Tangle - President Trump criticizes the UN, reverses course on Ukraine.

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump delivered an address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in New York sharply critical of the international organization and member countries over immigration, climate policy, and other issues. The president also touted his efforts to resolve global conflicts, suggesting that the UN was hindering his push for peace. After his speech, President Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, then posted on Truth Social that he believes Ukraine can win back all of the land taken by Russia since its all-out invasion in 2022. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: What do you think of the UN? Let us know.Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thank you for your patience. Your call is important. Can't take being on hold anymore? FIS is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at FIS.ca. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, a place to get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. Today is Thursday, September 25th. A big shout out to John and Will, who, and Ari, who have been tagging in for me the last few days. We've been all together in Vermont.

we had our team retreat and then we were all flying separately training home separately it was a big cluster of us trying to get around and get back to our respective locations so i appreciate everybody stepping up and also just want more of them on the show and audrey and lindsay you guys are going to keep hearing from more and more it's fun to get more voices on the podcast here so thank you guys very much appreciate it um before we jump in today's story a quick heads up tomorrow i'm going to be publishing a piece the thesis of the piece is this a backlash is brewing i'm seeing it on the front pages of the country's biggest newspapers in fringe corners of the internet and among my friends and family people are tiring of tech and tomorrow i'm going to write about what's

happening and what i think the future might hold a reminder that we give away 80s percent of our content for free because we believe quality news should be accessible. But Friday editions are for members only. So if you want to support our work, unlock all our premium content, and get ad-free podcasts, you can go to readtangle.com forward slash membership. That's readtangle.com forward slash membership. Thanks, Isaac. And welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, a gunman opened fire at an immigration and customs enforcement facility in Dallas, killing one detainee and injuring two others.

The Department of Homeland Security identified the shooter who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but has not shared information on a possible motive. However, law enforcement officials said bullets found near the shooter were inscribed with anti-ice messages. Number two, the Justice Department will reportedly seek to indict former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey for allegedly lying to Congress about his role in investigating efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Number three, Google said it will offer to reinstate all YouTube accounts that were permanently banned for political content.

The company claimed that Biden administration officials had repeatedly pressured it to ban accounts, particularly for content that had been related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Number four, a federal judge found that President Donald Trump unlawfully fired several inspectors general at the start of his term, The judge said that she did not have the authority to reinstate them to their positions. And number five, the North American Aerospace Defense Command said that U.S. fighter jets were scrambled to identify and intercept four Russian warplanes near U.S. and Canadian sovereign airspace. 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. The only thing that solves war and wars is action. Tonight, President Trump urging Ukraine to expand the battlefield. After earlier warning, they may have to concede territory for peace. Writing, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form. The other side can fight too, and they've proven that.

Maybe it's a paper. It could be that Russia is a paper tiger. Let them get their land back. Yep. So we'll see how it all works out. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump delivered an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, sharply critical of the international organization and member countries over immigration, climate policy, and other issues.

The president also touted his efforts to resolve global conflicts, suggesting that the UN was hindering his push for peace. After his speech, President Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelens. then posted on Truth Social that he believes Ukraine can win back all of the land taken by Russia since its all-out invasion in 2022. For context, the UN General Assembly is the organization's main policymaking body made up of delegates from all 193 UN member states and two non-member observers states. It meets regularly from September to December each year and votes on a host of key issues and

initiatives. President Trump began his speech by declaring a golden age of America under his administration, promoting his deportation actions and efforts to resolve global conflicts. He added that he would offer the hand of American leadership and friendship to any nation in this assembly that is willing to join us in forging a safer, more prosperous world. Trump also suggested that European countries were going to hell because of their immigration policies and criticized their investment in renewable energy, calling their energy ideas suicidal and climate change the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world. Separately, the president said Europe needs to step it up in pressuring Russia over the war in Ukraine,

saying they should agree to join a new U.S. tariffs package and immediately cease all energy purchases from Russia. Empty words don't solve war, Trump said. The only thing that solves war and wars is action. After his speech, Trump met with President Zelensky and issued a statement on the war in Ukraine, after getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine-Russia military and economic situation, and, after seeing the economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form, Trump wrote.

