Federal Judge: Pro-Palestinian Protestors are Not Deportable Aliens

 

Post ca

rd dated June 19, 2025 (On file in Chambers) Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States –- you and me -- have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case. W.G. Young, D.J.

Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists...Executive Order 1/20/2025:

during the visa issuance process the United States... must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security. 

 American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, Secretary of State 9/30/2025, District of Massachusetts, Case 1:25-cv-10685-WGY

`8 U.S.C. 1227 Deportable aliens' 

"The above statute is not authority to deport foreigners who protest on behalf of Palestinians" declared U.S. District Judge William G. Young, District of Massachusetts. in AAUP v. Rubio, Septermber 30, 2025 Case 1:25-cv-10685-WGY

The Times reported today:

The Trump administration is asserting that it has broad power under  a 11952 law Deportable Aliens 8 U.S.C. 1227 to kick out foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. That statute says the secretary of state can deem noncitizens deportable for foreign policy reasons, and the secretary, Marco Rubio, made it clear recently that he had already used it to cancel hundreds of student visas.

“It might be more than 300 at this point,” Mr. Rubio said last week. “We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.”

But that expansive conception of power appears to conflict with a key limit Congress added nearly four decades after the law passed. Lawmakers explained that the modification, which is recorded elsewhere in federal statute books, means the law may be used “only in unusual circumstances” and “sparingly” if the problem stems from foreigners’ exercise of free speech.

In an extraordinarily blunt and thorough 130 page opinion [link above] U.S. District Judge Edward Young, a forty year veteran on the federal bench, nominated by George H.W. Bush explains why the First Amendment's protection extends to non-citizens, here Palestinians, while they are in the country:

This case -– perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court –- squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us.  The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally “yes, they do.”  “No law” means “no law.” 

The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history   See Executive Order 14160, entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of AmericanCitizenship”, Exec. Order No. 14160, 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (Jan. 20, 2025),  unconstitutionally attempting –- by executive fiat -- to extinguish birthright citizenship.  Doe v. Trump, 766 F. Supp. 3d 266, 289 (D. Mass. 2025), aff'd sub nom. New Jersey v. Trump, No. 25-1200, 2025   (1st Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) (“[T]he Constitution confers birthright citizenship broadly, including to persons within the categories described in the EO. 

Under the plain language of the Citizenship Clause and the INA provision that later borrowed its wording, and pursuant to binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory challenges to [Executive Order 14160] are likely to prevail.”) (Sorokin, J )

:******

   IV. CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, this Court finds as fact and concludes as matter of law that Secretaries Noem and Rubio and their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech. They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of speech that is their right. Moreover, the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day.   

WGY, D.J. 9/29/2025

See also:

Democracy Docket: Reagan-appointed judge calls out Trump's "full-throated" assault on 1st Amendment

 

FTC and Federal Reserve - Congressional power at risk: Presidential power ascendant?

Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve - Congressional power at risk: Presidential power ascendant?

Ninety years ago in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) the United States Supreme Court asked two questions about the tenure of the five members of the Federal Trade Commission, created by Congress in 1914, now codified, as amended at 15 U.S.C.  §§  41:

 "1. Do the provisions of section 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, stating that 'any commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duly, or malfeasance in office,' restrict or limit the power of the President to remove a commissioner except upon one or more of the causes named?"

"If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, then -- "
"2. If the power of the President to remove a commissioner is restricted or limited as shown by the foregoing interrogatory and the answer made thereto, is such a restriction or limitation valid under the Constitution of the United States?"

 The high court's answer in 1935 was Yes and Yes.  But, as Steve Vladeck [now at Georgetown Law] reports in a post on his blog One First No. 179   Stare Decisis Free Docket  the Supreme Court has annnounced it will answer those questions again. Vladeck explains:

[I]n Trump v. Slaughter [2025]  the Court cleared the way for President Trump to remove, without cause, the last Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. And it also granted certiorari “before judgment” (leapfrogging the court of appeals to take up the case on the merits), so it can decide, as soon as early next year, (1) whether to overrule its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor (which upheld statutes requiring cause before the President may remove such officers); and (2) more generally, what remedies, if any, federal courts can provide if government officers are wrongly removed by the President. 

Humphrey's Executor is a nearly century old bedrock of the modern U.S. state and long a target of the political right who imagine a Jeffersonian freeholders' republic is still possible and desirable.  Not all conservatives are so hostile to the administrative state.  Adrian Vermeule and Cass Sunstein found common ground in their book Law and Leviathan, Redeeming the Administrative State.- the subject of a recent Yale Journal on Regulation symposium.

