The United Nations General Assembly recently witnessed President Trump deliver a fiery address, where he lambasted the organization as “useless” and declared other nations were “going to hell.” Yet, in a stark contrast following his public chastisement, Mr. Trump adopted a remarkably conciliatory tone during a private meeting with U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. He affirmed, “Our country is behind the United Nations 100 percent,” and praised the organization’s “incredible potential.” This sharp shift in demeanor left many observers with a sense of whiplash, a phenomenon world leaders have grown accustomed to over the past decade.
Since his rise to political prominence, two distinct versions of President Trump have emerged: the bombastic public figure seen in speeches, the Oval Office, or on social media, and the more accommodating, conflict-averse individual encountered in one-on-one or smaller, private interactions. During his initial term, leaders might have reacted strongly to his public rebukes. For instance, in 2018, diplomats openly laughed at his boastful U.N. performance. However, this time, the response was surprisingly subdued—polite applause and even praise.
Foreign leaders have honed the art of flattery when engaging with Mr. Trump, understanding that he responds positively to compliments and overt displays of respect. Conversely, he is equally prone to lashing out if he perceives disrespect or feels he’s been cheated. Richard Gowan, U.N. director for the International Crisis Group, noted the palpable nervousness among leaders regarding Trump’s unpredictable nature. He suggested a collective strategy to placate him, with officials choosing to remain silent even when their countries were publicly criticized.
One European diplomat, a Security Council member, observed that his colleagues sought common ground where Mr. Trump showed an openness to address various global threats. There was a clear reluctance among European officials to openly challenge or publicly dispute the American president’s harsh criticisms. Instead, they patiently queued for private meetings, offering praise even as he publicly scorned them.
In his speech, Mr. Trump leveraged his administration’s peace negotiations as a basis to declare the U.N. obsolete. Rather than directly refute this, Mr. Guterres cleverly turned the topic into an opportunity for commendation during their meeting. He lauded Trump for making “peace a central objective” and pursuing cease-fires and peace agreements globally. Trump, in turn, accepted this olive branch, stating, “I may disagree with it sometimes, but I am so behind it,” referring to the U.N.
Despite this private reassurance, the Trump administration has significantly reduced U.N. funding, having already cut $1 billion and signaling plans to cut another $1 billion, exacerbating financial shortfalls. The U.S. has also withdrawn from several U.N. agencies and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, displayed no irritation even after Mr. Trump publicly mocked European nations for their reliance on Russian oil and natural gas. “Think of it, they’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one?” Trump had quipped, calling it “embarrassing.” Her straightforward response in their private meeting was simply, “Trump is absolutely right. We’re on it.”
Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron, known for his frequent calls with Mr. Trump, seemingly adopted a similar approach. In his U.N. speech, Macron implicitly critiqued the organization’s “harshest critics” (without naming Trump), suggesting they “want to change the rule of the game, because they want to exert domination.” However, during his subsequent meeting with Mr. Trump, Macron avoided confrontation, focusing instead on U.S.-France cooperation in ending foreign conflicts. By the end of the day, European leaders believed they had secured a significant policy victory: convincing Mr. Trump to reverse his stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After months of advocating for Ukraine to cede territory for a peace deal, Trump publicly stated his belief that Ukraine, with NATO’s support, could win the war.
These tactical shifts are characteristic of Mr. Trump, though they can still catch people off guard. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, in her new book, recounted how Trump would publicly attack her but then charm her in private. After an assassination attempt on him, she called to offer condolences. Trump’s response was, “You’ve done a great job, you really have. My only problem is it makes it very hard for me to be angry at you.” Harris, however, saw through it, writing, “He’s a con man. He’s really good at it. I’d readied myself for a phone conversation with Mr. Hyde, but Dr. Jekyll had picked up the call.”
Perhaps the most striking illustration of Trump’s dual nature on Tuesday was his interaction with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The White House had planned a segment of Trump’s speech to condemn Brazil’s government, accusing it of “unprecedented efforts to interfere in the rights and freedoms of our American citizens and others with censorship, repression, weaponization, judicial corruption and targeting of political critics in the United States.” Yet, backstage, Mr. Trump and Mr. Lula met and embraced. Trump later remarked, “We had a good talk, and we agreed to meet next week. He seemed like a very nice man, actually. He liked me, I liked him. And I only do business with people I like. When I don’t like them, I don’t like them. But we had, at least for about 39 seconds, we had excellent chemistry. It’s a good sign.”