how to make a good opening speech mun

How to write a MUN Opening Speech

With Examples

Writing an opening speech in MUN can be a bit challenging.

Common questions we get from delegates before going to a conference. “What should I say in my opening speech?” “Should I read out my Positions Paper?” “How do I take all the research I did  and fit it into a short opening speech?”

Before you start working on your MUN opening speech, you should know the topic, done some research, and preferably already have written a position paper . 

A MUN opening speech should cover the following:

• Problem The specific problem you want to solve – 1 line.
• Clash Solution – What you want to do about the issue – 1 line.
• Information Back up your views on the issue and solutions with facts from research . – 2 lines
• Action Solution Details – The step by step how to solve the issue. – 3 + lines

What not to do:

Do not repeat the problem . Everyone knows what it is. Repeating the problem is a great way to waste precious speech time. Your first sentence should be what you want to do. That is what the other delegates are more interested in.

Your first sentence should be a clear clash. To impact the committee it is not enough to bring vague ideas. There needs to be engagement between delegates and your ideas need to be discussed by others.

You know your idea is important when countries that oppose your idea fight against it while countries who are on your side support it. Other delegates’ ideas clashing with yours is what gives them both life and makes them interesting and relevant.

For this reason, a good MUN opening speech needs to have:

Information

Clash is your solution in one specific sentence. The Clash is framed as a two-sided solution which the other side can object to. Information is properly used facts. Call to Action is the policy you want to see implemented. The guide below will explain how the CIA formula works and how to use it to create your influential, informative, and rhetorically sound opening speech. Let’s get to it!

• Intro to CIA
• Opening Speech Structure
• Topic Types
• Opening Speech Examples

Introducing CIA

CIA is the foundation for any MUN opening speech. A strong CIA speech, will convey a clear and consistent message to your fellow delegates that you know what you are talking about and have a plan. Clear communication is the key to  successful MUNing in your committee. Missing your C lash, I nformation or A ction can result in confusion about where you stand on the matter and your outlook on how to solve the issue at hand. 

Just Remember CIA:

I nformation

C la sh – What you want to do in one specific sentence. .

I nformation – Relevant facts. numbers, that support your speech. Information can also be facts about your country that justify your position.

Call to A ction – How you will carry out the one line “what” you states in the Clash.

Before we explain how each part of CIA works, it is vital to understand clashing with at least a few other delegates is an important litmus test for how relevant your talking points are.

Why 100% Agreement = Irrelevance

A Model United Nations opening speech should present a problem, as you perceive said problem, and give one or more practical policy proposals on how you propose to solve it. However, if everyone agrees with you, no one will talk about your ideas.

When no one talks about your ideas, they will fade from the discussion. This is why your framing of the problem needs to clash with the world view of other delegates. The debate between you and those who oppose your ideas will keep both ideas alive. Hours later, if you find a compromise with the other side, you will get credit for making the biggest difference. If you cannot find a compromise, you get credit for sticking to your principles. In both cases, if your clash is central to what takes place in the committee, you will get the credit for shaping the discussion and bringing the ideas that led the direction the committee took.

This is why it is not enough to say what is correct, or even important. It needs to arouse some kind of response to remain relevant and important. Ideally, the way you frame the debate will be so relevant and well presented that the committee clashes along the lines you set and the rich and relevant discussion takes up a central place in the committee, or at least is relevant to enough delegates to keep it going as a secondary discussion. For this reason, the first part of your MUN opening speech is called a Clash.

What you want to do.

Clash definition: A confrontation of solutions.

We cannot censor people who incite violence in a country with freedom of speech. Vs We must censor people to ensure physical safety from those who successfully incite violence.

You cannot censor and not censor at the same time and there you have a strong clash.

For something to be a clash, delegates from your committee need to be on either side of it. If there are no two sides, the committee won’t debate it. Instead, your ideas will either unanimously go straight to the unimportant clause section of the resolution or fall entirely out of discussion. Either way, it will not be central to determining the direction the committee goes.

Examples of Clash:

Revoking asylum status for anyone who does not agree to get vaccinated at the border.

Advocating for megacities to have their own independent legal system.

