Explained: Why Trump’s UNGA Speech Rejects the UN Model?

In Geopolitics
September 24, 2025
Dinesh Singh Rawat
404 Views
0 comments

In his 2025 UNGA address, President Trump broke with 80 years of U.S. tradition by rejecting the UN model itself. Casting the institution as paralyzed, corrupt, and captured by China, he argued that America must abandon multilateralism in favor of sovereignty-first deals, tariffs, and force. This report explores why Trump chose to delegitimize the UN, how it undercuts China’s influence, and what scenarios may define the UN’s future — collapse, Chinese expansion, Indian reform, or parallel institutions.

New Delhi (ABC Live): On September 23, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York. But unlike his predecessors, Trump did not use the podium to promote multilateralism. Instead, he turned it into his target.

For eight decades, U.S. presidents invoked the UN to extend American leadership, even while clashing with it. Trump broke that tradition. He mocked its failures, denounced its legitimacy, and argued that America’s strength comes not from global institutions but from sovereignty, tariffs, and unilateral power.

Symbolism of Failure

Trump opened with ridicule: a malfunctioning teleprompter and a stalled escalator inside the UN building.

These glitches became metaphors for an institution that, in his telling, was paralysed and broken. Where past leaders elevated the UN’s symbolism, Trump inverted it — the UN hall itself became evidence of global decline.

Wars Ended Without the UN

Trump claimed to have “ended seven wars” — including Kosovo–Serbia, and India–Pakistan — without UN mediation. His dramatic centrepiece was Operation Midnight Hammer (June 2025), when U.S. bombers obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.

The IAEA July 2025 report confirmed Iran’s program was crippled, but inspectors found no permanent disarmament. The UN had no role in the strike, and the Security Council was sidelined. Meanwhile, the UN Department of Peace Operations still lists 11 active missions.

For Trump, the contrast was deliberate: the U.S. imposes peace through action, while the UN dithers through words.

Palestine and Hamas: Recognition as Appeasement

On Palestine, Trump accused the UN of appeasement:

He condemned recognition of Palestine as a “reward for Hamas terrorists.”
He invoked the October 7 attacks and demanded hostages be released immediately.
He warned that recognition legitimized extremism.

By 2025, 139 UN member states recognized Palestine. Israel reported 20 hostages alive and 38 bodies still in Gaza.

Trump’s framing: the UN had lost moral credibility by advancing Palestine’s cause while Hamas rejected ceasefires.

Ukraine and Russia: Tariffs Instead of Treaties

On Ukraine, Trump dismissed the UN as irrelevant in the face of Russia’s veto power. His alternative: tariffs as weapons of peace.

He accused Europe of “funding the war against themselves” by buying Russian energy. He pledged U.S. tariffs on Russia, but insisted Europe join to make them effective.

The war has lasted 3.5 years, with about 500,000 dead. EU oil imports from Russia are down 87% since 2021, but LNG loopholes still bring Moscow nearly $2.7 billion a month. At the NATO Hague Summit (2025), allies pledged defence spending at 5% of GDP.

Trump reframed peace as economic punishment, not negotiation.

Migration: The UN as “Invasion Sponsor”

Trump claimed the UN was spending $372 million to “fund invasions” of the United States.

In reality, the funds came from the UN Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan (2024), supporting shelters and aid in Latin America. U.S. CBP recorded 2.4 million encounters in FY2024.

For Trump, this was proof the UN wasn’t humanitarian — it was an accomplice to border collapse.

Climate: From Existential Threat to “Con Job”

Trump ridiculed climate change as the “greatest con job ever.” He argued UN climate rules raised costs in the West while China thrived.

EU emissions fell 37% since 1990, but global emissions rose 54%, mostly from China. Electricity prices in 2024: Europe €0.32/kWh, U.S. $0.13, China $0.07. The IEA Global Energy Review 2025 confirmed fossil fuel demand was still rising.

For Trump, the UN’s green agenda was a tool of Western decline, not planetary salvation.

Breaking with 80 Years of Tradition

Since 1945, the UNGA has been a stage where U.S. presidents projected American leadership:

Truman (1945): Called the UN Charter the “cornerstone of peace.”
Kennedy (1961): Declared the UN “the last, best hope of mankind.”
Bush Sr. (1991): Hailed the UNSC’s Gulf War role as proof that multilateralism could deliver.
Obama (2009): Urged that “no one nation should dominate another,” casting the UN as an amplifier of U.S. soft power.
Biden (2021): Promised “America is back,” using the UN to restore alliances.

