Trump’s UN Address: Between Reality, Illusion, and the Quest for American Dominance

The statements and speeches of U.S. President Donald Trump—since his return to the White House for a second term—have continued to provoke familiar controversy. This was once again evident following his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2025, which drew widespread reactions, most of them critical and negative. While many motives and considerations explain this perception, a calm reading of Trump’s speech reveals its significant importance, as it offers what can be described as an accurate reflection of many of the world’s conditions—and of the United States itself.

Speaking to the American Audience

It is not unusual for world leaders, when delivering their annual speeches at the United Nations, to address their domestic audiences. However, the domestic focus typically occupies a limited part of such speeches, which traditionally serve as a platform for foreign policy positions—especially regarding urgent global or regional issues.

Trump, however, went far beyond any historical precedent, whether in his own country or elsewhere. His speech was filled with details meant to reassure his domestic base that he is delivering on his promises and projecting them forcefully onto the global stage. This was particularly evident in how he linked illegal immigration and the war on drugs to their international dimensions.

These issues are, of course, part of global governance concerns. Yet Trump presented them through his own narrative, in a way that shocked much of the world. On immigration, for instance, he claimed that his country had “defeated the attempted invasion from the south,” using terms drawn straight from far-right discourse. It was a clear message to his American supporters that he was fulfilling his campaign pledges. Moreover, he extended the anti-immigration narrative to Europe and the broader Western world, portraying it as a defense of identity against the “southern other”—language even most right-wing leaders abroad avoid using publicly.

Trump also did not hesitate to insult his predecessor, President Joe Biden—another departure from diplomatic norms at an international gathering. Repeatedly, he attacked the previous administration and drew prideful comparisons. He also used assertive, even boastful language regarding U.S. power and his own influence, asserting that America is “the strongest and most important country in the world.” His tone was clearly aimed more at domestic voters than the international community. In Trump’s worldview, as someone who sees himself as America’s greatest president, he believes he deserves to be recognized as the world’s foremost leader—and thus speaks to the world as though it were part of his domestic constituency.

Blurring Truth and Illusion

The evolution of Western democracy has been rooted in principles of truth and transparency—distinguishing between the rhetorical exaggerations of foreign policy and the greater honesty expected in domestic affairs. Yet American political history has seen moments of deep crisis when these principles were breached: from the Watergate scandal that brought down President Nixon, to the Iran-Contra affair under Ronald Reagan, and the Monica Lewinsky scandal during Bill Clinton’s administration.

The rise of the information age, modern media, and the rapid spread of news have made it increasingly difficult to conceal facts. At the same time, these same tools have gained immense power over public perception—reminding us that history is often written by the powerful and filtered through their lens. Colonialism, for example, was long justified by a Western narrative that only changed when the truth was finally laid bare by conscientious voices, including many in the West itself.

With the explosion of social media, however, what was once called the “information revolution” has turned into a realm of complex illusions. The world now lives in a reality shaped by imagination—reinforced by media and film—which have blurred fact and fiction in global consciousness.

Trump’s UN address—ostensibly directed at the world, not just Americans—was full of such distorted narratives. Among them was his claim to have “stopped seven wars,” a statement that collapses under scrutiny.

For example, he claimed to have prevented a war between India and Pakistan—an assertion contradicted by both nations’ leaders, who credit broader international mediation rather than Washington alone. He also said he “stopped a war between Egypt and Ethiopia,” ignoring that his mediation efforts during his first term failed to reach an agreement and that no real signs of war existed then or now.

Perhaps the most glaring claim was that he prevented a war between Israel and Iran—an ironic statement given that the recent cessation of hostilities followed direct U.S. military involvement and coordination with Israel, alongside a fragile ceasefire that may collapse at any time.

Trump’s rhetoric, both at home and abroad, often mixes reality with fantasy—boasting of victories that never occurred. By projecting this pattern onto the global stage through a UN address, he further entrenched the perception of a world where fact and fiction blur, deepening the current international uncertainty.