The United Nations should fund water filtration in countries that suffer volcanic eruptions.

In all of these examples, there is a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. The answer to these questions will be the main one to divide the committee room.  

An idea that everyone agrees on is Off Clash . Off Clash statements (Like the Ebola virus is bad or tornados are dangerous) are a waste of precious speech time that could be further used to develop your Clash or Call to Action. (More on Clash and Off Clash in the expanded explanation below)

Which clash should you choose?

  Some topics have many possible clashes. In those cases, you should choose the one you feel will be most relevant to the discussion.

Committee : World Health Organization

Topic: Combating the Zika Virus

Clash 1: Increase the number of doctors sent to Peru to treat Zika.

Clash 2: Remove patent restrictions to let countries locally develop medicines to counter Zika.

Clash 3: Suggest countries around the world teach children about the world’s top deadliest diseases.

 The general concept of combating Zika is an Off Clash topic. No one will say the Zika virus is a good thing. To find the Clash you need to go one level deeper and decide what type of discussion will best serve our country’s interests.

It is clear that Clash 3 will save the least leaves and bring the least immediate benefit. It will also likely get little or no discussion time.

When choosing between Clash 1 and Clash 2, Paraguay would open for Clash 2, as creating generic medicines would be cheaper not only for fighting Zika but could also make medical treatment cheaper across the board. This idea would also be of interest to Angola, who faces similar constraints on creating generic medicines, even though they do not have the Zika virus. As a rule of thumb, it is better to choose a clash that is not only relevant to your country but many others can also agree with it.

Information = Hard facts that support your case

A strong MUN speech needs to have relevant facts and numbers that support parts of your speech.

Without information, your fellow delegates can only rely on your word, which might not give enough credibility to what you have to say. Numbers, names, dates and hard facts show what we are saying exists in the real world and is not an opinion. Numbers are the best form of information to use and the hardest to argue with.

No “Information”

The coral reefs are very important. Huge numbers of people who live near a reef. Corals also protect the shoreline of many countries. Also, many countries, like the US, and make a lot of money from tourism.

With “Information”

The coral reefs are very important. 962 million people (Roughly an eighth of the world’s population) lives within 60 miles of a reef. Additionally, corals protect 100,000 miles of shoreline in over 100 countries from being batters by the ocean’s force. The coral reefs also generating billions of dollars in tourism revenue. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service estimates the annual commercial value of U.S. fisheries from coral reefs to be over $100 million.

Which sounds smarter?

Information does not exist in a vacuum. There is no such thing as facts for facts sake. 

Information in a CIA speech should always do one of the following:

• Supports why your Clash is the most relevant
• Shows why your Call to Action is the most important
• Shows why your country has the position it does
• Disproves information brought by another delegate

Information in follow up speeches usually moves between these four. In earlier speeches the “I” focuses more on your own world-building and less on countering other countries. However, MUN simulation has a lot going on and the Information should be used, as deemed appropriate, on a case by case basis.

Call to Action (CtA) is a statement designed to give instructions for an immediate response.

In MUN, your CtA is the practical policy to solve the issue you set up in your clash.

Without a clear CtA other delegates will not know what to do with the Clash and Information you presented. Worse, they can use what you set up in your speech to justify other CtA’s.

A Call to Action needs to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time Bound (SMART). 

Your CtA needs to be specific as to:

• Where you will get funding from
• Which organizations will be involved
• What you will send

Clash: Let’s send teachers to the refugee camps in Ethiopia.

CtA : Hiring 300 teachers who specialize in teaching English and Math, to United Nations run high schools at the 3 refugee camps in the Tigray region in Ethiopia.

We can’t send “teachers” as we don’t know what types how many, where to send them or what they are going to do. However, when we look at the CtA, we can guestimate the cost of 300 teachers who specialize in English and Math and now know where to send them.

A good Call to Action explains the problem, the solution and what it’s going to do.

Specific actionable policy ideas will allow you to direct the discussion, and later take credit for the ideas when everyone else has the same general stance (ex. “humanitarian aid”).

Structure of an opening speech

The opening speeches at most MUN conferences are 60 seconds. 

