Donald J. Trump’s speech at the United Nations: A Divergence or an Unmasked Continuity?

Photo via AP News

***

At the 80th General Assembly of the United Nations, President Donald J. Trump strode into a chamber that once stood for global deliberation—to him, a Broadway theater. The escalator supposedly broke. His teleprompter malfunctioned. The spectacle began before the speech. Despite this, the optics were unsurprisingly fitting: a president who embraces chaos, turning diplomacy into performance.

Trump’s address to the UN was less a reaffirmation of U.S. leadership than a challenge to the very institutions the United States once helped build. He called the United Nations “not even coming close to living up” to its potential, dismissed it for producing “empty words,” and asked plainly, “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” 

In my previous article, A Departure from Diplomatic Norms: Trump’s Break with U.S. Foreign Policy Traditions, I argued that Trump is developing a brand of personal diplomacy that departs from established norms, often choosing straightforward approaches over level-headedness and prioritizing personal relationships over international institutions, such as the UN or North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This article will seek to continue this topic. 

This article argues that Trump’s “personal diplomacy” is both a continuity and a divergence of U.S. foreign policy. On the one hand, his approach reveals something that America has long done. A process in which influence is exerted through commands, circumventing institutions when inconvenient, and expecting deference by the global community. On the other hand, he transforms the style and the substance into a metamorphosed version of his own, where diplomacy becomes personalized, hyperpublic, and antagonistic to multilateral norms. His UN speech is less a break with the past than an unmasking of its tensions.

That said, not everyone sees this as a decline. Some argue that Trump is simply adjusting tactics to an era of media scrutiny and geopolitical fragmentation. This article will engage with that counterargument, examine the context and implications of Trump’s visit, and assess whether the liberal international order—with institutions like the United Nations at its core—can endure a diplomacy so personalized.

The post–World War II era established a U.S.-led liberal order, grounded in institutions such as the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the IMF, the World Bank, and NATO. These entities aimed to facilitate cooperation, manage conflicts, and integrate American norms into the global governance framework. In theory, power and institutions worked in tandem. In practice, U.S. dominance was never equal to that of its peers. In my International Politics class, we read Richard Haass’ “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda?” which argued that U.S. leadership must rest on the legitimacy of institutions, alliances, and norms—not mere coercion. When legitimacy slides, even the strongest power must rely on raw strength over consent.

Earlier crises already strained that framework. Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and later the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, tested NATO’s resolve and the UN’s capacity to respond. Allies looked to Washington for leadership; skeptics questioned whether the U.S. would intervene or remain rhetorical. Trump’s first presidency sowed seeds of doubt—he openly criticized NATO, withdrew from multilateral treaties, and cut U.N. funding.

The world entered the 2025 General Assembly amid multiple wars: Russia–Ukraine, Israel–Gaza, and rising tensions in Asia and Africa. Many countries expected a U.S. reaffirmation of cooperation. Instead, they found a spectacle.

Trump’s address was long, wandering, and combative. He launched direct barbs towards our European allies, saying that they were “going to hell” for adopting open immigration and green energy policies. He questioned the purpose of the UN, claiming the body drafts “strongly worded letters” and then does nothing to follow up. 

He boasted of ending “seven ‘un-endable’ wars” under his watch — a claim that fact-checkers disputed. The reactions in the chamber were muted — polite applause, awkward pauses, no laughter. In contrast to past appearances, such as when world leaders laughed at Trump at the United Nations GA in 2018, this time’s silence signaled exhaustion rather than derision. 

Behind the theatrics was a clear message. For Trump, institutions are secondary, while direct and publicized rhetoric is primary.

One of the most illuminating moments for my research occurred at a Roosevelt Institute panel I attended on Wednesday, October 8th. I asked whether Trump’s personal diplomacy was a rupture or simply a more unfiltered version of U.S. behavior. Rebecca Riddell from Oxfam America responded that “many countries other than the G7 are used to the U.S. being like whatever I say goes; most of the world order has been up to the G7 countries after World War II.” The power of the U.S. dollar, IMF conditionalities, and World Bank loans have long allowed Washington to set terms in the Global South.

In this sense, Trump’s approach is not entirely novel. Past administrations have used subtle coercive leverage, such as sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or informal channels, to bypass inconvenient consensus. One can look historically to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where masculinity and diplomacy meshed to produce the brink of nuclear warfare. The formalism around multilateral institutions sometimes masked the reality of U.S. hierarchy. For decades, the U.S. has given itself latitude to act unilaterally when allies balked or institutions slowed.

