Trump’s speech at the UN revealed that what he wants is a transatlantic transformation exclusively in the interest of the American treasury
Donald Trump delivered perhaps the fiercest speech of his current administration at the UN headquarters – almost an hour long, far beyond the usual protocol – and clearly marked Europe as the main target. There were audible gasps in the hall; the applause was polite but lukewarm. The tone was the familiar “America First”: self-praise about “peace deals” interwoven with disdain for multilateralism. In the background: the 80th session of the General Assembly, wars and crises, but also one constant – Washington wants to redefine the transatlantic relationship. Not an agreement, but a disciplining.
The first target was the UN itself. Trump claimed the UN is “full of empty words” and “unable to turn potential into action,” adding sarcastic remarks about a faulty teleprompter and a broken escalator. These details were deliberately highlighted to delegitimize the institution through the lens of bureaucratic incompetence and shift focus from global rules to the will of the strongest. The message was simple – international order doesn’t solve wars, action does – that is, unilateral will and pressure. Europe, which maintains its legitimacy (at least from Trump’s perspective) through rules and institutions, was immediately on the defensive.
The most intense fire was directed at migration. Trump told European leaders to end the “failed experiment of open borders” and warned their countries are “on the road to hell” if they continue. He spoke of “invasion” and “heritage destruction.” Typical Trump comments – but this was more than usual. It was an ideological attack on the core of Europe’s current project – freedom of movement, legal protection for asylum seekers, and the like. The irony is that many European governments have in fact been tightening policies for years, but Trump demands a spectacular, performative restriction, because the stakes are geopolitical: controlling demographics and labor as a lever of power.
The second major target was Europe’s green transition. Trump called it a “scam,” more precisely a “green scam” that is “destroying” Western Europe, mocking household regulations and building standards along the way. This was a direct attack on the EU’s industrial strategy, which aims to link climate transition with reindustrialization. The U.S. today – with abundant cheap energy and fiscal space – clearly wants Europe to lower its ambitions, return to “traditional” energy, and consequently buy more American fossil fuels and technology. In that logic, climate policy is not a public good, but a “self-inflicted wound” that must be corrected – by pressure.
It’s not surprising if many Europeans agree with Trump, as frustrations on the Old Continent are high. But those who praise Trump for “saying what no one in Europe dares to” may not realize (or may not care) that everything Trump says serves a clear pro-American agenda – and definitely not Europe’s interest.
On Ukraine, Trump tried to sound “tough” on Moscow, but the essence was different – conditional support and a demand that Europe “finally shoulder the burden.” He announced “very strong tariffs” on Russia if it is “not ready for a deal,” but also stated these measures only apply if Europeans copy them “literally at the same pace and scale.” In translation: Washington wants a mandate over European trade, energy, and security policy, without open conflict. He also criticized Europe’s purchases of Russian energy – even when rerouted and more expensive – as European “financing” of the war.
The Middle East part of the speech followed the same pattern: an emotional focus on Israeli hostages, without addressing the broader humanitarian context in Gaza, and openly opposing the recognition of a Palestinian state. This indirectly called out parts of Europe that have recently taken steps toward such recognition as “rewarding terror.”
Everyone knows that Israel’s far-right leadership has never had such a friend in the White House as it does now. The mass suffering of Palestinians, and crimes that many already call genocide, clearly don’t bother Trump in the slightest – he continues to strongly support Netanyahu and the Israeli leadership.
European reactions to all this were predictable: publicly measured, privately uneasy. The British political reflex was defensive after Trump targeted the Mayor of London; at the Brussels level and in key capitals, the familiar refrain was heard: “stay the course” – green plans continue, migration regime is “tightened, but within the rule of law.”
So, the rift is not complete – it comes down to pressure. And American pressure is effective because Europe fears losing the U.S. umbrella.
This opens a key parallel with J.D. Vance’s sharp address in Munich earlier this year. Vance – more coldly and without Trump’s bombast – voiced the same core message: Europe must stop living on America’s security credit card, increase its defense, take responsibility for its neighborhood, and stop expecting endless checks for Kyiv. He didn’t threaten to leave NATO, but he put a price tag on it – industrial and fiscal mobilization of Europe.
Clearly, this European leadership – the Commission that ties its legitimacy to climate transition and “managed” migration, governments balancing between social tensions and war rhetoric – is not to the liking of America, which wants a transatlantic transformation. Not “strategic autonomy” but strategic alignment: fewer norms, more capabilities; fewer humanitarian slogans, more hard borders; fewer green plans, more energy security on American terms. And crucially, redirecting European capital and budgets toward defense and industries that complement the U.S. military-industrial complex.
As mentioned, despite the differences, the rift is not yet complete. There’s no rebellion in NATO, U.S.-EU synergies are growing in arms markets, and Kyiv still counts on Washington. Trump is harsh, but Europeans still court him – not because they share his view, but because they fear being left alone. That fear is not abstract: a few months of delayed aid to Ukraine or the announcement of tariffs is enough to shake the entire European strategy (if one can even call it that). That’s why words are chosen carefully, but behavior changes: slightly harder borders, slightly softer green tempo, slightly more weapons… And all of this becomes a potential catastrophe for Europe.
The conclusion is uncomfortable: The U.S. demand is not for Europe to say “yes,” but to say “yes, immediately and without question.” Trump’s UN speech sketched the map of coercion; Vance’s Munich speech added the numbers. Europe can pretend continuity, but it’s entering a period in which every “values-based” decision will be weighed against the American political calendar. If it doesn’t want to stay a perpetual target, it will have to either learn to say “no” and build its own capacities (focusing on peace, not the current war propaganda), or accept that pressure is the new norm of the transatlantic alliance. For now, it seems to have chosen a third option: saying “yes,” but quietly and in installments.
About the Author