If Humphrey's Executor is overruled - as prefigured - the consequences will be substantial.  Under the FTC enabling act 15 U.S.C. 41, et seq the five Commissioners [only three of whom may be members of the same political party],  each serve a term of seven staggered years.  A Commissioner - who receives the same salary as a Judge of the United States - may be removed  only "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office".

If - as the Trump administration seeks, the statutory restraint on Presidential removal power is held unconstitutional - the Commissioners  become at will employees of the President, serving at his pleasure.  Will not their autonomy as custodians and interpreters of the law be gravely reduced?  The Supreme Court majority seems to be rushing to this result - having granted certiorari before judgment, thus depriving the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals of the opportunity to review and opine.

What then will be the value of a ruling by  such a board, like the  Federal Reserve or the FTC whose members' terms are subject to termination without good cause?  What is gained by the bi-partisanship mandate?

 

- GWC

Vladeck - The Roberts Court at 20

 <div class="substack-post-embed"><p lang="en">180. The Roberts Court Turns Twenty by Steve Vladeck</p><p>The Supreme Court is much less popular and much more divisive today than it was when John Roberts was sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice on September 29, 2005. And at least much of that is his fault.</p><a data-post-link href="https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/180-the-roberts-court-turns-20">Read on Substack</a></div><script async src="https://substack.com/embedjs/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 

What the Assassination of Charlie Kirk Reveals About America

 What the assassiantion of Charlie Kirk reveals

Murder is wrong. Always. No ideology, no political disagreement, no personal offense can justify extinguishing a human life. Students and staff who witnessed the chaos will carry that trauma forever. Kirk’s wife and two young children must live with a grief no family should bear. Assassination is barbaric and indefensible.

But if we stop there, we miss the deeper truth.

Kirk’s Record

Charlie Kirk was no martyr for freedom. He was a provocateur whose rhetoric leaned heavily on racist falsehoods. He dismissed diversity, equity, and inclusion programs as “anti-white.” He claimed white privilege was a “myth.” He denounced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a “huge mistake.” He even reversed his praise of Martin Luther King Jr., later calling him “awful” and a “mythological anti-racist creation.”

Kirk also promoted the so-called “Great Replacement” theory — the white nationalist idea that demographic change in America is an intentional plot to reduce White influence. “The ‘Great Replacement’ is not a theory, it’s a reality,” he declared. Those words emboldened prejudice, spread division, and threatened the dignity of millions of Americans.

Kirk’s ideology was dangerous and rooted in racism. His assassination does not erase that truth. Violence doesn’t end hate; it deepens it, handing extremists a martyr.

Supreme Court backs Trump, Ices Billions in Foreign Aid

Supreme Court backs Trump, Ices Billions in Foreign Aid

When Congress appropriates money there is inherently a latitude allowed the President who is obligated to "faithfully" execute the law.  In 1974 Congress, post Watergate, encted the Impoundment Control Act which constrained the President's discretion regarding appropriated funds.  We are now faced with a newly elected President who believes that his personal presidential priorities are the governing force.    

But today the Supreme Court - over dissent by the Democratic appointees - allowed Trump's refusal to spend appropriated foreign aid funds that will expire in days if not committed. Although the order asserted that the decision is preliminary the expiry of the appropriated funds effectively renders the decision final.

The unsigned opinion of the Republican-appointed majority explains

The Government has also made a sufficient showing that mandamus relief is unavailable to respondents [Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, et al.]. And, on the record before the Court, the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.

But who are the respondents and what are their interests? The Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition  wants to implement Congress's mandate to protect not their own but the health of millions across the globe.  Yet President Trump, immediately upon taking office froze all such spending by Executive Order.  It falls therefore to the Courts to resolve this interbranch conflict. [See Exec. Order No. 14169, 90 Fed. Reg. 8619 (2025)]

Justice Kagan, writing for the thre dissenters, first laments that this decision of enormous import is being made on the thin record of the Court's emergency docket .  She explains in a concise way the fundamental issue at stake:

The ICA [1974 Impoundment Control Act] emerged against the backdrop of President Nixon’s large-scale efforts to impound appropriated funds, and thus to substitute his own policy priorities for Congress’s. 

