Trump blasts UN at General Assembly, drawing laughter and concern from world leaders

President Donald Trump delivered remarks at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 23, 2025, after the teleprompter failed, turning a moment of potential awkwardness into a sweeping, provocative address. He framed his speech as a direct rebuke of the U.N.’s handling of global issues and presented a broad critique of the world body, telling attendees that he has ended seven wars and asking, What is the purpose of the United Nations? The speech touched on climate change, Ukraine, refugee resettlement and Palestinian statehood, and conveyed his view that the U.N. has often been paralyzed rather than effective.

World leaders squirmed at moments and laughed at others as Trump pivoted across topics. Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže told Fox News Digital that leaders took note of the breadth of his remarks, spanning Ukraine to Gaza, and that while Europe still sees the U.N. as central, reforms are overdue. Former U.S. diplomat Hugh Dugan said Trump did not press for U.N. reform as forcefully as some expected, leaving a vacuum about how to fix perceived dysfunction.

Climate was a recurring target. Trump mocked climate policy as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” deriding green energy as “all bankrupt” and calling the carbon footprint “a hoax.” He dismissed decades of U.N. climate work, declaring, “No more global warming, no more global cooling, whatever the hell happens, it’s climate change.” Braže noted that European nations still see the U.N. as the central forum for tackling global problems, even as reforms are overdue and efficiencies must improve.

On Ukraine, Trump argued the war would never have started if he had been president and chastised European members for continuing to rely on Russian oil, saying some NATO allies were “funding the war against themselves” by purchasing Moscow’s energy. He warned of tariffs if Europe does not cut energy purchases from Russia, while assigning some blame to India and China for funding the war through demand for Russian fuel. He also promised a “very strong round of powerful tariffs” if Russia refuses peace. Braže said Latvia welcomed Trump’s commitment to ending the war, even as Europe remains dependent on U.N. processes.

Migration formed another focal point. Trump portrayed migration as an “invasion” and accused the U.N. of bankrolling illegal immigration into the United States, warning that unchecked migration was “ruining” Europe. He claimed migrants in London were pushing for Sharia law and argued that the U.N. should stop invasions rather than finance them, asserting that European countries were being overwhelmed. Braže said the Baltic states share skepticism about uncontrolled migration, rooted in their history under Soviet rule, stressing that borders are sovereign and must be defended; she said immigration policy remains a critical issue for Europe.

Palestinian statehood drew sharp lines as well. The former president rejected recognizing Palestinian statehood as a reward for Hamas and pressed for the immediate release of Israeli hostages, while signaling that the White House had calculated how to handle the issue without fueling broader conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron reserved strong remarks of his own, telling BFM TV that for peace to advance, the United States must pressure Israel; Macron noted Washington’s leverage because it supplies military equipment that affects Gaza’s war dynamics. Behnam Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said Trump’s stance on Iran stood out, highlighting a perceived willingness to project U.S. superpower status against regional adversaries.

The broader UN message was that the institution was failing to live up to its aims. Trump ridiculed the U.N.’s reliance on strong language and expensive renovations, portraying the body as bloated and ineffective. Tobias Ellwood, a former British member of Parliament, said on X that Trump had a point about the U.N.’s paralysis, but warned that dismantling the organization could invite conflict akin to the League of Nations’ fate. Ex-diplomat Dugan added that Trump stopped short of offering a concrete reform roadmap, noting that the speech covered tier-2 topics—immigration and energy—before presenting a clear blueprint for systemic change. Trump had ordered a six-month review of the U.N.; observers said the speech did not demonstrate a deep, completed assessment.

Looking ahead, analysts warned that the absence of a detailed reform plan could leave room for rivals to fill the narrative vacuum. Some noted that China could seek to craft a competing narrative if Washington does not present a credible path forward. Taleblu argued that the silence from the U.N. system in the face of ceasefires and deconfliction efforts underscores concerns about its effectiveness, even as Trump leveraged his stature to press an aggressively unilateral U.S. posture on international issues.

In sum, the speech underscored a high-tension moment in U.S. relations with the U.N. and Europe, highlighting a rift between a push for dramatic U.N. reform and a willingness, or lack thereof, to offer a detailed path forward. As world leaders absorbed Trump’s blunt assessment of the United Nations and his hard-line approach to Russia, Ukraine, migration and Gaza, the international community faced questions about how and whether the United Nations could adapt to new geopolitical realities while preserving its foundational commitments to peace, development and human rights.