Connect with us

Opinion

Trump’s UN rant revealed his true priorities – and Britain should watch out | Martin Kettle

Published

7 hours ago

on

Read more on post.

image

Trying to pin down the real Donald Trump is a mug’s game. Doubtless, some will have persuaded themselves that the real Trump was the one we saw in Windsor a week ago, fawning over the royals, treating Keir Starmer with respect, and claiming that Britain and the United States were two notes in the same chord. Well, maybe.

Perhaps the more plausible version was actually the one who went to the United Nations this week. This Trump went not to fawn but to boast and trash, whingeing about everything from the UN’s supposed failure to back his claims to have ended seven “un-endable” wars, to its refusal to award him a renovation building contract – “I said at the time that I would do it for $500m, rebuilding everything, it would be beautiful” – for its New York headquarters complex.

Which one is the real Trump? There is probably no single version of the US president’s huge personality that makes complete sense of all the competing others. To be fair, Trump is not alone in this. Centuries ago, Michel de Montaigne wrote that none of us is ever one person alone; “every sort of contradiction can be found in me,” the French sage concluded. Never a truer word was written, especially as far as Trump is concerned.

Another clue that may help unlock the puzzle is that Trump’s explosive mix of often contradictory qualities seems increasingly to resemble that of Otto von Bismarck. The founder of modern Germany is many people’s idea of a master politician – not something that many – except maybe Trump himself – would say about the president yet.

Like Trump, however, Bismarck had the ability both to charm and brutalise, to calculate and to rage, to dominate the room, to never forgive his critics – and to lie shamelessly in pursuit of his goals. Bismarck was far more consequential in his career than Trump has yet been in his, but there are some disturbing parallels already, not least in the fateful instability of what Bismarck eventually left behind.

It would be a mistake to read too much too soon into Trump’s unexpected comments about Ukraine on Tuesday. What he said was, all the same, a very striking U-turn for a man who thought his Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin could unlock a peace deal. Now, he has switched to backing the shooting down of Russian planes violating European airspace; dismissing Russia as a paper tiger not a real military power; and claiming that Ukraine could win back all of its lost territory since 2022. “Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act,” Trump posted later.

Trump also promised “to supply weapons to Nato for Nato to do what they want with them”. That would also be very big, if true; the issue has bedevilled Nato’s negotiations with Washington for months. If Volodymyr Zelenskyy is also right that Trump is offering US postwar military guarantees to Ukraine, then this looks like something more substantial than mere hardening of the president’s language against Russia.

There is a case for asking whether the UN speech may have been something of a smokescreen, designed mainly for an isolationist US domestic audience. Meanwhile, off-camera, some potentially significant stuff was actually going on nearby over Gaza and Ukraine. Trump’s New York meetings with Zelenskyy and with Arab and Muslim world leaders suggest as much.

Yet it would be foolish to dismiss the UN speech as a mere diversionary exercise or tactical ploy. It was more substantive and significant than that. Yes, there were the familiar lies and false claims on everything from the un-endable wars, through Sadiq Khan’s wish to introduce sharia law to London, to Trump’s own poll numbers. “The highest … I’ve ever had,” he asserted; in fact, his approval ratings are at a second-term low.

And, yes, the narcissism and the language were at times outrageous. “I’m really good at this stuff. Your countries are going to hell,” he told nations that are supposedly still the US’s loyal allies – before denouncing “the green energy scam” and adding: “Trump was right about everything, and I don’t say that in a braggadocious way, but it’s true. I’ve been right about everything.” At 57 minutes, not the expected 15, it was a hard speech to listen to.

Yet there was content in it too. There was also a clear argument. The White House had billed the speech as an exposition of how US power would be deployed on the world stage. The first part of the answer was predictable: not through the United Nations. So, as the tariff wars have shown, was the second: its power would be exercised unilaterally by a sovereign independent US. As the White House news release succinctly put it: “At UN, President Trump champions sovereignty, rejects globalism.”

skip past newsletter promotion

Trump asked at one stage what the UN’s purpose was. His real quarrel, though, is with the international rules-based order itself, of which the UN forms merely one part. This stretches beyond the wider postwar settlement that the US shaped in the 1940s. In fact, as the speech made increasingly clear, Trump is more opposed to recent global regulatory accords and international law than he is to the post-1945 institutions that the US can dominate. This is why he hates the climate accords, and why he will always dislike the EU. It is also why he wants to export his ideas to Europe and Britain, and thus weaken the rules-based order’s principal champions.