With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe, and in particular, NATO, the original borders from where this war started is very much an option. Zelensky said Trump's comments surprised him, but called them a positive signal that the United States will be with Ukraine to the end of the war. He added, I think the fact that Putin was lying to President Trump so many times also made a difference between us. Several other Eastern European leaders also praised Trump's post. Russian leaders and commentators rejected the notion that Ukraine could win the war. Kremlin spokesman Dimitri Peskov suggested that President Trump was trying to stop

European purchases of Russian oil and gas to boost U.S. sales. Today, we'll explore the responses to President Trump's speech and comments about Ukraine, with views from the left, right, and writers abroad. then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. Thank you for your patience. Your call is important. Can't take being on hold anymore?

Fizz is 100% online so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15. a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca. All right. First up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is critical of Trump's speech, with many saying it embarrassed the U.S. Others suggest Trump's evolving stance on Ukraine is encouraging, but remains fickle. In MSNBC, Zayshan Alim called the speech mortifying for America. Trump was bogged down by constant frivolous tangents, and a fixation on trumpeting, often deceptively, what he counts as his accomplishments.

And given that the backdrop of Trump's speech is an all-out assault on democracy in his own country, his lecturing world leaders on how to run a great nation was shocking in its audacity, Alim said. More significantly, he worked to undermine the credibility of the UN as an institution for peacekeeping and global governance. Trump falsely claimed to have ended seven unendable wars in seven months this term, and he declared, it's too bad I had to do these things instead of, of the United Nations doing them. Trump praised his own record constantly in what at times resembled more of a

state of the union speech than a UN speech. He rambled about how the U.S. had become the hottest country anywhere in the world and trashed countries that don't share his worldview. He trumpeted his extreme right-wing crackdown on immigration as a model for the world, Alim wrote. There's something about Trump's degradation of the republic that hits harder before an international audience.

Sometimes it feels as if the full impact of what Trump is putting us through is most evident when we're forced to think about it from the eyes of outsiders. In CNN, Stephen Collinson said, Trump's right-about-everything rant offers no answers to a world on the brink. Tensions have hit Cold War levels in Eastern Europe after Poland threatened to shoot down any more encroaching Russian aircraft. Strange drones, possibly Moscows, are zipping around over Scandinavia.

Fears are growing of an Intifada-style eruption on the West Bank if Israel follows through on hints of annexation to add to its onslaught on Gaza, Collinson wrote. Yet President Donald Trump, who holds the job once reserved for the leader of the free world, had no words of reassurance or poetic invocations of democratic values for America's alarmed allies in an address to the UN General Assembly. The confusing new developments on Ukraine show why, for all Trump's contemptuous hostility, foreign powers, especially those in Europe, still try to work with him to direct him

and to avoid the open confrontation some of his threats might merit, Colinson said. But the first speech to the UN of the President's second term still offered a sobering picture of the new global reality. The United States, the nation that did more than any other to build the United Nations, and to support it for so many decades, is now its most vicious critic, a situation that raises questions about the once vital world body's capacity to survive in its current form. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying. The right mostly supports Trump's criticism of the UN, and some suggest the speech was directed at populist movements in Europe. Others say Trump should follow through on his critiques by trying to fix the UN. In red states, Strafe wrote about the true purpose of Trump's speech. Trump is not interested in the approval of anyone in the UN, and no one thinks laughing at him is going to dissuade him from his America-first philosophy, Strafe said.

Tuesday's speech at the UN was not aimed at the diplomats in the room or those watching remotely. It wasn't aimed at the leaders of governments. It really wasn't even aimed at the world. It was, in my opinion, aimed directly at populist movements gaining momentum in northern and eastern Europe. The goal was to put Trump and his successor at the helm of an international movement to make Western civilization great again. The message was clear. Your leaders have sold you out. If you don't act, your countries will be swamped by foreigners who don't show.