However, you should ask your conference team if you are unsure about the opening speech times since this could differ. Take into considerations, a delegate could motion to change the opening speeckers time during the course of the conference or a chair could change the time due to other unforeseen reasons …. So  even if the opening speech is as short as 30 seconds, or as long as two minutes, the structure remains the same.

• Information – Sprinkled throughout

Call to Action

Clash breaks into two parts, clashline and explanation.

How to start an MUN opening speech

A good MUN opening speech goes straight to the point. The longer you take the more of a risk you run that they’ll find someone else to focus on like passing a note, writing an opening speech of their own, chatting to the delegate next to them, etc. Your strong opener is your Clashline.

Clashline – Your first few lines. It tells the listener what clash you want to focus on. Shouldn’t be more than 10 seconds.

Examples of Clashlines:

Syrian refugees who spent over three years in refugee camps should get work visas Countries should be responsible for their own epidemics The UN should send food aid to the people of North Korea

Clash explanation – Your next few seconds should explain why what you are speaking about is important by showing why your clash is the correct one.

Examples of Explanation: Clashline: “The UN should send unconditional food aid to the people of North Korea.” Explanation: “The leadership is stable and not looking to change any time soon. Life will continue the same for the elites as the people are starving. This is why the food should be sent now.”

This is a good example of getting straight to the point. Within four sentences we have a clear idea that human rights come second to the leadership of the DPRK. This clarity of Clashline and Explanation can be used in any MUN committee from the General Assembly, ECOSOC, DISEC, SOCHUM and WHO to the Security Council and even a crisis committee.

Information Facts in your speech always have a purpose. That purpose is almost always one of the following: – Show why your Clash is the most relevant – Show why your Call to Action will make the biggest difference – Explain why your country has the position it does – Disprove information brought by another delegate

Use of information to strengthen a speech

Clash: The UN should send unconditional food aid to the people of North Korea. Kim Jong Un is 35 years old. He’s not going anywhere anytime soon. At the same time, 10.5 million people, which is 41% of the total population, are undernourished. Life will continue the same for the elites as the people are starving.

You should describe your policy / solution halfway through your speech at the latest. This is because you need time to elaborate on your solution. No idea is clear in one sentence. You will need time to explain why it is important and why it is going to work.

Use of Call to Action

The United Nations should send 240 million tons of food aid to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. This food should be sent over two years. 30 million should be sent every three months as long as Kim Jong Un abides by the following.

• Regular scheduled UN inspections every six months.
• Surprise inspections are accommodated.

This text can be turned into clauses for a draft resolution. The main idea is clear.

Closing your Opening Speech

After your Call to Action, a summary sentence can be a nice way to close your speech.

However, this should not come at the expense of your content or important details of your Call to Action. Style should never trump substance.

What if you have extra time in my opening speech?

If you find yourself with extra time in your opening speech, and you used the CIA format in your speech.

Do the following:

• Elaborate on additional points you didn’t get enough time to introduce.
• Set up ideas that you can follow up in your next speech.
• Reinforce your main points.
• End your speech early if you really have nothing to add.

It should be rare to have extra time in your opening speech if you planned wisely, when you happen to find yourself with extra time use it strategically.

Types of MUN Topics

How it impacts your opening speech.

There are three types of MUN topics, Open, Semi-Open and Closed.

Types of MUN Topics:

Open Open topics are very broad and should be significantly narrowed to create the clash in an opening speech.

Example – Combatting the Slave Trade

This topic is very broad and could be about anything that has to do with slavery in the world today.  What does slave trade mean? It could be child slavery, forced labor or the sex trade. It could be placed in the developed world or developing world. It could be about countries of origin, transit countries or destinations. To be debatable the opening speech needs to move from the topic to something specific to set the Clash.

Semi-Open Semi-Open topics are similar to open topics and should be narrowed and focused. They have more direction than open topics but you are still required to choose from a few directions to set the clash.

Example – The right to the internet of children in developing countries

There is an understanding of what types of countries and populations that we’re focusing on but there is still work needed to set a Clash. What ages are the children? Who is providing the internet, government, the UN or an NGO? What about the devices to use the internet?