Presidential defiance of Congressional objectives is the kind of monarchic behaviour that the Constitution was designed to prevent. AS Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist #74 "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand".  But the needs of the Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition do not implicate or infringe the powers of the President as Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

Justice Kagan,, a master of the declaratory sentence explains at some length:

This emergency application raises novel issues fundamental to the relationship between the President and Congress. It arises from the refusal of the President and his officers to obligate and spend billions of dollars that Congress appropriated for foreign aid. Prospective beneficiaries of those funds challenged the decision to withhold them as an unlawful impoundment—essentially, a Presidential usurpation of Congress’s power of the purse. ***

The Executive’s argument about irreparable harm and the balance of equities fares no better. The Executive says that to comply with the District Court’s order to obligate the $4 billion, it will have to “enter into negotiations” with “foreign states or international organizations.” .... And in those discussions, the Executive protests, it will have to “advocate against its own objectives”—“undermin[ing]” its real view that the expenditures are “contrary to U. S. foreign policy.” .... But that is just the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions through the enactment of appropriations laws. If those laws require obligation of the money, and if Congress has not by rescission or other action relieved the Executive of that duty, then the Executive must comply.  [emph added]

- GWC 

Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter - Amy Howe - Scotus Blog

Logo for planned protests in Newark

Supreme Court - 6-3 - allows Trump to fire FTC Commissioner  Rebecca Slaughter- Amy Howe - Scotus Blog

On Monday, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and agreed to decide on the president’s ability to fire the heads of independent agencies. The case could dramatically upend Supreme Court precedent and give the executive branch much greater authority over federal agencies.

In a brief, unsigned order, (6-3)  the Court agreed to take up the case of Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission whom President Donald Trump attempted to fire earlier this year. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., had ordered the Trump administration to allow Slaughter to return to office while her challenge to her termination continues. The justices put that order by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan on hold until they issue a ruling in Slaughter’s case, effectively allowing Trump to move forward with firing Slaughter.  

Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the decision to pause Ali Khan’s order, in a two-paragraph opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan wrote that her colleagues in the majority had allowed Trump to remove, contrary to federal law, “any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all. And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence.”

JUSTICE KAGAN, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting from the grant of the application for stay.

On top of granting certiorari before judgment in this case, the Court today issues a stay enabling the President to immediately discharge, without any cause, a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). That stay, granted on our emergency docket, is just the latest in a series. Earlier this year, the same majority, by the same mechanism, permitted the President to fire without cause members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merits Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. See Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. ___ (2025); Trump v. Boyle, 606 U. S. ___ (2025). Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals. See, e.g., 15 U. S. C. § 41 (barring the President from discharging FTC Commissioners except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”). Under the relevant statutes, the entities just listed are “classic independent agenc[ies]”— “‘multi-member, bipartisan commission[s]’ whose members serve staggered terms and cannot be removed except for good reason.” Boyle, 606 U. S., at ___ (KAGAN, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 1). Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President. He may now remove—so says the majority, though Congress said differently—any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all. And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence. I dissented from the majority’s prior stay... 

Former Treasury Secretaries to Scotus: Restore Lisa Cook as a Federal Reserve Governor

 The Trump Justice Department has moved to stay the prleiminary injunction barring President Trump's removal of  Oxford-educated economist and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa D. Cook.  Trump claims that Dr.  Cook made misleading statements in a mortgage application, thus satisfying the statutory requirement that a Governor serving a statutory fourteen year term may be removed only "for cause" - 12 U.S.C. 242.

In an act unprecedented in its 112 year history President Trump acted to remove a Governor.  The Fed's independence has long been understood as necessary to preserve the stability of the nation's currency and credit.

The Supreme Court's Docket has been quickly populated by "friends  of the court".

Of particular note is that Cook's opposition brief is presented by the most prominent of Supreme Court advocates - former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, White House Counsel Abbe Lowell, and former White House Ethics Counsel Norman Eisen.  They argue that the Fed is special (thus avoiding the similar questions presented in the removal of FTC and other Commissioners).  As Gestalt psychology emphasizes the opening has special power.  Clement, et alii begin thus:

The President’s stay application asks this Court to act on an emergency basis to eviscerate the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. For decades, the Board’s insulation from direct presidential control has allowed the American markets and economy to thrive. And as the Court recognized earlier this year, the Board’s independence is uniquely entrenched in the Nation’s history and tradition. Yet the President now requests that the Court precipitously depart from that view and allow him to remove Governor Lisa D. Cook from the Federal Reserve Board “for cause” and without process based on flimsy, unproven allegations of pre-office wrongdoing—allegations conveniently timed following the President’s criticism of the Board’s policy decisions. Granting that relief would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history, and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the President’s will.

