‘Your Countries Are Going To Hell’: Trump’s UN Speech Explained

By David Curran

• The US President spoke for nearly four times his allotted time limit, mixing America first messages with severe criticism of the UN and many member states

The assembled United Nations dignitaries gave Donald Trump 13 seconds of applause as he approached the podium for his address to the 80th anniversary general debate on September 23. They clapped for 20 seconds when he finished speaking.

In between, having been asked to confine his remarks to 15 minutes (like all other speakers), the US president gave the room a lengthy address that lasted 57 minutes. It veered from the many shortcomings of the previous US administrations, to why UN migration policies were ruining the world, to the climate change “con job”, to a warning to the assembled leaders that “your countries are going to hell”.

At points in between, Trump congratulated himself, for turning the US into the “hottest country anywhere in the world”, for repelling a “colossal invasion” of migrants at America’s southern border and for ending seven wars – for which he repeated his line that he should have been given the Nobel peace prize.

He also savaged the UN, which he said “did not even try to help in any” of the conflicts. “The UN is such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.” He added: “Empty words don’t solve war.”

Questioning whether the UN could play a productive role, Trump offered “the hand of American leadership and friendship to any nation in this assembly that is willing to join us in forging a safer, more prosperous world”. In other words, UN-led multilateralism is out, to be replaced, perhaps, by a series of bilateral relationships dominated by the US.

Eight decades after its founding in the wake of the second world war, it is not a good time for the UN. It is currently mired in a budget crisis: US$2.4 billion (£1.77 billion) in unpaid dues from member states against an overall budget of US$3.5 billion for 2025. Of this, the US owes the most, about US$1.5 billion.

Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.

The Trump administration is applying a much-reduced budget that includes zero funding for UN peacekeeping operations. This decision has been made despite the fact that the US has an obligation to pay at least one-quarter of the UN’s peacekeeping costs. It has also paused most other funding to the body. Trump’s speech to the United Nations in full.

Trump’s speech did not shy away from other issues of critical importance. He highlighted the need to “stop the war” in Gaza and negotiate peace. He also chastised Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. But his views on these conflicts were largely aimed at individual states as opposed to the UN – and multilateralism – in general.

When it came to Gaza, he was critical of the states that “unilaterally” recognised Palestinian statehood. Talking about Ukraine, Trump criticised European states for not cutting off purchases of Russian energy and energy products. The UN, and its efforts in addressing these catastrophic situations, was not mentioned.

Migration and climate

But Trump was most savage when it came to migration. He opened his section on migration by stating that “your countries are being ruined”, stating: “The United Nations is funding an assault on western countries and their borders.” Claiming that the UN provides cash assistance towards migrants journeying to the US, Trump then stated: “The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them.”

The rest of his discussion on migration was aimed at Europe. Within that he offered unsubstantiated claims about London – with whose mayor, Sadiq Khan, he has a longstanding disagreement: “Now they want to go to sharia law” he said.

His language here will (rightly) cause considerable concern for many. It may reflect his belief in the role of sovereign borders, particularly in the US. But the attachment – in particular with regards to European states – of the idea of sovereignty to a way of life that is somehow endangered by migration is one which could embolden anti-migrant sentiment on a global level.

Trump’s views on climate change will also grab headlines. Interestingly though, given his other criticisms of the UN, while he called climate science and the idea of man-made global warming “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”, his scorn wasn’t particularly aimed at the UN.

Granted, the UN has been in the driving seat for many of the steps taken in attempting to tackle the climate crisis – so by implication, the UN was in the US president’s sights. But he instead he took the opportunity to direct his slurs towards China which – he said – builds wind turbines “and they send them all over the world but they barely use them”.

So what can be taken from this? It may not have been a worst-case scenario for those who support international cooperation. He didn’t explicitly pull the US out of any other UN programmes.

But there’s very little to take reassurance from a multilateral perspective when viewing Trump’s 57 minutes at the lectern. In his view, the UN is not up to speed with attempts to build peace, it doesn’t function properly, it’s secondary to bilateral efforts, and – when it comes to the US – it has supported an “invasion” by migrants.

And, reading between the lines, Trump’s perspectives on sovereignty, climate change and migration may embolden other political leaders who want to push similar agendas. It has the danger of going beyond rhetoric.

The US president’s disdain for multilateralism and the UN system may mean other members reprioritise their budgets, cutting funding still further. This would further fracture a UN system which is already seriously under pressure.

David Curran is Research Fellow, Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding, Coventry University

@The Conversation