Closed topics have a clear main clash. Most, or all, of the countries in the committee will fall onto one side or the other. For closed topics, countries without a clear point of view still need to pick a side before they can begin discussing the issue.

Example – Sending aid to the people of North Korea.

While you still need to decide what types of aid, how much and what conditions, the question of “should we send aid” is a yes or no question that each country should have an opinion on and which strongly influences their starting point in the discussion.

You can learn more about the three types of MUN topics here.

Below are MUN opening speech samples for an open and closed topic.

MUN Opening Speech Examples

The following MUN speech examples show both good and bad opening speeches. After the speech, there will be a breakdown according to CIA and an analysis of the speech evaluating what worked, what didn’t and why.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

MUN Opening Speech Example – Open Topic

Committee: World Food Program

Topic: Eradicating Global Hunger

Country: Norway

Honorable chair distinguished delegates,

The first step to stopping starvation is improving access to clean water, critical for food growth. Half of the 800 million people without access to clean water live in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Kingdom of Norway believes that the WFP’s efforts should focus on community-oriented aid to promote self-sufficient living. Norway thinks self-operated water harvesting devices are a good way to do this. The University of Akron in Ohio developed a water harvester that produces 10 gallons of drinking water per hour from thin air. The UN should purchase, and distribute, water harvesters to the countries most in need such as Niger, Burundi and Mozambique. For the UN to ensure long term success, the WFP should transfer harvesters and not funds to the countries in need.

The Breakdown

The first step to stopping starvation is improving access to clean water , critical for food growth. Half of the 800 million people without access to clean water live in Sub-Saharan Africa . The Kingdom of Norway believes that the WFP’s efforts should focus on community-oriented aid to promote self-sufficient living. Norway thinks self-operated water harvesting devices are a good way to do this. The University of Akron in Ohio developed a water harvester that produces 10 gallons of drinking water per hour from thin air . The UN should purchase, and distribute, water harvesters to the countries most in need such as  Niger, Burundi and Mozambique . For the UN to ensure long term success, the WFP should transfer harvesters and not funds to the countries in need.

Clash – Improving access to clean water is how we tackle global hunger.

When asked in a question, “Does stopping starvation means providing access to clean water as the first priority?” Some countries will agree and some will not.

Information – 400 million people don’t have access to water in sub-Saharan Africa. (Numbers) Water harvester in the University of Akron produced 10 gallons of water per hour. (Numbers and names) Niger, Burundi and Mozambique are countries that could use this. (Names)

Call to Action – The UN should replace cash with water harvesters and give them directly to the people in need.

This Call to Action has two parts. In a follow-up speech, Norway can say that they give $975 million in aid to sub-Saharan countries. This can support why they want to make sure their investment is spent correctly. Also, even if the committee doesn’t go for water harvesters, or even water, the idea of not sending cash to the countries in need can still be central to the discussion.

Speech Analysis

Norway is hedging her bets and, while going in strong, leaves room to maneuver. The subtext of her case is countries should use whatever they are given responsibly and handing cash to governments is not an effective means. As long as whatever policy is chosen is done more responsibly (by what Norway considers responsible) she can still have a strong impact on the committee even if none of her policies go through.

MUN Opening Speech Example – Closed topic

Committee: International Organization for Migration (IOM)

Topic: Changing visa policy to combat illegal migration

Country: United Kingdom

Honorable chair distinguished delegates, 

The United Kingdom is strongly against making visa access easier. While the death of the 39 Chinese found inside a refrigerated lorry from Bulgaria on October 23rd, 2019 is regrettable, our only option is informing potential migrants of the danger to themselves.

Illegal migration into Britain is around 650,000—give or take a couple hundred thousand. Many of these enter countries on tourist visas and then stay. Changing the laws will only give smugglers more opportunities.

Britain proposes the UN create translated online platforms to apply for legal visas, while also showing the dangers of illegal migration. The UN should invest in the proliferation, so this information reaches the right people. The smugglers who get past our x-ray machines, canine units, heartbeat monitors and carbon-dioxide sniffers are extremely resourceful. If we loosen visa laws, they will adapt and continue to take money from the poor but now with the white hats, we handed to them.

