Connect with us

American News

Trump’s UNGA Speech Collapses Before a Defiant World

Published

on

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The United Nations General Assembly this year became the stage for one of the most dramatic reversals of American diplomatic influence in modern memory. Sponsored jointly by Saudi Arabia and France, the extraordinary emergency conference convened to debate Israel’s naked, blatant, and cruel aggression on Gaza and the West Bank. For decades, the United States, with its vast economic, military, and diplomatic clout, had compelled nations to fall in line—whether by promises of aid, threats of sanctions, or pressure through investment and trade. But this time, before the eyes of the world, Washington’s narrative failed.
The global mood was unmistakable. Israel’s policies of ethnic cleansing, occupation, and near-genocidal assault on the Palestinian people were denounced with unprecedented unity. Trump, standing at the podium, echoed Benjamin Netanyahu’s language of “security” and “self-defense,” but those words fell flat. What was once the unchallenged script for Western allies now sounded hollow, archaic, and dangerous. Far from rallying behind the United States, the overwhelming majority of nations broke away, defiantly recognizing Palestine as a sovereign state and announcing they would deal with it directly in bilateral and multilateral forums. This was not only a symbolic rebuke but also a practical shift: future investment, aid, and diplomatic engagement would now flow through Palestinian authorities, bypassing Israel.
What made the session even more remarkable was that not a single major leader spoke in favor of the United States or Israel. From Brazil’s Lula da Silva to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, from Jordan’s King Abdullah II to France’s Emmanuel Macron, from Australia’s Anthony Albanese to Britain’s Keir Starmer, from Canada’s Mark Carney to South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa, and from South Korea’s Lee Jae-myung to leaders across Asia, Africa, and Latin America—the verdict was universal. Israel’s narrative, supported and promoted by Trump, had collapsed. The applause in the chamber made clear that the United States, for the first time in UN history, stood alone.
Trump did not hide his contempt. He lashed out not only at the leaders present but at the institution itself. Climate change, he declared, was the “greatest con job in history,” dismissing decades of scientific evidence on rising seas, melting glaciers, intensifying hurricanes, and the planetary threat of unchecked emissions. Gasps rippled through the assembly as he accused the UN of peddling fear and lies. He mocked international agreements on climate, insisting that America would burn coal, drill oil, and expand nuclear power without apology. To many, it was more than denial—it was an open invitation to environmental catastrophe.
Nor did Trump stop at Gaza or climate change. He derided the United Nations as useless, ineffective, and irrelevant. He promised to pull U.S. representatives out of key agencies, and he vowed to slash funding—funding that, for decades, Washington had leveraged as its ultimate instrument of control. But instead of weakening the UN, Trump’s threat spurred others into action. Within hours, China, the European Union, and several emerging economies pledged to fill the financial gap, signaling that they would seize the leadership America was relinquishing. It was a symbolic passing of the torch: power, influence, and responsibility were no longer to be monopolized by Washington.
For Trump, the United States remained the indispensable nation. He warned that no country could survive without its blessing, invoking America’s military might and economic reach. Yet his words rang hollow against the backdrop of near-total isolation. In the past, weaker nations might have bowed to U.S. pressure, clinging to trade deals or fearing the loss of aid. But now, emboldened by collective strength, they no longer needed to. The unifying cause of Palestine’s recognition had given the world a new confidence. America’s threats sounded less like the dictates of a superpower and more like the frustrated cries of a bully whose grip was slipping.
This shift was not sudden; it was the culmination of years of resentment. Trump’s doctrine of “America First” had alienated allies, embittered partners, and emboldened adversaries. By weaponizing tariffs, sanctioning friend and foe alike, and dismantling international agreements, Washington had eroded the very leverage it once wielded. Countries that once tolerated American dominance out of necessity now saw little reason to comply. As one European delegate noted privately, “When the U.S. withdraws, others rush in. They may have forgotten, but we have not.”
The recognition of Palestine marked a decisive moment. It was not simply a diplomatic statement; it was a strategic realignment. Humanitarian aid would bypass Israel. Sanctions would be imposed directly on Tel Aviv. Military sales would be withheld. Pension funds and sovereign wealth investments would be divested. These measures, adopted with overwhelming consensus, marked the first time Israel faced comprehensive, global punitive action. For decades, its occupation had been shielded by U.S. vetoes and Western complicity. Now, the shield was shattered.
Trump, furious, accused the assembly of hypocrisy and cowardice. He mocked the idea of collective will, insisting that only the United States could lead. But the chamber had already moved on. Leaders from every continent had made clear that the era of American dictates was over. The collective will of nations would no longer bow to one country’s interest. The loudest message of the day was not in the words of presidents or prime ministers but in the silence that followed Trump’s speech—an emptiness where once applause would have echoed.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that America’s own power remains immense. Militarily, economically, technologically, it still towers over much of the world. But power without legitimacy is fragile. Influence without trust is fleeting. Respect cannot be commanded by force alone. Those nations that are weak or dependent may still flatter America out of fear, but those that are strong from within—confident, stable, and united—see no reason to follow. They do not mistake America’s bluster for leadership.
What was witnessed at the UNGA was not just a rejection of a speech; it was the exposure of a failing doctrine. The belief that America could dictate terms, ignore science, crush weaker nations, and shield Israel indefinitely has collapsed. The world has spoken, not in whispers but in unison, and it has chosen a different path—one of defiance against aggression, of recognition for Palestine, of collective resistance to unilateralism.
The United States, under Trump, has forgotten the wisdom of humility, gratitude, and forgiveness. A truly strong nation does not alienate the world; it unites it. A truly great power does not cling to dominance; it earns respect through fairness and justice. By abandoning these principles, America has not only lost leverage but has endangered its own place in history. The verdict from the UN General Assembly is clear: the world will no longer be dictated to by a single power, no matter how mighty. The future will be shaped not by one nation’s arrogance but by the collective will of many.