But the key importance of a stable and independent Federal Reserve Bank is emphasized by the  "Brief of amici curiae former Treasury Secretaries, Federal Reserve Board Chairs and Governors, Counsil of Economic Advisors Chairs and Economists in Opoosition to the Application to Stay the Prleiminary injunction". 

The former high officials argue that "allowing the removal of Governor Lisa D. Cook while the challenge to her removal is pending would threaten [the Fed's] independence and erode public confidence in the Fed".  It is difficult to imagine that a greater assemblage of authority on the matter could be assembled.  The former Secretaries, et al. emphasize that our "fiat currency" - not backed by any tangible asset such as gold - is subject to abuse.  Critical therefore is the stability afforded by an independent governing body serving long terms spanning more than three Presidential terms is a key element in amici's view.  And of course it clashes with the "I have an Article II" impulsivity of the current occupant of the White House.

The structure of the former Secretaries, et alii argument as amici can be seen here:

I. Maintaining the Independence of the Federal Reserve Is Essential for a Healthy Economy. .................................................................................................. 6

A. An Independent Central Bank Plays a Critical Role in Ensuring the Credibility of the U.S. Dollar and thus the Proper Functioning of the Economy. ......................................................................................................... 6

B. Allowing the Political System to Set Monetary Policy Would Create a “Time Inconsistency” Problem that Would Undermine Its Ability to Achieve Its Own Goals. .............................................................................. 8

 1. An Independent Central Bank Can Help with the InflationUnemployment Trade-off. ..................................................................... 10 

2. Central Bank Independence Is a Protection Against the Risk of De Facto Defaulting on the Debt Through Inflation. ................................ 11 

C. Academic Research Has Consistently Found that Independent Central Banks Lead to Better Economic Outcomes. ................................... 12 

D. Experience in the United States and Around the World Demonstrates Both the Benefits of Increased Central Bank Independence and the Dangers of Reduced Central Bank Independence. ............................................................................................... 14 

E. Maintaining the Public’s Belief in the Independence of the Federal Reserve Is Crucial to Economic Stability..................................................... 16

 II. The Federal Reserve System Operates Independently from the Political Branches. .............................................................................................................. 18 

III. The Court Should Deny the Application for a Stay. ........................................... 24 

CONCLUSION

 

 

Trump UN Meltdown

 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/115261466629181518

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

A REAL DISGRACE took place at the United Nations yesterday — Not one, not two, but three very sinister events! First, the escalator going up to the Main Speaking Floor came to a screeching halt. It stopped on a dime. It’s amazing that Melania and I didn’t fall forward onto the sharp edges of these steel steps, face first. It was only that we were each holding the handrail tightly or, it would have been a disaster. This was absolutely sabotage, as noted by a day’s earlier “post” in The London Times that said UN workers “joked about turning off an escalator.” The people that did it should be arrested! Then, as I stood before a Television crowd of millions of people all over the World, and important Leaders in the Hall, my teleprompter didn’t work. It was stone cold dark. I immediately thought to myself, “Wow, first the escalator event, and now a bad teleprompter. What kind of a place is this?” I then proceeded to make a Speech without a teleprompter, which kicked in about 15 minutes later. The good news is the Speech has gotten fantastic reviews. Maybe they appreciated the fact that very few people could have done what I did. And third, after making the Speech, I was told that the sound was completely off in the Auditorium where the Speech was made, that World Leaders, unless they used the interpreters’ earpieces, couldn’t hear a thing. The first person I saw at the conclusion of the Speech was Melania, who was sitting right up front. I said, “How did I do?” And she said, “I couldn’t hear a word you said.” This wasn’t a coincidence, this was triple sabotage at the UN. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I’m sending a copy of this letter to the Secretary General, and I demand an immediate investigation. No wonder the United Nations hasn’t been able to do the job that they were put in existence to do. All security tapes at the escalator should be saved, especially the emergency stop button. The Secret Service is involved. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Sep 24, 2025, 5:46 PM

Scotus guts Congressional control over federal Boards

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Unlike the English tradition which firmly established oparliamentary primacy in 1688, our history of federalism and `separation of powers' has  (since Marbury v. Madison) embedded a sometimes tragic decisive role to the judiciary.  It was so because the national government was constitutionally, and statutorily committed to protecting the private right to hold persons as chattel.  The Declaration of Indepence's opening oration - that "All men ar are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights - life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - failed in the face of positive law - the Constitution's Article IV and the soon to follow fugitive slave law of 1793.  In 1842 Joseph Story, writing for the Supreme Court declared unenforceable in Prigg v. Pennsylvania -  state laws  that obstructed the right of a slave owner to recover his escaped human property anywhere in the United States.  The only safe refuge was in Canada.