Honorable chair distinguished delegates,  The United Kingdom is strongly against making visa access easier . While the death of the 39 Chinese found inside a refrigerated lorry from Bulgaria on October 23rd, 2019 is regrettable, our only option is informing potential migrants of the danger to themselves . Illegal migration into Britain is around 650,000 —give or take a couple hundred thousand. Many of these enter countries on tourist visas and then stay . Changing the laws will only give smugglers more opportunities.

Britain proposes the UN create translated online platforms to apply for legal visas, while also showing the dangers of illegal migration . The UN should invest in the proliferation , so this information reaches the right people. The smugglers who get past our x-ray machines, canine units, heartbeat monitors and carbon-dioxide sniffers are extremely resourceful. If we loosen visa laws, they will adapt and continue to taking money from the poor but now with the white hats, we handed to them.

Clash – Do not change the visa laws. Like at all.

Information – 39 victims inside a lorry from Bulgaria (numbers and names), Illegal migration into Britain + – 650,000 (number), x-ray machines, canine units, heartbeat monitors and carbon-dioxide sniffers (specific names of detection methods.)

Call to Action – UN online platform in local languages explaining the visa process and warning of dangers. UN should create a mechanism to make sure the platform reaches relevant people. (How to reach people needs elaboration in later speeches) 

This speech starts with the UK clearly stating that they are against changing visa status, which shows which side of the main clash he is on. He brings information which he knows those who want to change visa status to save lives will bring up and says, despite that, he is against.

The UK brings many new stakeholders into the discussion such as the resourceful smugglers and how most illegal migrants come with tourist visas and stay.

As draft resolutions are practical policies, it isn’t enough to be against changing visas. The UK also needs to propose something proactive. The online resource is a good policy proposal in that it gives the IOM sometimes to advocate for which does not require a change in visa law. All countries that don’t want to change their immigration policy can get behind this idea that does not really change anything. It’s a position that many countries could back and might even get a majority. By putting the focus on resourceful smugglers, the UK is moving away from the danger to human life by saying the real enemy is the smugglers, who will be empowered by changing visa law.

Examples of Bad MUN Opening Speeches

Example bad opening speech - #1.

Committee : ECOSOC

Country : Egypt

TOPIC :  Rebuilding the Middle East

We, the Arab Republic of Egypt believe that we should help rebuild the Middle East and specifically Syria .

While the 580,000 casualties of the civil war in Syria are extremely regrettable, the real victims are the people trying to stay alive in the conflict zone that is modern Syria. More than 6.2 million people are displaced . 13.1 million are still in need of humanitarian assistance . The estimated unemployment rate stands at 54 percent . Also, 83.5 percent of the 19,454,263 Syrians live below the poverty line . Cities have been engulfed in crime, police stations closed down and the overall police personal dropped from 100,000 officers to 20,000 . Rates of theft increased, with criminals looting houses and stores. To fix this problem we need to rebuild the Middle East by rebuilding Syria!

Clash – Rebuilding the Middle East = Rebuilding Syria 

Information – A lot of facts about how difficult life is in Syria.

Call to Action – There is none.

This speech starts with the clash going half way. It focuses the rebuilding efforts on Syria. This excludes Iraq, and other candidate states, but is also a fairly predictable option which could be expected from a majority of delegates (at least if the committee takes place late 2019).

After the place setting in Syria, the speech brings many facts. This shows research but a clear lack of focus. The facts shows life in Syria is difficult, but the knowledge that life is difficult for Syrians is something everyone in the committee probably knows. The information is scattered between those who need aid, those who are unemployed and the information about dropping police forces. There is no Call to Action to make use of the data so the listener is left with the conclusion that life in Syria is hard, which they knew before the committee began.

Furthermore, the information in this speech can be used to support almost any Call to Action, from sending emergency humanitarian aid workers throughout the country to giving 100% support to Bashar Assad to reassert full control. This is the danger in giving a speech with a sort of Clash, Information and no Call to Action. Anyone can use your facts to support their own agenda.