share your culture. Without a reliable energy supply and slamming the door on third world migration, Europe, as we know it, will cease to exist. Trump framed the situation of national leadership that has allowed the situation to develop, serving as a warning call to populations who are inattentive and being taken advantage of stray fruit. All in all, it suggests that Trump's retreat from the EU and NATO is more of a rebuke of national elites than a withdrawal from the theater. In the Washington Post, John R. Bolton argued, Trump should fix the U.N. not just grandstand. With the U.N. turning 80 years old, now is precisely the right moment to focus on the U.N.'s failings, and even to start imagining some remedies, Bolton said. The General Assembly has almost never had a coherent purpose other than

offering a backdrop for authoritarian leaders to practice their rhetoric, and the Security Council is as gridlocked now as during the height of the Cold War. Disputes among its five permanent members mean that truly important issues are addressed elsewhere and brought to the council only for a splash of UN holy water if they're brought at all. Meanwhile, huge organizations such as the World Bank Group technically affiliated with the UN deserve scrutiny and enormous reform or retrenchment, especially given their programmatic overlap with various UN components and regional development banks, Bolton wrote. To make a lasting impact, hard work will be required. Washington needs to assess the merits of each of the agencies that make up the

un-gainingly UN system. The system is resilient. It knows how to theatrically gasp at any insults hurled its way while continuing to do business as usual. Drive-by speeches, even those of Trumpian duration, just come and go, like all the other hot air that has coursed through the UN headquarters for decades. All right, that is it for what writers from the left and the writer saying, which brings us to what writers are broader saying. Some writers say Trump failed to account for how his administration has weakened the international order. Others argue it epitomized Trump vision of a U.S.-led global order. The LeMont editorial board said Trump has set out to undermine the credibility of the United Nations.

No one can dispute the fact that the U.N. is struggling. Its marginalization and powerlessness to affect the world's major ongoing conflicts, be they in Ukraine, Gaza, or Sudan, serve as unfortunate daily reminders of its troubles. The rise of groups such as the Bricks and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization also reflects the frustration among global South countries, the board wrote. Examining the roots of this paralysis inevitably leads to highlighting the responsibility of the U.S., the country that set the precedent for force to have supremacy over international law with its 2003 invasion of Iraq. That same country now paralyzes the United Nations Security Council.

The lecture Trump delivered to the nations on September 23rd also followed the brutal elimination of U.S. international aid programs, the devastating effects of which are now beginning to be felt. Trump's latest about-face on Ukraine, as he now claims that, Kiev is capable of retaking all the territory that Russia had conquered only increased the confusion, the board said. Trump gave the embarrassing impression of being a passenger who rails and grumbles about the aimless drift of the ship, after having made its rudder unusable and slashed its sails. In the spectator, Sam Olson wrote about Trump's New World Order. Trump's support for Ukraine was presented not as multilateral solidarity, but as an extension

of the sovereignty first doctrine he set out from the UN podium, Olson said. Trump's message on Ukraine was striking less for any promise of American firepower than for how seamlessly it slotted into his border creed. He threatened Moscow with powerful tariffs and told Zelensky that Ukraine could fight and win back all of Ukraine in its original form. The meaning was unmistakable. Sovereignty should be defended, but with national tools like tariffs, economic pressure, and demands on Europe. By contrast, international institutions or indefinite U.S. commitments are not the answer. The logic fits neatly with how he alliances. For Trump, they are transactional, conditional, and designed to protect America's

primacy rather than sustain any abstract order, Olson wrote. This was not just another Trump tirade. It was a doctrine, delivered in broad brushstrokes, but internally consistent. Sovereignty was cast as the only safeguard against threats, whether from migrants, hostile states, or the Green Lobby. Multilateral institutions, once the proud architecture of the U.S. Bill order, were painted as part of the problem. For the president, they are completely in disorder, not guarantors of it. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the right and some writers from a broader saying,

which brings us to my take. So, fun fact about me, actually, I used to report on the UN. I had a United Nations press pass. I had access to its headquarters, which were a few blocks from the Manhattan office where I worked. So for a couple of years, I'd mosey over there and try to find a story anytime it hosted a big event like a general assembly. I really can't emphasize enough how much these UN gatherings are basically glorified summer camps for world leaders. Assemblies come with some organization and obviously some closed-door meetings, but for the most part, diplomats and world leaders will roam the hallways, mingle in conference rooms,

and try to get FaceTime with counterparts from across the world they might need for any particular initiative. Seeing so many people from so many different places all crammed into one building made the events mildly interesting, but truthfully, they often felt protracted and meaningless. In that regard, parts of Trump's speech rang true to me. The efficacy of the UN is very much in question, and its importance to me, at least, has often felt overstated. Too many world leaders, including many of its most authoritarian, use it as the headline stop of propaganda tours to whitewash whatever they were doing back home. Trump was also right that the organization, as it was imagined, was supposed to prevent wars

through collective security and peacekeeping operations, and in that respect, it seems increasingly fickle. Look at the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. Where is the UN's power? How have they flexed it? How important is their influence? As is typical for our president at events like this, Trump had his highs and lows. The first 10 minutes of his speech, which he read off paper notes, when the teleprompter malfunctioned, were actually quite impressive. And despite all the headlines focusing on his most provocative statements, Trump made a lot of good points throughout.

