Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Key moments Trump addressed climate change in speeches
Executive summary
President Donald Trump has repeatedly used high-profile speeches in 2025 to reject mainstream climate science and promote fossil fuels — most notably calling climate change a “con job” or “the greatest con job” during his nearly hourlong address at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2025 [1] [2] [3]. His UN remarks and subsequent White House statements have been widely cited as a catalyst for the U.S. withdrawing from international climate forums (no senior U.S. officials at COP30) and for global leaders to call him out at COP30 in Belém, Brazil [4] [5] [6].
1. UN spotlight: “The greatest con job” — a defining moment
Trump’s September 23 UN General Assembly speech is the clearest, best-documented moment in 2025 when he directly attacked the premise of climate change, calling it a “con job” and using the platform to praise oil, gas and even “beautiful clean coal,” while criticizing multilateral climate efforts [1] [2] [7]. Major outlets — Reuters, CNN, TIME and PBS — all reported the same key line and the broader thrust of his remarks, showing this speech became the focal point for international reaction [1] [4] [3] [8].
2. Messaging and policy rolled together: speeches that echo administration moves
Trump’s rhetoric at the UN was consistent with contemporaneous White House policy statements and archival material showing prior decisions to exit or limit engagement with the Paris Agreement and related programs; the White House archive emphasizes ending implementation of Paris commitments and critiqued the Green Climate Fund [9]. Media trackers and advocacy groups also documented domestic rollbacks and administrative actions — including restrictions on climate language at agencies — that align rhetorically with his public speeches [10].
3. International fallout: absence and denunciations at COP30
Coverage of COP30 in Belém makes clear his UN speech had diplomatic consequences: the U.S. announced no high-level delegation would attend COP30, and leaders present explicitly criticized Trump’s stance, with some naming him in speeches [5] [4] [6] [11]. Reports described an environment where world leaders framed his comments as an antagonistic force against the Paris agenda and climate consensus [6] [4].
4. Media framing and rebuttals: scientists and journalists push back
News outlets covering the UN address and COP30 uniformly reported the scientific community’s disagreement with Trump’s claims; PBS and Reuters noted that scientists say climate change is real, primarily human-caused, and worsening, providing counterpoint to the president’s characterization [8] [1]. TIME and Renewable Matter highlighted delegates’ and experts’ alarm at what they called a “denialist” speech [3] [7].
5. Domestic politics and talking points: economy first, climate skepticism second
Trump tied his climate messaging to economic nationalism — arguing U.S. energy exports and traditional fuels make America “great again” and alleging international agreements harmed U.S. interests — a narrative reflected in his UN remarks and White House archive statements about jobs and costs tied to Paris obligations [3] [9]. Coverage suggests this framing aimed both at a domestic audience and at persuading other nations to loosen their climate measures [5] [1].
6. What the sources don’t show: gaps and limits in the record
Available sources do not mention every speech Trump gave on climate before or after September 23, 2025; the provided reporting focuses on the UN address, the White House archival statement on Paris, and the diplomatic shockwaves at COP30 (not found in current reporting). Detailed verbatim transcripts beyond quoted lines and internal administration deliberations about specific speech drafting are not present in the files provided (not found in current reporting).
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Mainstream outlets (Reuters, CNN, PBS) present scientific consensus and diplomatic concern in direct conflict with Trump’s rhetoric [1] [4] [8]. Opinion pieces and advocacy trackers (Climate Action Campaign) present the administration’s actions as rolling back protections and silencing climate language, reflecting an agenda to highlight harms from those policy changes [10]. Conversely, White House statements frame withdrawal as protecting U.S. economic interests and sovereignty, revealing an ideological and political motive to prioritize fossil-fuel–based economic arguments [9].
8. Why it matters: speech, policy and global coordination
The convergence of combative speeches and administrative policy has tangible diplomatic effects — reporters linked Trump’s UN speech and the U.S. decision to send no senior officials to COP30, while delegates used the summit to condemn his stance, showing how rhetoric can alter diplomatic participation and the tenor of global negotiations [4] [6] [5]. Those sources underline that public addresses function as both communication and policy signaling, with consequences for international climate cooperation [12].