For Trump, the speech’s key issues are to end the threat to sovereign nations, as he sees it, from migration and the green agenda. These are not passing fancies. They are his enduring priorities, and they will remain so. This is likely to have continuing repercussions in the domestic politics of Europe, and perhaps, because the two countries insist so much on their special relationship, in British politics most of all. In the end, that’s why this speech matters.

Nothing else can explain why Trump used the UN speech to attack Britain so insistently. Britain got it in the neck more than China, than Russia, than Venezuela or than North Korea. Trump attacked Britain relentlessly, sometimes seemingly more in sorrow than in anger, over migration, over international law, renewable energy, North Sea oil and on the recognition of Palestine. Less than a week after Trump’s state visit, the transatlantic chord sounds more dissonant now. It was as if Trump has looked at the world and at last found an unexpected adversary – us.

  • Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist

  • Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Opinion

Paracetamol use during pregnancy not linked to autism, our study of 2.5 million children shows

Published

4 hours ago

on

24 September 2025

By

Read more on post.

United States President Donald Trump recently claimed that using the common painkiller acetaminophen (also known as paracetamol and by the brand name Tylenol in the US) during pregnancy is fuelling the rise in autism diagnoses. He then went on to suggest pregnant women should “tough it out” rather than use the common painkiller if they experience fever or pain.

This announcement has caused alarm and confusion worldwide. But despite Trump’s claim, there is no strong scientific evidence to back it up. Our study of nearly 2.5 million births in Sweden published in 2024 shows no evidence that acetaminophen use during pregnancy increases a child’s risk of autism. This is the largest study conducted on the subject to date.

To understand whether acetaminophen really poses a risk in pregnancy, we turned to Sweden’s national health registers, which are among the most comprehensive in the world. Our study followed nearly 2.5 million children born between 1995 and 2019, tracking them for up to 26 years.

Using prescription records and interviews that midwives conducted during prenatal visits, we could see which mothers reported using acetaminophen (about 7.5% of pregnancies) and which did not.

We also made sure to account for any variables that may have affected the results of our statistical analysis – including controlling for health factors, such as fever or pain, which would have influenced whether or not a mother used acetaminophen during her pregnancy. This was to ensure a more fair comparison between the two groups.

We then looked at the children’s neurodevelopmental outcomes – specifically whether they were diagnosed with autism, ADHD or an intellectual disability.

The real strength of our study came from being able to compare siblings. This allowed us to compare children born to the same mother, where acetaminophen had been used during one child’s pregnancy but not the other. We compared over 45,000 sibling pairs, where at least one sibling had an autism diagnosis.

This sibling design is powerful because siblings share much of their genetics and family environment. This allows us to tease apart whether the drug itself – rather than underlying family traits or health conditions – is responsible for any apparent risks for neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Acetaminophen use

When we first looked at the entire population, we saw a pattern that echoed earlier studies: children whose mothers reported using acetaminophen during pregnancy were slightly more likely to be diagnosed with autism, ADHD or an intellectual disability.

But once we ran the sibling comparisons, that association completely disappeared. In other words, when we compared sets of siblings where one was exposed in the womb to acetaminophen and one was not, there was no difference in their likelihood of later being diagnosed with autism, ADHD or an intellectual disability.

A pregnant woman holds a glass of water in one hands and a pill in the other hand.
Our study found no association with acetaminophen use during pregnancy and a child’s risk of being diagnosed with autism.
Dragana Gordic/ Shutterstock

Our study is not the only one to put this question to the test. Researchers in Japan recently published a study using a similar sibling-comparison design, and their results closely matched ours.

Importantly, they replicated our findings in a population with a different genetic background and where patterns of acetaminophen use during pregnancy are quite different. Nearly 40% of mothers in Japan reported using the drug during pregnancy. In comparison, less than 10% of Swedish mothers had used it.

Despite these differences, the conclusion was the same. When siblings are compared, there is no evidence that acetaminophen use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism or ADHD.

These findings mark an important shift from earlier studies, which relied on more limited data, used smaller cohorts and didn’t account for genetic differences. They also did not fully account for why some mothers used pain relief during pregnancy while others didn’t.

For example, mothers who take acetaminophen are more likely to also have migraines, chronic pain, fever or serious infections. These are conditions that are themselves genetically linked to autism or ADHD, as well as a child’s likelihood of later being diagnosed with one of these conditions.

These types of “confounding factors” can create associations that look convincing on the surface, but may not reflect a true cause-and-effect relationship.

That brings us to the real question on many people’s minds: what does this mean if you’re pregnant and dealing with pain or fever?

It’s important to recognise that untreated illness during pregnancy can be dangerous. A high fever in pregnancy, for example, is known to increase the risk of complications for both mother and baby. “Toughing it out,” as the president suggested, is not a risk-free option.