He emphasized the way investments in the Middle East and Northern Africa are bringing together previously warring nations through commerce. He restated his commitment to ending wars across the globe, and he announced a new initiative to end the production of biological weapons. One quote in particular felt like a fantastic summation of Trump's personality. Everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize for each of these achievements, but for me, the real prize will be the sons and daughters who live to grow up with their mothers and fathers because millions of people are no longer being killed in endless and unglorious wars.

What I care about is not winning prizes, it's saving lives. It's a funny thing. He's delivering an admirable and powerful message, but when you hear him say it, winning the Nobel Peace Prize does actually seem pretty important to him. Of course, the contradiction of Trump reared its head quite quickly. A few minutes after touting all the wars he's ended and signaling his desire for a Nobel, he started riffing about the new U.S. policy of striking boats off the coast of Venezuela. Please be warned that we will blow you out of existence, he told the audience.

That's what we're doing. Trump also spouted off some outright absurdities. He claimed that London wants to enact shirial law. that the United States should be proud of its efforts to destroy solar and wind energy and insisted that everyone in Europe was sitting by as their countries were going to hell. This is the kind of obvious nonsense that makes me cringe, and I wish I could just pull the 50 or 60% of the speech that felt encouraging, hopeful, peace-focused, and unified, and then trashed the rest.

But that's not how he works, and his UN appearance was a nice encapsulation of the internal frustration of Trump. Ultimately, I don't think Trump's address had much utility as a table-setter for global affairs going forward. I think it was akin to a stump speech with an international bent. As the blogger, Streif argued under what the right is saying, it was also a message to the populace in Europe, a roadmap for their own messaging and a nod of support for their growing popularity, and one would be wise to take note of it. Trump is smart. He recognizes that his brand of politics is spreading across Europe, and he clearly wants to leverage that reality while he's pushing for

concessions and policy changes from European leaders. Speaches and teleprompters and escalator malfunctions aside, by far the most important and interesting thing to come out of the entire assembly was Trump's truth social post on the war in Ukraine, a total about face, so remarkable that it's really hard to put into words. It took him eight months, but Trump is now touting an even more pro-Ukraine position than Biden did, a stated view that Ukraine could win back all the territory Russia has taken. This view is, to put it mildly, a bit fanciful, unless the U.S. were going to get involved directly, and perhaps fleeting. It's still an incredible pivot from where Trump was just a few months ago. Of course, it's also another data point for a particular universal

theory of Trump that I subscribe to, which is that he is easily convinced by whatever argument he hears last. This is why he calls Zelensky a dictator days after meeting with Putin and why he leaves UN meetings with Ukrainian representatives believing they can win the war. It doesn't explain everything, but this theory explains a lot of his erratic positions and often fluid perspectives, and I think it's what happened again here. It should be said, of course, that this approach has a huge downside. Trump's mercurialness creates a moving target, not just for Ukraine and Russia, but for all our allies across Europe. The result in plain terms is that his administration so far has put us no closer to a resolution in Ukraine. This is not a good way to navigate these conflicts. Will it stick? It's hard to be

sure, but it does seem like the Trump administration is shifting toward a new posture, one that isolates Russia, pressures European countries to find new sources for their oil and gas, and insist on shooting Russian planes out of the sky if they cross into NATO territory. The culmination of this new approach could force a deal, or it could be the first step toward a direct Russian-NATO conflict. One of those outcomes is obviously better than the other, but personally, I'm grateful to see the president's evolution on this issue. We'll be right back after this quick break.

Thank you for your patience. Your call is important. Can't take being on hold. anymore, FIS is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at FIS.C.A. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions to answer.