American News

Trump celebrates as Democrats face fallout from end of shutdown

Published

on

By

After 43 days, the longest US government shutdown in history is coming to an end.

Federal workers will start receiving pay again. National Parks will reopen. Government services that had been curtailed or suspended entirely will resume. Air travel, which had become a nightmare for many Americans, will return to being merely frustrating.

After the dust settles and the ink from President Donald Trump’s signature on the funding bill dries, what has this record-setting shutdown accomplished? And what has it cost?

Senate Democrats, through their use of the parliamentary filibuster, were able to trigger the shutdown despite being a minority in the chamber by refusing to go along with a Republican measure to temporarily fund the government.

They drew a line in the sand, demanding that the Republicans agree to extend health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans that are set to expire at the end of the year.

When a handful of Democrats broke ranks to vote to reopen the government on Sunday, they received next to nothing in return – a promise of a vote in the Senate on the subsidies, but no guarantees of Republican support or even a necessary vote in the House of Representatives.

Since then, members of the party’s left flank have been furious.

They’ve accused Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer – who didn’t vote for the funding bill – of being secretly complicit in the reopening plan or simply incompetent. They’ve felt like their party folded even after off-year election success showed they had the upper hand. They feared that the shutdown sacrifices had been for nothing.

Even more mainstream Democrats, like California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, called the shutdown deal “pathetic” and a “surrender”.

“I’m not coming in to punch anybody in the face,” he told the Associated Press, “but I’m not pleased that, in the face of this invasive species that is Donald Trump, who’s completely changed the rules of the game, that we’re still playing by the old rules of the game.”

Newsom has 2028 presidential ambitions and can be a good barometer for the mood of the party. He was a loyal supporter of Joe Biden who turned out to defend the then-president even after his disastrous June debate performance against Trump.

If he is running for the pitchforks, it’s not a good sign for Democratic leaders.

For Trump, in the days since the Senate deadlock broke on Sunday, his mood has gone from cautious optimism to celebration.

On Tuesday, he congratulated congressional Republicans and called the vote to reopen the government “a very big victory”.

“We’re opening up our country,” he said at a Veteran’s Day commemoration at Arlington Cemetery. “It should have never been closed.”

Trump, perhaps sensing the Democratic anger toward Schumer, joined the pile-on during a Fox News interview on Monday night.

“He thought he could break the Republican Party, and the Republicans broke him,” Trump said of the Senate Democrat.

Although there were times when Trump appeared to be buckling – last week he berated Senate Republicans for refusing to scrap the filibuster to reopen the government – he ultimately emerged from the shutdown having made little in the way of substantive concessions.

While his poll numbers have declined over the last 40 days, there’s still a year before Republicans have to face voters in the midterms. And, barring some kind of constitutional rewrite, Trump never has to worry about standing for election again.