That’s why professional medical organisations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency continue to recommend acetaminophen (paracetamol) as the safest fever reducer and pain reliever during pregnancy when used at the lowest effective dose and only when necessary. This has been the guidance for decades.



Read more:
Paracetamol, pregnancy and autism: what the science really shows

Of course, if someone finds themselves needing to take acetaminophen regularly over a longer period of time, that’s a decision best made in consultation with their doctor or midwife. But the idea that acetaminophen use during pregnancy causes autism simply isn’t supported by the best available science.

The greater danger is that alarmist messaging will discourage pregnant women from treating pain or fever – putting both themselves and their babies at risk.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Irish Times view on presidential nominations: Too narrow a field

Published

4 hours ago

on

24 September 2025

By

Read more on post.

Only a few days ago, it still seemed possible that voters would have a choice of up to six candidates in next month’s presidential election. But when nominations closed at noon on Wednesday, only three names had made it on to the ballot paper. That reflected the narrowing that had taken place over the previous four days.

First, Sinn Féin announced that it would be supporting Catherine Connolly rather than putting forward a candidate of its own. That was followed by businessman Gareth Sheridan’s failure to secure the requisite support from local authorities.

There was a flurry of excitement in the final hours before nominations closed, as Maria Steen edged ever closer to the 20 signatures from members of the Oireachtas which the Constitution requires. But the conservative campaigner ultimately fell two names short.

As a result, the electorate now finds itself presented with the smallest field of candidates since the presidential election of 1990.

That is regrettable. A broader, more varied choice would surely have led to a more vigorous and wide-ranging debate, which in turn would have stimulated public interest and potentially increased voter turnout.

Steen’s supporters have been quick to blame her failure to secure a nomination on the main political parties, whom they accuse of shutting down democratic choice.

The charge is unfounded; between them, Connolly, Jim Gavin and Heather Humphreys command the support of nearly every party in the Oireachtas – almost 85 per cent of its members. The suggestion that parties with candidates in the field should ease the path of potential opponents reached absurd levels on Tuesday when it was suggested that Connolly herself might sign Steen’s nomination papers.

It should not shock anyone that political parties pursue their own electoral advantage in order to achieve the objectives they were set out up to accomplish. That, after all, is the proposition they presented to their voters.

Where Ireland differs from most of its international counterparts is in the number of Independents it elects. As a result, there were more than enough Independent TDs and Senators available to ensure Steen’s nomination. They chose not to do so, presumably for a variety of different reasons. That is why she did not succeed.

The fact that she came so close is largely due to the efforts of Peadar Tóibín, leader of Aontú, one of the smallest parties in the Oireachtas. In the end, he fell short, in part because the campaign itself began too late and ran out of time.

But there are lessons here for those who believe Irish political discourse is too narrow and that some voices are excluded. The remedy to that lies not in the kindness of opponents but in effective, organised and sustained political work.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Irish Times view on textile waste: what a load of rubbish

Published

5 hours ago

on

24 September 2025

By

Read more on post.

Ireland is the second largest producer of textile waste per head in Europe, second only to Belgium. We each consume 53kg of textiles each year – more than double the European average. To put the figure in context, a T-shirt weighs between 100 and 250 grams, and a winter duvet can weigh 3 kg.

It’s a lot of clothes, bedding and curtains to throw out and most of it goes in the bin, with only a third being recycled via clothes banks and charity shops. Given the dubious distinction of being one of the worst offenders when it comes to textile waste you might assume that we would quickly and wholeheartedly embrace new rules to reduce textile waste adopted by the European Parliament earlier this month.

Under the new directive, producers who make textiles available in the EU will have to cover the cost of their collection, sorting and recycling. The rules will apply to all producers, including online sellers, irrespective of whether they are established in an EU country or outside it.

The measures will be implemented through a producer responsibility scheme similar to the Re-turn system for drink bottles and cans set up by packaging and drinks companies.

Member states have 30 months from the directive’s entry into force to establish a scheme. There is, of course, no reason why it cannot be done sooner and every reason why it should be.

But if the Re-turn scheme is any guide, the Government will be in no rush when it finds itself caught between industry lobbying and fears the measure may push up prices.

The Single Use Plastic directive came into effect in 2019 but the Irish deposit-based scheme for recycling drink bottles and cans launched in February 2024. Many other European countries brought them in 20 years ago.

Despite initial teething problems, the Re-turn scheme has been supported by the public and has helped the industry meet its EU-mandated recycling targets. There is no reason to believe consumers will not support a textile recycling scheme sooner rather than later.

Continue Reading

Trending