Example Bad Opening Speech #2

Country : Ireland

The Republic of Ireland declares that we need to rebuild the Middle East ! Ireland believes that we should take action against the war and apply sanctions against the rebel terrorists in Syria and even resort to military action if necessary to stop the war. Syria is in such a poor condition because of the west’s irresponsible behavior regarding the war. The millions who died and fled are directly our fault. This is the same level of neglect seen after the Vietnam war in 1975 , when we left over 2 million as the casualty count and fled to lick our wounds and rebuild ourselves. Once the war is over, we should send financial aid to rebuild Syria again and prevent any future wars from happening. 

Clash – Unclear. 1) Rebuild the Middle East (off clash), 2) Apply Sanctions against rebel terrorists in Syria, 3) Resort to military action.

Information – Vietnam war ended in 1975. Casualty count of over 2 million.

Call to Action – Send financial aid.

This speech is a mess of mixed messages. The Clashline is Off Clash, as there likely isn’t a country who would say they do not support the idea of rebuilding the Middle East (whatever that means). We then hear “we should apply sanctions against the terrorists in Syria” with no further explanation of how this will work or who they are. We then hear “resort to military action to stop the war” with no explanation about who we are taking action against. It could be the undefined terrorists mentioned before. It could be the Syrian army. It could be someone else.

The information in this speech is about the Vietnam war. The example is extremely dated, and the numbers undefined and possibly incorrect. However, the larger issue with the information is that it doesn’t serve a purpose. The west abandoning the Middle East is never even hinted at in the beginning of the clash. It also has nothing to do with the one liner Call to Action that comes later.

The Call to Action, if we can even call it that, has nothing to do with any previous part of the speech. If anything, sending aid is the opposite of sanctions and war, both of which have nothing to do with the American withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.

Overall, this is a confusing speech where each part sends a different message from the other parts. This speech is very open to highjacking by another delegate who will say that this speech supports their ideas. Another option is this speech is ignored. What is clear is the direction the committee takes will likely not be set by this speech.

Example Bad Opening Speech - #3

Committee : ECOFIN

Country : Peru

Topic : Responsible Usage of Arctic Resources

Peru believes that every Arctic country has the sovereignty to use their resources .

However, because of the climate changes, we should create a special committee that will discuss this subject and find ways to decrease the ecological damage. The Arctic region contains major reserves of uranium, copper, tungsten, gold, diamonds and most importantly gas and oil . In addition, it’s one of the largest freshwater reservoirs in the world. Climate changes and release of contaminants in the Arctic have potential to affect European and global weather patterns. The Arctic is particularly sensitive to the effects of global warming, and icebergs are melting at a rapid rate. Scientists fear that it will cause a significant rise in sea levels around the world, and that in the 20th of the 21 century there will be no ice zone at all during the summer.

Clash – Countries can use resources within their territory.

Information – Names of resources in the arctic and some more scattered data.

Call to Action – Create a special committee.

This speech starts with a pretty clear Clash, that countries who have access to the arctic can use their resources as they please. The next line contradicts the first and presents either an alternative Clash or a Call to Action in the form of creating a “special committee” to find ways to decrease egonolical damage (first time this is mentioned).  The rest of the speech is an array of information that doesn’t really point at anything. Some of it counts as Information in the form of new facts but most of what is said doesn’t really serve a purpose. At the end of the speech we are left wondering what was the point. From the third sentence the speech rambles on with no connection to the Clash or Call to Action which end up forgotten by the end of the speech..

Example Bad Opening Speech - #4

Country : Cuba

The Arctic states are completed and integrated by customary international sea law and several treaties. The Arctic includes areas of the national sovereignty. Cuba fully respects these sovereign rights and will be ready to play their role to confront global challenges with its scientific and technological expertise and leading companies to contribute to a sustainable Arctic development while respecting the ecosystem and indigenous people.

In this frame, Cuba expects the extending bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the Arctic, in the framework of international law to create a committee to cooperate in the following subjects : wider access of geo- strategic interest , scientific cooperation on climate change and environmental protection , economic expertise in the use of mineral resources , cooperation on human lives in extreme climate conditions .

Clash – None.

Information – None.

Call to Action – Create a committee to do basically everything.

