Between Attack and Pledge of Loyalty - Trump’s Embarrassing Appearance at the United Nations

On September 23, 2025, Donald Trump turned the General Debate of the United Nations in New York into a spectacle between provocation and appeasement. His appearance was more than a speech, it was a staging of the contradictions that have shaped his politics for years - loud attacks on multilateral structures followed by a demonstrative pledge of loyalty. The result: an irritated audience, international irritation and the renewed question of how reliable the United States still is as a partner in the multilateral system.

The chronology begins in the morning in the hall of the General Assembly. Trump stepped up to the lectern, visibly tense, accompanied by incidents that later turned into memes: a teleprompter that repeatedly stalled, a remark about an escalator that had stopped halfway up - small mishaps that reinforced the impression of an improvised performance. “All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that on the way up stopped right in the middle,” he scoffed, slicing the air with his hand. Yet ironically, it was not a symbol of institutional decay but a mishap from his own ranks: according to the UN, a member of the US delegation had accidentally triggered the stop mechanism, and the teleprompter was also under the responsibility of the White House. Trump, however, used both episodes to portray the United Nations as dysfunctional - a rhetorical trick that underscored his political line.

In terms of content, the message of the speech was anything but casual. Trump attacked the United Nations head-on. He accused the organization of “talking too much and delivering too little,” of failing in peacekeeping missions, of mismanaging migration and of driving entire economies into chaos with its support for “green energy.” He cited Europe as a cautionary example: too much climate, too little reality. The reactions in the hall ranged from politely frozen faces to visible head-shaking. Delegates from Latin America and Africa grumbled as Trump once again questioned the value of international aid programs. Particularly explosive was his tone toward the UN refugee agency, which he declared “misdirected.” Observers immediately recalled earlier cuts in US contributions to UNRWA and other humanitarian institutions.

But while the speech still echoed in its sharpness, Trump staged the opposite just hours later. At a meeting with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, he declared that the United States stood “100%” behind the United Nations. He said he was determined to strengthen cooperation and tackle challenges together. What at first glance sounded like reassurance appeared in the context of the morning as a sharp contrast, almost like a political double game.

Behind the scenes it was said that Guterres had taken the opportunity to point to arrears in US contributions and outstanding commitments. Although neither the UN nor the US delegation confirmed specific figures, diplomats pointed out that Washington had already been delaying payments for months - a pattern running through Trump’s second term. The formula “100% behind the UN” therefore collides with a reality in which the US increasingly interprets its financial role selectively.

International reactions were not long in coming. Representatives of the European Union said they took “with concern” note that the speech had “called important common goals into question.” China’s delegation called Trump’s words “a rejection of global solidarity.” Only a few hours later, Trump’s team in Washington stressed that the president had “made it unmistakably clear that he only supports multilateral institutions when they serve the interests of the American people.” The ambivalence between threat and loyalty has method. Trump has relied on calculated irritation for years: he destabilizes through attacks only to then appear as the savior of a crumbling trust. In New York, this tactic worked as usual - the hall was divided after the speech, but officially calmed after the meeting with Guterres. But doubts remain.

Harsh speech by Trump against the MIGRATION INVASION under which Europe is suffering and which is being covered by the UN: “The United Nations are financing an attack against the Western countries and their borders.”

For the substance of his statements was by no means balanced. His attacks on international climate policy, his criticism of refugee programs and his disparaging remarks about peacekeeping missions were clear and remain in the record. The subsequent pledge of loyalty, on the other hand, appears more like a gesture for the headlines than like a long-term line. Already in Trump’s first term the US had announced its withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, left the UN Human Rights Council and cut funds for UN organizations - actions that weigh heavier than any later assurance.

Thus today’s appearance stands as a symbol of the fragmentation of American foreign policy under Trump: loudly destructive in the plenary, conciliatory in bilateral talks, but in practice often marked by cuts and withdrawals. For the United Nations this is doubly dangerous: on the one hand they depend on the US as their most important donor, on the other hand the pattern of attack and retreat damages the credibility of multilateral cooperation as a whole.

September 23, 2025 will therefore be remembered not only as the day of a “desolate appearance,” but also as a lesson in the mechanics of political staging. Donald Trump used the stage of the UN to demonstrate strength to his domestic base - the enemy images “migration,” “green energy,” “bureaucratic UN” are popular there - and at the same time to assure the world public that America is not in retreat. For diplomacy this means constant balancing between threat and appeasement, a dance on a knife’s edge.

Whether the United Nations can take the pledge “100%” seriously will not be decided by Trump’s words but by the next transfers from Washington.