September 24, 2025

SHARE |

Trump’s UN Speech Highlights His Worldview Amidst a Shifting International Order

AP Photo/Angelina Katsanis

Yesterday, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered remarks to the United Nations, further solidifying his efforts to diminish the international order that the United States has long dominated. In his address, Trump cited a number of international disputes — ranging from Cambodia and Thailand to Armenia and Azerbaijan — that he claimed were resolved through U.S. action rather than UN involvement. He stated, “It’s too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them, and sadly, in all cases, the United Nations did not even try to help.” Trump’s perception of how these situations were handled is only likely to embolden his penchant for unilateral action. It also presents opportunities for Washington’s adversaries — particularly Beijing and Moscow — to fill the void left by the U.S.'s absentee role on the world stage.

Trump’s speech touched on multiple areas of concern for his administration, which some thought was crafted more to resonate with his domestic political constituency than for the global audience at the UN on climate change. Trump argued that predictions made by the UN and other organizations had been inaccurate, calling the issue “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” Regarding migration, he asserted that UN funding practices supported movements of migrants into Western states, which he said undermined border security. On Russia, Trump criticized NATO allies for continuing to purchase Russian energy despite the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, stating that such imports were effectively “funding the war against themselves” unless Europe coordinated tariff measures with the United States, stating that they had plans to discuss this issue later in the day. The message was not lost on the Europeans, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated, “President Trump is absolutely right…We’re on it,” going on to explain the steps that Europe is taking to reduce supplies of Russian energy to the continent.

President Trump also met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss the ongoing war in Ukraine. This meeting comes after Russia has repeatedly flown drones over European, specifically NATO, airspace, as seen in Poland, Estonia, and Romania. Elsewhere in Northern Europe, unconfirmed but likely Russian drone sightings forced the temporary shutdown of airports in Copenhagen and Denmark. There has also been a rash of cyberattacks against European airports that, while not definitely linked to the Kremlin, certainly bear Moscow’s imprimatur. These incidents have amplified the fear that Russia is actively intensifying its campaign of hybrid pressure on NATO states and pushing the envelope in order to gauge European states’ will and capability to respond.

In direct response to drone overflights, Poland invoked Article 4 of the NATO treaty two weeks ago, followed by Estonia last week. Article 4 — rarely used in the alliance’s history — triggers formal consultations among NATO members when a state believes its security or territorial integrity is under threat. Yesterday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte announced that the alliance was “ready to defend every inch of allied territory,” emphasizing that NATO’s air and missile defenses were fully capable of responding to Russian airspace violations. At one point during a press conference with reporters, Trump, seated next to Zelensky, was asked if he thought NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace, to which he replied, “Yes, I do,” clearly catching an approving Zelensky off guard. Trump’s follow-up post on Truth Social seemed a complete reversal from some of his prior positions on Moscow, even deriding Russia as a ‘paper tiger’ and suggesting that with help from the EU, Ukraine was capable of taking back all of its territory.

There was also a Security Council meeting on Gaza, convened with high-level political leadership from Egypt, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, condemned Israel’s September 9^th strike in Doha as a “grave violation of sovereignty,” highlighting the need to revive collective security under the charter of the UN King Abdullah of Jordan said that “the war in Gaza marks one of the darkest days in the history of this institution.” President Trump implored world leaders, “We have to stop the war in Gaza immediately,” reiterating his call for the hostages being held by Hamas to be released. And while on Sunday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that a Palestinian state was a “right, now a reward,” Trump disagreed, stating his opposition to the recent recognition of Palestinian statehood by several Western countries, including two fellow members of the Security Council, France and the United Kingdom. Trump met with a multilateral group of Arab and Muslim leaders, which included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. He called it “my most important meeting,” after convening with officials from Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Indonesia, and Pakistan.

Yet, President Trump’s deemphasis on the very international institutions the U.S. helped create comes at a time when Russia and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have intensified their hybrid tactics against the West, and when great power competition is simultaneously accelerating and growing more complex. Russia continues to use military intimidation, disinformation, cyber operations, and energy dependency to pressure NATO members and neighboring states. Recent drone incursions and airspace violations over Europe are examples of Moscow’s willingness to employ ambiguous methods that stop short of open conflict but nonetheless test allied unity and readiness.

The PRC, meanwhile, has sought to shape the international environment by leveraging its economic power, expanding influence over multilateral bodies, and advancing technology standards that favor its governance model. Beijing’s engagement in institutions like the UN and its specialized agencies allows it to set agendas and norms in ways that may directly and indirectly challenge Western interests. This activity complements China's broader efforts in the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America, where it utilizes investment and political influence to establish strategic partnerships.

When it comes to the United Nations, Russia, the PRC, and other member states have already been preparing for U.S. disengagement. According to reports by the New York Times, in a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council this spring, ambassadors from the PRC and Cuba suggested limiting inquiries into government-sanctioned abuses such as torture, war crimes, and the jailing of dissidents as a way to save money in the face of U.S. budget cuts. The New York Times sources also reported that other states, such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, had raised concerns about scaling back human rights investigations in response to these budget cuts.

The UN once served as an essential forum for projecting U.S. soft power and promoting democratic ideals. With the U.S. pulling back from the institution and entering an era of protectionism and neo-isolationism, at least compared to previous decades, the institution will continue to be increasingly shaped by states whose interests diverge sharply from those of Washington and its allies. Although the UN’s effectiveness has long been debated—and its influence has undoubtedly waned in recent years—this trend risks leaving the institution even less capable of serving as a platform for collective action on global security challenges. It also leaves the UN more vulnerable to the agendas of powers that stand to gain from a fragmented international system. As the U.S. continues to retrench from multilateral leadership, the resulting vacuum is being filled by states eager to reshape the global order in their favor.