With the end of the shutdown, Congress will get back to its regularly scheduled programming. Although the House of Representatives has effectively been on ice for more than a month, Republicans still hope they can pass some substantive legislation before next year’s election cycle kicks in.

While several government departments will be funded until September in the shutdown-ending agreement, Congress will have to approve spending for the rest of the government by the end of January to avoid another shutdown.

Democrats, licking their wounds, may be hankering for another chance to fight.

Meanwhile, the issue they fought over – healthcare subsidies – could become a pressing concern for tens of millions of Americans who will see their insurance costs double or triple at the end of the year. Republicans ignore addressing such voter pain at their own political peril.

And that isn’t the only peril facing Trump and the Republicans. A day that was supposed to be highlighted by the House government-funding vote was spent dwelling on the latest revelations surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Later on Wednesday, Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in to her congressional seat and became the 218th and final signatory on a petition that will force the House of Representatives to hold a vote ordering the justice department to release all its files on the Epstein case.

It was enough to prompt Trump to complain, on his Truth Social website, that his government-funding success was being eclipsed.

“The Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects,” he wrote.

It was all a very clear reminder that the best-laid plans and political strategies can be derailed in a flash.

Continue Reading

American News

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit

Published

on

By

The BBC was accused of a misleading edit of Donald Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech two years before the Panorama sequence that led to the resignation of the director-general.

The clip aired on Newsnight in 2022, and a guest on the live programme challenged the way it had been cut together, the Daily Telegraph reported.

On Monday the BBC apologised for an “error of judgement” over an edited portion of the same speech that aired last year on Panorama.

The fallout saw the resignations of the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, and a legal threat from the US President.

Lawyers for Trump have written to the BBC saying he will sue for $1bn (£759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him for the Panorama broadcast.

In response to Thursday’s story in the Telegraph, a BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now looking into it.”

In Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021, he said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Panorama programme, the clip shows him as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Newsnight programme the edit is a little different.

He is shown as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

This was followed by a voiceover from presenter Kirsty Wark saying “and fight they did” over footage from the Capitol riots.

Responding to the clip on the same programme, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who quit a diplomatic post and became a critic of Trump after describing the 6 January riots as an “attempted coup”, said the video had “spliced together” Trump’s speech.

“That line about ‘we fight and fight like hell’ is actually later in the speech and yet your video makes it look like those two things came together,” he said.

The Telegraph also reported that a whistleblower told the newspaper that a further discussion the following day was also shut down.

Last week, a leaked internal BBC memo claimed Panorama had misled viewers by splicing two parts of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech together, making it appear as though he was explicitly urging people to attack the US Capitol after his election defeat.

The documentary aired days before the US presidential election in November 2024.

Speaking to Fox News, Trump said his 6 January 2021 speech had been “butchered” and the way it was presented had “defrauded” viewers.

Continue Reading

American News

President Donald Trump is asking the US Supreme Court to review the $5m (£3.6m) civil case that found he defamed and sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll.

Published

on

By

He has repeatedly claimed that the judge who oversaw the civil trial, Lewis Kaplan, improperly allowed evidence to be presented that hurt how the jury viewed Trump.

A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said Kaplan did not make errors that would warrant a new trial.

A New York jury awarded Ms Carroll damages over her civil claim that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, and then branded the incident a hoax on social media. He denied the allegations.

The Supreme Court is now Trump’s last hope of overturning the unanimous jury’s verdict. Whether the top US court will take the case up is unclear.

A federal appeals court declined to rehear Trump’s challenge to it in June.

Trump’s comments about the jury’s findings in the case led a separate jury to order him to pay Ms Carroll $83m for defaming her. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal of that decision in September, and Trump has now taken the next step in trying to have it overturned by asking the full bench of judges at a federal appeals court to review the case.

In the petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued Kaplan should not have let jurors see the 2005 Access Hollywood tape that showed the president saying he groped and kissed women.

“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” they wrote about Ms Carroll’s allegations.

“Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”

Roberta Kaplan, Ms Carroll’s attorney, told the BBC she had no comment on the Supreme Court appeal.

While Trump was found to have defamed and sexually abused Ms Carroll, the jury rejected her claim of rape as defined in New York’s penal code.

Ms Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 81, sued Trump for attacking her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. The defamation stemmed from Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform in 2022 denying her claim.

Trump has said Ms Carroll was “not my type” and that she lied.

Continue Reading

Trending