Trump’s 2026 UN address put Iran, sovereignty, the ICC, human rights and AI at centre stage as direct US-Iran talks followed hours later.
Trump’s address to the 81st UN General Assembly defended US military action against Iran, challenged the ICC and UN human-rights bodies, and rejected international control of artificial intelligence.
US President Donald Trump used his September 22 address to the United Nations General Assembly to present an assertive vision of American power built around military strength, national sovereignty and scepticism towards international institutions. Iran dominated the 37-minute speech, but Trump also addressed Gaza, Ukraine, Greenland, migration, the International Criminal Court and artificial intelligence. Hours after warning Iran of potentially devastating consequences if no agreement is reached, he confirmed that US and Iranian officials had held direct talks on the sidelines of the gathering.
A speech centred on power and sovereignty
Trump spoke on the opening day of the general debate of the UN General Assembly’s 81st session in New York. The contrast with the official theme of this year’s gathering — “Restoring trust, managing transformation: a United Nations that delivers for all” — was striking. General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman opened the debate by saying that people were asking not whether the UN still existed, but whether it worked. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, meanwhile, warned that international law was being pushed aside and argued that peace requires the restraint of power by law.
Trump approached the same crisis of international confidence from a different direction. The White House account of his address presented the speech as evidence that “America is back”, while Trump repeatedly argued that international structures must not override US sovereignty. “There is no global government,” he told the Assembly, before rejecting global taxation and later international efforts that he portrayed as attempts to control artificial intelligence.
Iran dominates the address
The central foreign-policy issue was Iran. Trump defended the US-Israeli military campaign against Tehran and repeated his commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He called on other governments to join what he described as the “complete economic isolation” of Iran until Tehran ends attacks on commercial shipping, abandons its nuclear ambitions and stops supporting armed groups abroad.
His language then moved well beyond diplomatic pressure. Trump raised the possibility of reaching a deal that would allow Iran to rebuild, but contrasted that option with what he described as the possibility of “annihilate[ing] the Islamic Republic”. Most senior members of Iran’s delegation left the hall during this part of the address.
The confrontation was followed almost immediately by diplomacy. Later on Tuesday, Trump said US and Iranian representatives had held what he called a productive three-hour meeting at the UN, with another meeting expected. Iranian state media also reported that Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi had met US envoy Steve Witkoff and presented conditions connected to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The combination of severe public threats and direct private engagement became one of the most consequential features of the day.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, for his part, has accused Washington of undermining earlier diplomatic efforts and has expressed doubts about negotiations conducted under military pressure. Iran has nevertheless signalled that diplomacy remains possible if US military and economic pressure is reduced.
Gaza and Ukraine: claims of progress, but unfinished diplomacy
Trump also used the speech to highlight his administration’s role in Gaza. He said the war that had still been raging during the previous year’s General Assembly had subsequently ended, that the remaining hostages had been returned and that the UN Security Council had endorsed the US-backed 20-point plan and Board of Peace. He thanked countries that had contributed personnel or training to efforts to stabilise Gaza.
On Russia’s war against Ukraine, Trump said Washington was working closely with both Russian and Ukrainian leaders and continued to seek an end to the conflict. He offered no detailed negotiating framework in the speech, although he referred to new tariff powers that could be used as part of US pressure. His prediction that an agreement could come relatively quickly was a statement of his expectation rather than an established timetable.
Greenland brings the speech directly into Europe
One announcement carried particular significance for Europe. Trump said the United States would expand its military presence in Greenland and build two major bases under a new security agreement with Denmark and Greenland. He described the arrangement in unusually broad terms, saying it gave Washington lasting control over security requirements on the strategically important Arctic territory.
The legal and political details are more nuanced than that language might suggest. The agreement signed later on Tuesday keeps Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark, recognises Greenlanders’ right to self-determination and would continue to apply if Greenland eventually chose independence. It expands US military access and basing rights without transferring sovereignty to Washington.