The Prigg declaration of federal supremacy was grounded in Constitution and statutes of 1793 and 1850.

But unresolved was the extent of executive power.  The English `glorious revolution' of 1688 unmistakably established Parliamentary primacy - over crown and court.  But our Congress was hobbled by the terms of Constitutional compromise between states grounded in free labor and those grounded in chattel slavery..

Unresolved has been the extent of the Constitution's Article II, Section 3 command that the laws "shall be  faithfully executed".  In that regard the Supreme Court has now cast its vote fo r the President and against the Congress which constrained the executive's power to discharge an agency constituted by law, such as the Federal Trade Commission and others.

Thus when a District Judge enjoined Donald Trump's discharge of two members of such boards, the Supreme Court declared, in an unsigned May 2025 order in Trump v. Wilcox 

The Government has applied for a stay of orders from the District Court for the District of Columbia enjoining the President’s removal of a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), respectively. The President is prohibited by statute from removing these officers except for cause, and no qualifying cause was given. See 29 U. S. C. §153(a); 5 U. S. C. §1202(d).

But rather than faithfully  execute the statutory command the President discharged Board members without any stated cause.  This action elicited  dissent by three Associate Justices.  Writing for the dissenters Elena Kagan said: 

For 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), has stood as a precedent of this Court. And not just any precedent. Humphrey’s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control. The two such agencies involved in this application are the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). But there are many others— among them, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Federal Reserve Board. Congress created them all, though at different times, out of one basic vision. It thought that in certain spheres of government, a group of knowledgeable people from both parties—none of whom a President could remove without cause—would make decisions likely to advance the long-term public good. 

But now the other shoe has dropped.  The court has agreed to hear Trump v. Slaughter  - a challenge by the now discharged member of the Federal Trade Commission the Court stayed the order below and granted "certiorari before judgment",saying:

The parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

In another impassioned dissent Elena Kagan, explaining that Humphreys remains good law, wrote  on September 22:

So the President cannot, as he concededly did here, fire an FTC Commissioner without any reason. To reach a different result requires reversing the rule stated in Humphrey’s: It entails overriding rather than accepting Congress’s judgment about agency design. The majority may be raring to take that action, as its grant of certiorari before judgment suggests. But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.

- GWC 

 

Dubious link between Tylenol and autism

Jerome Cohen (95) first American to practice law in China

 

NYU professor Jerry Cohen was a friend, mentor, and benefactor.

In 2005 he invited me to join him, and Judges John Walker and

Jed Rakoff to go to China to speak about rule of law.

I was a regular attendee of the discussions he led about China at the 

Council on Foreign Relations. RIP.

Trump criticizes UN at the UN General Assembly

 

‘Your Countries Are Going to Hell’: Trump Airs His Grievances at the U.N.

In a meandering address, President Trump rebuked global institutions and complained about immigration, environmentalists, windmills and more.

VIDEO 

 By Luke Broadwater

Reporting from the United Nations in New York

Sept. 23, 2025Updated 6:15 p.m. ET

He accused environmentalists of wanting to “kill all the cows.” He personally insulted the Muslim mayor of London. He bashed allies and foes across the globe. He questioned whether the United Nations should even exist.

“What is the purpose of the United Nations?” President Trump asked a gathering of the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, in a meandering, 56-minute speech that extended nearly four times as long as his allotted time limit.

“I’m really good at this stuff,” Mr. Trump said. “Your countries are going to hell.”

In his remarks, Mr. Trump lectured the United Nations and other countries about how they were failing, and aired a list of grievances. Those included but were not limited to: a malfunctioning escalator at the U.N.; his not winning a renovation contract at the United Nations during his time as a real estate developer; windmills; other countries’ immigration policies, which he claimed were leading them to ruin; and the way Brazil is being run.

Soon after his speech, Mr. Trump made news in another forum. In a social media post, he made a stunning pivot on Ukraine, saying the country, with the support of Europe, was “in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.”