scenario in which Trump could, at the U.N. dais, “pick up where” the United Kingdom’s current government is said to have left off by extending formal recognition to Scotland as an independent nation. It frames this not as a technical policy change but as a symbolic foreign-policy move that could appeal to national movements seeking autonomy, irrespective of how borders might be drawn or how self-government would be implemented.

Beyond Scotland, the author names Quebec, Catalonia and the Basque Country as potential candidates for recognition, and suggests Corsica within France and the Azores within Portugal could be similarly acknowledged. It further points to the Murrawarri Republic in Australia, a region that declared independence in 2013 and which, according to the column, Canberra has not formally recognized. The piece argues that these cases, like Palestine, are ultimately about symbolism rather than immediate governance, state capacity, or border clarity.

The author acknowledges that many of these proposed new states would have ill-defined borders, limited or evolving institutions, and divided populations. Yet the column contends that such practical hurdles should not impede a symbolic gesture that, in its view, would validate ongoing struggles for national self-determination and resonate with long-standing political narratives in various capitals.

The piece employs a provocative tone, suggesting that if some states have earned international recognition for their sovereignty claims, others should be treated similarly on the world stage. It even casts question at the margins of traditional security concerns, noting that the issue of violence and terrorism has complicated the calculus of statehood in recent decades and, in the author’s framing, should not automatically bar symbolic recognitions when the subject is national identity.

The column emphasizes that it is an opinion piece, not an official policy proposal or a formal White House plan. Its aim, according to the author, is to spark debate about the role of symbolism in foreign policy and the United Nations’ power to shape narratives about sovereignty and nationhood.

Analysts and diplomats are likely to view the piece as a thought experiment rather than a practical blueprint. Critics would point to the real-world diplomatic risks of recognizing new states, including potential backlash from governments that view sovereignty as non-negotiable, complications for existing treaties and alliance structures, and the possibility of inflaming regional tensions rather than resolving them.

The op-ed, published in the New York Post’s opinion section, appears amid a broader conversation about statehood, self-determination and the political symbolism devices available to world leaders at major international forums. It frames the UN General Assembly as a stage where grand statements can redefine political imagination, even as scholars caution that symbolism alone rarely translates into durable, functioning governance.

As Trump prepares to address the assembly, the column’s central thesis — that symbolism can be a decisive instrument in international diplomacy — invites debate about how the United States should engage with movements seeking recognition. Whether readers view the piece as sharp satire, a serious provocation, or a legitimate policy experiment may depend on one’s perspective on sovereignty, regional stability, and the practical limits of national self-determination.