Reasserting American Hegemony

Only an American president like Trump could stand before the world and declare that his nation—and he personally—is widely respected, that he imposes his will on others, and that he “forced NATO leaders” to raise defense spending from 2% to 5% of GDP. His tone toward opponents was harsh, and toward allies, condescending.

The speech reflected Trump’s worldview: a determination to prevent any shifts in the global order—whether from the rise of new powers like China or from the attempts of Western allies to pursue independent visions or global roles.

Trump effectively dismantled his predecessor Biden’s efforts to rebuild Western unity under Washington’s leadership through partnership and alliance. While the Biden administration had imposed its will on allies—particularly over Ukraine—it still maintained a veneer of mutual respect. Trump, by contrast, sees allies as subordinates and thus feels no hesitation in speaking down to them. He mocked European leaders, criticized open-border policies, dismissed climate change, and even insulted London’s mayor during a global address—behavior unbefitting a world forum.

Overall, his tone of mockery and superiority toward Western allies revealed the kind of world order he seeks to build: one centered around unquestioned American dominance. He showed little regard for the UN’s traditions of diplomatic courtesy, using the stage instead to reaffirm U.S. supremacy and to send yet another message aimed primarily at his domestic audience.

The Climate Change Challenge

Before the Obama administration settled its stance on climate policy, the issue had long divided Democrats and Republicans—a division that was at least understandable within domestic politics. But Trump has taken this disagreement to a new and dangerous level. He has moved beyond skepticism or inaction to outright hostility—using the UN platform to urge allies to abandon climate commitments and return to “traditional, proven” energy sources.

This shift from denial to active incitement complicates global climate efforts. Emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere that have been slow to act now have a convenient excuse to delay further. For the U.S. president to use the UN pulpit to undermine one of humanity’s most urgent collective causes is deeply troubling—and may have long-term global consequences.

The United Nations Dilemma

It is worth recalling that a long-standing current in American politics has always been critical of the United Nations—despite the U.S. playing a central role in its creation, dating back to President Woodrow Wilson’s push for the League of Nations. While Wilson failed to persuade Congress to join, Washington succeeded after World War II—hosting the UN itself as a symbol of its global leadership.

Yet opposition to the UN has persisted across both Republican and Democratic administrations, intensifying in recent decades. The clash between former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is a prime example. Washington refused to renew Boutros-Ghali’s term because he resisted U.S. dominance over UN peacekeeping operations—criticizing the U.S. for bypassing the UN when it wished to act unilaterally, as in the former Yugoslavia, or for neglecting UN involvement when disinterested, as in Cambodia.

His broader point remains valid: the U.S. seeks to limit the UN’s influence whenever it conflicts with American dominance. After the Cold War, this trend intensified, compounded by genuine structural inefficiencies within the UN bureaucracy—ironically controlled by the same Western powers most critical of it.

Since his first term, Trump has revived and amplified this hostility. His administration withdrew from UN agencies, cut funding, and obstructed international cooperation. His latest speech continued this trend—criticizing the UN’s inability to resolve “seven global conflicts,” despite the U.S. itself being among the primary users of the Security Council veto that paralyzes the institution.

Trump’s criticisms extended beyond peacekeeping to climate initiatives and migration programs—undermining what little legitimacy the UN still retains. These positions echo his earlier withdrawals from UNESCO and the World Health Organization.

Conclusion

President Trump’s 2025 UN General Assembly speech clearly reflects the global system’s current crises—chief among them, the very viability of the United Nations. The organization’s paralysis, fueled largely by U.S. policies and international fragmentation, threatens to push the world toward deeper chaos. Yet in a globalized, interconnected world plagued by uncertainty and distorted realities, Trump’s speech may itself serve as a perfect mirror of our times: a world where fiction and power increasingly shape “truth.”

Ultimately, Trump’s address was less about diplomacy and more about domestic projection—a reaffirmation of America’s determination to preserve its dominance, even as the contradictions within its policies erode that very goal.