Trump in 2025 shattered this pattern. He did not reform or co-opt the UN. He rejected it outright, portraying it as inefficient, corrupt, and captured by China. Where others saw the UN as a megaphone for U.S. leadership, Trump cast it as a rival.

This was not mere style. It was a strategic rupture — the U.S. openly declaring the San Francisco experiment of 1945 obsolete.

Comparative Table: U.S. Presidents at the UN

President	Year	Core Message	UN’s Role	Tone
Truman	1945	UN is cornerstone of peace	Foundation of order	Optimistic
Kennedy	1961	“Last, best hope of mankind”	Cold War diplomacy stage	Inspirational
Bush Sr.	1991	UNSC legitimizes Gulf War	Multilateral legitimizer	Pragmatic
Obama	2009	“No nation should dominate”	Soft power amplifier	Multilateralist
Biden	2021	“America is back”	Alliance rebuilder	Restorative
Trump	2025	UN is corrupt, China-captured	Obstacle to sovereignty	Rejectionist

Why Trump Rejects the UN

Trump’s hostility to the United Nations is rooted in four drivers: inefficiency, cost, ideology, and China’s capture.

1. Ineffectiveness and Paralysis

The Security Council was blocked by Russian and Chinese vetoes on Ukraine, Gaza, and Syria (2020–2024).
Eleven peacekeeping missions continue at $6.5 billion annually, but conflicts in Mali, Congo, and South Sudan persist.
U.S. approval of the UN fell to 31% in 2023, from 58% in 2001.

2. Cost Burden on the United States

The U.S. funds 22% of the UN regular budget and 28% of peacekeeping.
That meant $3.5 billion in 2024, dwarfing Russian (2%) and Indian (1%) contributions.

3. Ideological Clashes: Palestine, Migration, Climate

Palestine: 139 recognitions vs. U.S.-Israel opposition.
Migration: UN aid of $372 million (2024) coincided with 2.4 million U.S. migrant encounters.
Climate: EU cut emissions 37% since 1990, yet global emissions rose 54%, driven by China and India.

4. China’s Capture of the UN — The Hidden Driver

Leads 4 UN agencies (ITU, FAO, ICAO, UNIDO).
Inserts BRI language into resolutions.
Provides 15.2% of peacekeeping funds, with ~2,200 troops.
Has deployed more than 50,000 peacekeepers since 1990.
Now funds ~20% of the regular budget.

5. A Shortcut to Undercut China

For two decades, China has invested billions to embed itself inside the UN. To counter this, Washington would need to match China’s $1 trillion BRI investments, expand aid, and rebuild trust globally. Trump instead chose a shortcut: delegitimize the UN itself.

By portraying it as corrupt and irrelevant, Trump sought to nullify China’s multilateral influence overnight — making Beijing’s costly investments politically worthless.

Conclusion: From Multilateralism to Reset

Trump’s 2025 UNGA speech was a strategic rupture with 80 years of U.S. policy. Where Truman, Kennedy, Bush, Obama, and Biden framed the UN as a stage for U.S. leadership, Trump cast it as a liability — ineffective, costly, and China-captured.

This signals a new doctrine: delegitimizing the UN is cheaper than competing with Beijing inside it. Trump’s rejection mirrors how the U.S. bypassed the League of Nations in the 1920s and built the UN in 1945. Now he hints at another reset: dismantle today’s UN, strip away Chinese influence, and create a post-UN order on U.S. terms.

Editor’s Note — ABC Live

At ABC Live, we see Trump’s 2025 UNGA speech as more than rhetoric. It was a historic rupture — the U.S. openly discarding the UN model it once built.

Unlike mainstream coverage, this report connects the dots: Trump’s rejection is not just about Hamas, migration, or climate — it is about nullifying China’s UN investments and reasserting American primacy.

What Next? Scenarios for the UN After Trump’s Rejection

Collapse of Credibility: UN hollowed out, like the League of Nations.
Chinese Expansion: Beijing Doubles Down on Budget, Peacekeeping, Bloc Politics.
Indian Reform Push: The Global South demands Security Council reform.
Parallel Institutions: U.S. turns to tariffs and bilateralism; China to AIIB and SCO.

Bottom line: The UN faces its gravest crisis since 1945. The world must now choose between U.S. rejection, Chinese capture, or Indian reform.

References (with links)