Which world leaders publicly condemned Trump's insulting remarks and what did they say?
Executive summary
Several world leaders publicly condemned comments and policies by President Donald Trump across different moments in 2025, notably at the COP30 climate summit where Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Colombia’s Gustavo Petro and Chile’s Gabriel Boric attacked Trump’s climate stance as dangerous or dishonest [1] [2]. Separately, leaders criticised Trump’s trade tariffs—Australia’s Anthony Albanese called the tariffs “not the act of a friend” and said they “have no basis in logic” [3]. Reporting shows these condemnations cluster around climate and trade policy, and reflect both moral outrage and concrete economic concern [1] [3] [2].
1. Climate summit blasts: “against humankind” and “extremist forces”
At the COP30 climate talks in Belém, multiple Latin American leaders used their podiums to single out the U.S. president’s climate positions. Colombian President Gustavo Petro declared “Mr. Trump is against humankind,” framing Trump’s absence and policy direction as an existential threat to global climate action [2]. Brazilian President Lula warned of “extremist forces that fabricate fake news and are condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming,” language widely read as directed at Trump and his allies [1] [4]. Chile’s delegation and environment minister also accused opponents of falsifying science and called on others to ignore efforts to pull back from climate commitments [1].
2. Moral language and political theater at COP30
The rhetoric at COP30 was unusually personal and moralized: world leaders mixed policy critique with character assaults. Politico’s coverage emphasized leaders’ attempts to “isolate” the U.S. president and used tilted phrases such as “Trump is against humankind” to dramatize stakes for a fossil-fuel-driven economy [2]. Axios and the BBC reported similar condemnations, noting many speakers did not name Trump directly but left little doubt whom they meant [1] [4]. These statements serve both to pressure global audiences and to rally domestic supporters against U.S. backsliding on climate commitments [2].
3. Trade backlash: allies call tariffs “not the act of a friend”
When the White House announced sweeping reciprocal tariffs, allies reacted with sharp economic and diplomatic language. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the measures were “not the act of a friend” and that the administration’s tariffs “have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nations’ partnership,” signaling both offense and practical alarm among allies [3] [5]. Reuters reporting showed leaders across Japan, New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea condemned the moves, with some promising retaliation while others sought exemptions or talks [3].
4. Different registers of condemnation: moral outrage vs. transactional complaints
The available reporting shows two distinct patterns of rebuke. At COP30 the criticism was framed in moral and existential terms—leaders decried what they said were actions endangering future generations and global cooperation [1] [2]. On trade, the language was transactional and alliance-focused—leaders stressed partnership damages and economic consequences and pressed for negotiations or exemptions [3]. Both trends reflect strategic aims: climate critics seek to delegitimize policy direction; trade critics seek damage control and practical remedies [1] [3] [2].
5. U.S. response and counter-narrative absent or limited in these sources
Reporting notes a White House defense in reaction to COP30 attacks characterizing climate efforts as a “Green Energy Scam” and defending a “commonsense energy agenda,” but detailed rebuttals from Trump himself are not fully developed in the materials provided [4]. For the tariffs row, outlets reported some leaders still pushed for talks despite their public condemnation, showing a pragmatic streak in diplomacy even amid public denunciations [3]. Available sources do not mention extended direct responses from Trump to each leader’s rhetorical attacks beyond official White House statements cited in coverage [4].
6. Broader context: reputational and human-rights critiques
Beyond summit soundbites and tariff rows, several organizations and observers framed Trump’s actions as contributing to broader global trends. Amnesty International and human-rights reporting connected the administration’s policies to a worsening global human-rights context, arguing Trump’s approach “accelerates destructive trends” including climate neglect and rights rollbacks; that framing intensifies moral critiques beyond single speeches [6]. Polling from Pew Research indicates declining confidence in Trump’s international leadership across many countries, providing a quantitative backdrop to leaders’ public rebukes [7].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the provided search results and thus reflects reporting specifically about COP30, the tariff announcements and related commentary; other incidents and more detailed quotations are not included because they are not found in current reporting supplied here [1] [4] [3] [2].