For NATO, the agreement potentially closes one of the most difficult disputes between Washington and Copenhagen in recent years while substantially increasing the American security footprint in the Arctic. Danish and Greenlandic leaders described it as a joint security arrangement and emphasised respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A direct attack on the International Criminal Court
Trump’s criticism of international institutions was particularly sharp when he turned to the International Criminal Court. He described the ICC as illegitimate and called on countries belonging to the Court to withdraw from it.
That appeal puts Washington in direct conflict with the European Union’s stated policy. Only a month before the UN gathering, the EU reiterated what it called its “unwavering support” for the ICC, describing the Court as a cornerstone of international criminal justice and opposing US sanctions imposed on ICC officials. Trump’s UN remarks therefore exposed a significant transatlantic disagreement not simply over individual ICC investigations, but over the legitimacy of the institution itself.
Human rights, migration and religious persecution
Trump also criticised senior UN human-rights officials for questioning aspects of US domestic policy, including immigration enforcement and policies affecting transgender minors. He accused the Human Rights Council of devoting insufficient attention to the persecution of Christians and argued that there is no international human right to irregular migration at the expense of national sovereignty.
His criticism of the UN’s handling of religious persecution deserves some context. The UN human-rights system maintains a dedicated Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and regularly sends communications concerning violations against religious communities. On 10 July 2026, for example, UN special-procedure mandate holders raised allegations with Iran concerning the confiscation of Tehran’s St Peter’s Evangelical Church compound, possible eviction of members of recognised Armenian and Assyrian Christian minorities and threats against church leaders.
That does not settle wider arguments over whether international institutions respond consistently or forcefully enough to religious persecution. It does, however, show that the UN system has mechanisms specifically addressing freedom of religion or belief and that persecution of Christians has been the subject of recent formal action.
Trump rejects international AI controls
Artificial intelligence provided another clear dividing line. Trump said his administration would increasingly refer to AI as “Super Intelligence” and rejected what he described as an international scheme for global control of the technology. He argued that the United States should remain ahead of China and other competitors while avoiding regulations that he believes could suppress technological development.
Guterres set out almost the opposite emphasis in his opening remarks. The UN Secretary-General called for international cooperation on AI safeguards and warned against allowing machines to make life-and-death decisions without human control. The dispute reflects a wider question that governments will increasingly face: how to encourage innovation while establishing rules for systems whose consequences extend across national borders.
Some of Trump’s numerical claims challenged
Several factual assertions in the address have already been challenged by independent fact-checkers. An Associated Press fact-check of the speech questioned claims concerning US ammunition stocks, the proportion of maritime drug trafficking supposedly eliminated by US operations, global oil reserves and economic figures.
For example, Trump claimed that the United States and Venezuela together possess more than 60% of the world’s oil. AP calculated that even using broad estimates, their combined share would be around 22% of global reserves. AP also said there is no reliable basis for determining that US operations have destroyed 97% of drugs entering by sea, because the total quantity successfully trafficked is inherently unknown.
Those corrections matter because much of Trump’s case at the UN rested on measurable claims about the effectiveness of US power. Separating the administration’s political arguments from independently verifiable figures is therefore essential to assessing the speech on its own terms.
A different conception of multilateralism
Taken as a whole, Trump’s 2026 address did not reject international engagement. His administration is negotiating with Iran, seeking talks over Ukraine, relying on a UN-backed framework for Gaza and using NATO cooperation to expand US security arrangements in Greenland.
But the speech described a form of international cooperation firmly subordinated to national sovereignty and American strategic interests. Institutions were praised when they supported US objectives and sharply criticised when Washington considered them intrusive or ineffective. That approach differs substantially from the model advocated by Guterres, in which power is constrained by common rules and international law.
The most immediate test may come from Iran. Within a matter of hours, the same UN gathering witnessed both one of Trump’s strongest public threats against Tehran and the first confirmed direct US-Iranian contact since the current war began. Whether coercion and diplomacy can be reconciled into an agreement remains unresolved. What the September 22 speech made clear is that Trump intends to pursue both simultaneously.
