News Analysis
In a bold display of rhetorical fireworks, President Donald Trump recently took center stage at the United Nations General Assembly to deliver a scathing critique of the 80-year-old institution. In what could be interpreted as defiance wrapped in bravado, Trump declared that the U.N. has largely failed to broker peace in a world that seems to spiral into conflict.
He lamented, “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never even received a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.” This lamentation speaks volumes, particularly when he added, “All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up; it’s empty words, and empty words don’t solve war.”
Adding to the drama, Trump directed his ire at the U.N.’s agenda on immigration, accusing it of permitting what he described as an “assault on Western countries and their borders” by tacitly supporting illegal immigration into the U.S.
Turning to the contentious topic of climate change, Trump opined that the globalist approach calling for developed nations to limit their economic growth for environmental goals should be “rejected completely and totally, and it must be immediate.”
Such comments highlight a broader repositioning of Trump’s administration, as it has systematically distanced itself from the United Nations in numerous ways over the past eight months.
Moving Away From Key UN Projects
The most striking example of this withdrawal is the scaled-back American involvement in the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a comprehensive framework adopted in 2015 comprising 17 global goals aimed at fostering peace and prosperity for people and the planet.
These goals span a host of issues impacting human existence—ranging from production and consumption patterns to climate action, health care, education, and environmental preservation.
On his first day in office, Trump wasted no time, signing an executive order titled “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements.” Among its directives was an immediate cessation of U.S. support for climate agreements, including the Paris Agreement, alongside a strict withdrawal of any financial commitments associated with such accords.
In a meeting at the U.N. in March, U.S. envoy Edward Heartney reiterated the administration’s stance, arguing that Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) promote a form of global governance that contradicts U.S. sovereignty and adversely affects American interests. “Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box,” he noted, rejecting the U.N.’s sustainable development narrative outright.
Mandy Gunasekara, a former EPA chief staffer and architect of the U.S. withdrawal, emphasized the necessity of pulling out from U.N. climate agendas, asserting, “Withdrawing from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord was a critical step in rejecting globalist frameworks that undermine U.S. prosperity.”
Exiting From WHO and Other U.S. Efforts
In July, the administration expanded its pivot by announcing a withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) and rejecting proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. expressed concerns that these amendments would enable a pathway to what he termed “narrative management,” which had plagued global communications during the COVID pandemic.
The U.S. can, according to Kennedy, foster cooperation without sacrificing civil liberties or ceding sovereignty.
Further distancing from the U.N., the State Department also declared its exit from the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), accusing it of pushing “divisive social and cultural causes” that contradict an “America First” foreign policy.
At the same time, the U.S. delegation opted out of the U.N.’s Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, expressing regret that the discussion did not facilitate a consensus pathway.
Moreover, the administration critiqued the U.N. International Maritime Organization’s attempts to impose a global carbon tax on shipping, dubbing it a coercive means of penalizing Americans through an “unaccountable U.N. organization.”
Domestically, environmental policies are also witnessing a dramatic shift. The EPA announced intentions to repeal an “endangerment finding” concerning certain gases, effectively rolling back a foundational Obama-era determination that acknowledged their threat to public health.
Experts have noted that the 2030 Agenda has quietly seeped into U.S. policy through various sustainability mandates. Jack McPherrin, from the conservative Heartland Institute, asserted that Trump’s administration’s repudiation of the U.N. agenda is more than a mere rejection; it underscores a vigorous affirmation of national sovereignty against globalist definitions that prioritize compliance over consent.
Interestingly, while the White House spearheaded many of these actions, Congress also played its part—enacting the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, which included measures to dismantle U.N.-backed federal programs and cut funding to significant initiatives. Even Trump expressed dissatisfaction, claiming the bill fell short in eliminating “green tax credits” he labeled a “giant SCAM” benefiting China.
“These measures reflect a growing recognition in Congress that the U.N.’s soft global governance regime is incompatible with American constitutionalism and economic freedom,” McPherrin concluded.
The stakes here are undeniably high; rejecting the U.N.’s Agenda 2030 is framed not merely as a foreign policy stance but as an essential move to restore self-governance, safeguard individual liberty, and foster national economic vitality.
Craig Rucker of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow foresees further shifts away from climate policies and the complete abandonment of diversity, equity, and inclusion frameworks as well as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics.
“Agenda 2030 is a socialist dream of top-down governance tied to U.N. priorities,” Rucker asserted, warning of its pervasive influence on numerous governmental levels.
National Security and Economic Implications
Ambassador Kevin Moley, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, emphasized that the administration’s push against the U.N.’s sustainable development agenda carries national security implications as well. He pointed to the increasing sway of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) within the U.N. and its potential to exploit its programs to the detriment of U.S. economic interests.
“This culminates in a perilous scenario where the poorest populations bear the brunt of this faux environmentalism, which is a veiled attack on capitalism,” Moley warned, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to protect itself from wealth redistribution strategies driven by the U.N.
The U.N. and its representatives have yet to respond to these criticisms.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
The Epoch Times has been committed to delivering fact-based, award-winning journalism for 25 years, emerging from humble beginnings in a basement in Atlanta to reach millions of Americans today.
Our journalists have faced various adversities, yet our dedication to independent journalism has remained resolute. This year marks a quarter-century of reporting free from corporate or political influence.
Join the movement towards independent news with a limited-time offer of just $1 per week, as we continue to celebrate the power of truthful journalism.