This one's from Kate in Cascade, Colorado. Kate said I'm very curious about why. Out of everything that's been slashed in the last six months, PEPFAR seems to be the thing. that gave some senators pause. I think it's a very worthy program, but so are lots of others. What is different about PEPFAR? Okay, first to start, PEPFAR is the president's emergency plan for AIDS relief,

which focuses on sub-Saharan Africa. It isn't the only thing that senators hesitated over cutting. Even if we're talking about only Republican senators, they still resisted cuts to Medicare, NIH grants, food stamps, public broadcasting, education, and state-specific initiatives. And on foreign assistance programs, Republican senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Mitch McConnell all voted against major cuts to the United States Agency for International Development or USAID. Of course, major cuts to those programs still passed, despite that resistance, whereas funding for PEPFAR has been spared due to support from many Republican senators. What makes this program different?

I think it's a few things. First, it is enormously effective. The State Department estimates that PEPFAR has saved 25 million lives and prevented 5.5 million babies from being born with HIV. The program is focused solely on AIDS treatment and prevention, and its resources go directly to achieving that goal. It is also the single largest financial commitment to international disease prevention from any country. The second highest single disease commitment in the U.S. is the president's malaria initiative, which costs under $1 billion. So defunding PEPFAR would have had a major impact. Second, it is funded sustainably.

PEPFAR's fiscal year of 2024 budget was $7.1 billion, and its fiscal year 26 appropriation is smaller at $6.2 billion, a cut from its fiscal year of 2025 total cost of $6.5. The program not only saves tens of millions of lives, but also benefits the United States in its expression of soft power globally. Of the program's 2020 budget, 2.4%. $2.5 billion came from USAID, about 40% of PEPFAR's overhead and about 12% of the agency's budget. This shielded it from the holistic attacks on USAID.

And lastly, this is more speculation, but it may be relevant that the program was started by a Republican president, George W. Bush. Many of Trump's cuts and rescission so far have been framed as attacks on bloke from President's Biden and Obama, and its origins under a Republican president could have made the program much hard. to attack as a wasteful democratic boondoggle. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod, and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one.

Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's her under the radar story for today, folks. On Tuesday, President Trump reportedly told Arab and Muslim leaders that he would not allow Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to annex the West Bank. Israel has expanded its de facto control of the West Bank under Netanyahu, but some influential members of the Israeli government

have pushed the Prime Minister to pursue full annexation in response to several Western countries' formal recognition of a Palestinian state. However, Arab and Muslim leaders reportedly told Trump that annexation would lead to the collapse of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and multiple Arab states. Politico has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, next up is our numbers section. The United Nations General Assembly was established under the Charter of the United Nations in 1945.

President Trump's speech to the UNGA was 56 minutes in length. Prior to Tuesday, the approximate number of years since Trump's last address to the UNGA was five. Trump mentioned climate in his speech seven times. Trump mentioned immigration in his speech six times. Trump mentioned energy in his speech 22 times. Trump mentioned tariffs in his speech 10 times and Trump mentioned Russia in his speech 10 times. And last but not least, R have a nice day story.

Over a century after Titanic's sister ship, HMHS Britannics explosion in the Aegean Sea, a grease-led exploration has recovered artifacts from the wreck. An 11-person deep-sea diving team set off on a week-long operation in May to retrieve objects from the vessel, which remains the world's largest intact passenger ship on the seafloor. Like the Titanic, the Britannic was designed as a cruise liner offering luxurious amenities to its passengers, but it was converted to a hospital ship during World War I before it sank in 1916.

The recovered artifacts will be displayed in Athens Museum of Underwater Antiquities and include a lookout bell, navigation lamp, and ceramic tiles from a Turkish bath. CBS News has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right. That is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to retangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that can do a discount on both. In tomorrow's Friday edition, Isaac is going to be writing about the state of tech, what's happening and what he thinks the future might hold.

We give away 80% of our content for free because we believe quality news should be accessible, but Friday editions are for members only. So if you'd like to help support the work that we're doing here and unlock all of our premium content, and please head over to the subscribe page on our website. Isaac Ari and Camille will be here with the suspension of the rules podcast tomorrow and I will return on Monday. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law, signing off.

Have an absolutely fantastic weekend, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Lull. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors, Hunter Casperson,

Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saw, Lindsay Canuth, and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at reetangle.com. Thank you for your patience. Your call is important.

Can't take being on hold anymore. FIS is 100% online, so you can make the switch in minutes. Mobile plans start at $15 a month. Certain conditions apply. Details at fizz.ca.