That Trump changes the way the US operates on the global stage is not the prerogative; I contend that it lies in his style. It’s the theatrics, the public chastisements, and ultimately, the erosion of all pretense. Yet the break is real. Trump’s approach dismantles, rather than quietly bends, long-standing diplomatic norms.

Trump frequently sidesteps embassies, the State Department, and secure backchannels. He prefers direct, surprise summits or messaging via Truth Social. The role of professional diplomacy—steady pressure, coalition building, and consensus—is marginalized. 

Image Via Truth Social

***

Unlike discreet Cold War diplomacy, Trump’s moves are broadcast, performative, and tailored for media effect. He weaponizes spectacle; diplomacy becomes a contest of optics. As seen in his Truth Social post, he attacks the United Nations and goes on a tirade. This is a clear divergence of how a United States president should act. 

The Founding Fathers would denounce Trump’s behavior, as an executive should be level-headed. This is completely antithetical to what Alexander Hamilton, a founding father, wrote in Federalist No. 70. In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton argues that a strong executive should strive to mediate conflict, rather than incite it. The current U.S. president is demonstrating that the U.S. clearly holds a belief about itself, namely that it remains superior in the global system. He is gearing towards sparking conflicts rather than trying to settle them. 

By openly mocking the UN, threatening to withhold funding, and suggesting some resolutions are irrelevant, Trump constrains the influence of global institutions. During his speech, he stated that an investigation must be initiated into the alleged sabotage of the UN escalator and teleprompter, furthering the sense that the UN is antagonistic rather than cooperative.

 Donald Trump’s diplomatic posture alienates allies in Europe, Canada, and across the Global South, many of whom have begun recognizing Palestinian statehood. Although the political climate is shifting regarding conflicts in the Middle East, the United States under the Trump administration is altering U.S. foreign policy in a way that rejects its allies across the pond.

In the same speech, Trump offered rhetorical support for the UN while disparaging it. He lambasted climate policies, but claimed to back the institution’s peace mission. This toggling undermines the coherence of diplomacy, sowing distrust. Thus, in a way, Trump’s version of diplomacy is unlike anything that has come before; it is informal, media-centric, antagonistic, and unpredictable.

More broadly, the U.S. veto has become a shield against consensus. Washington has repeatedly blocked UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza. These vetoes, once a tool of negotiating leverage, now appear as blunt obstruction. As more states openly defy U.S. positions, the UN becomes less an arena of diplomacy and more a stage for symbolic gestures. The U.S. is beginning to develop a different approach to ending conflicts. It is bypassing the global institutions it established and enacting new orders, such as the 20-point peace plan, as seen with President Trump.

As a counterpoint, perhaps Trump’s style is a tactical change, rather than a structural one. Perhaps he is adapting U.S. diplomacy to a new media-saturated age. Allies, global institutions, and norms still matter, but he just leverages them differently. After all, he met with Arab leaders, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, and others on the sidelines of the UN. 

From this angle, Trump is not discarding coalition-building, but rather, he’s streamlining it. He is carefully fusing political theater with statecraft. The logic is that public pressure, narrative control, and agility can compensate for bureaucratic drag.

Yet, the problem lies in scale and stability. Traditional diplomacy endures because norms resist sudden swings. If every President plays the role of a performance artist, consistency collapses. Allies may decide it’s safer to hedge than to trust. Institutions may adapt to exclude U.S. influence.

When Trump once appeared before the UN, he was met with laughter. In 2025, he was met with silence. That shift is not due to respect. It is the world’s resignation. Seen through the lens of Haas and the balance-of-power theory, Trump’s style raises the question: Can a hegemon govern solely through personality? Or will the delicate scaffolding of order, such as norms, trust, and institutions, buckle under the weight of improvisation?

In this moment, diplomacy is no longer an intellectual chess game reserved for the level-headed. What was once seen as a vital tool for navigating complex situations is a spectacle, and the stakes are global. As other powers fill gaps and multilateralism fractures, many diplomats are disillusioned. What is the point of the UN—or of U.S. leadership—when power speaks louder than protocol?

***

This article was edited by Amethyst Stencik and Kaelen House.