This speech opening with what is clearly not a clashline. Cuba then says they “fully respect sovereign rights” and continue with a run on sentence (specifically how they will “ play their role to confront global challenges” using “scientific and technological expertise and leading companies” to “contribute to a sustainable Arctic development” while “respecting the ecosystem and indigenous people.”)

This delegate’s opening speech, unknowingly, tries to cover everything. The same can be seen in their call to action where the committee is created to do 5 separate things, which could each be an entire Call to Action in its own right.

This speech is hard to follow and tries to commit to so many different things. As a result, almost any other delegate can say that Cuba supports them. There are buzzwords like terms that have no clear link between them such as “sustainable Arctic development”,  “ecosystem”, “indigenous people” and more. Overall, it is a difficult speech to follow where the listener is left without a clear idea of what the delegate wants, unless if what they want is absolutely everything.

Country : Dominican Republic

The Dominican Republic says we have to take care of the arctic . It is important because there are many resources there which the world will be sad to lose. It also has endangered species.

We have not been careful with the arctic. Countries could also go to war over it. We need to be responsible. This means setting up mechanisms to protect the environment. We should also create treaties to protect nature and the natural resources there.

We owe it to our children and their children to take care of the arctic . We will have failed them if they ask us “why were you not responsible”. We need to be able to have an answer. As ECOFIN, we need to make sure the United Nations ensures that its member states use the arctic responsibly or do not use it at all. If we want an arctic when we are older we need to protect it today!

Clash – The clash in this speech is off clash.

Information – There are zero facts in this speech.

Call to Action – “take care of the arctic” which could mean anything.

This speech could have been written by someone who only read the name of the topic. Everything in it is general. No fact is present and no original idea is presented.

The only merit of this speech is that it can be read dramatically but even then there is nothing to remember except for lines like “we owe it to our children and their children to take care of the arctic.” At best, this speech shows eloquence and a knack for drama. What it does not do is set or drive debate in any way. Coming away from this you can assume no research was done and there is possibly a lack of understanding of how a MUN works.

Adapting Your Opening Speech in Real Time 

At this point, you should be able to understand the different parts of a MUN opening speech and how they work together. Inspired by the examples and opening speech analysis, the patterns and characteristics of a good MUN opening speech should be clear. The final part of the opening speech process is the modifications you will sometimes need to do to adapt your speech to the previous speeches that came before yours.

MUN RULE: Always ready to adapt in real-time. This rule applies to your opening speech.

Just because it’s your first speech , doesn’t mean it’s the first speech in the committee room. 

Ideas will come up from the very first opening speech in the committee. Once a delegate utters the words,“Honorable chair distinguished delegate” you should be ready to make a few modifications to your opening speech. Adapting  to the room and the ideas is key to success in MUN.

Factor in the speaking order

Opening speeches are usually heard alphabetically. Other options are reverse alphabetical , in order of seating or completely at random . 

Write your speech to build on top of others

Take note of the first letter of your country, write your speech with your place in the speaking order in mind. Countries with the letters A through C often give the first speeches, since not every committee has interviews countries with every letter in the alphabet. : )

(Remember although most conferences have opening speeches in alphabetical order, this is not a guarantee) 

The countries who start their opening speech have first crack at defining the terms, setting the Clash and introducing the first Calls to Action.

More delegates on your Clash = Better

If you are not the first delegate making an opening speech, it is very possible you will join an existing Clash. Joining other delegates with the same idea is not a bad thing. The more delegates who subscribe to your world view the better chance you have to get a majority.

Hearing your Clash by another delegate in previous speeches is a very good thing. This lays the foundation to start building your coalition already during the opening speech stage through a tactic called echoing .

If you are not the first delegate making an opening speech, think what is likely to have been said and add to it. It is very possible you will join an existing Clash. This is not a bad thing. The more delegates there are who subscribe to your world view the better chance you have to get a majority.

As long as it isn’t Off Clash, hearing your Clash in some of the previous speeches is a very good thing. This means you can start building your coalition already during the opening speech stage through a tactic called echoing.

Echo others

Echoing is mentioning another country by name in your speech. You can echo that you agree with them or disagree. You can directly quote or paraphrase. Echoing is not limited to opening speeches but it is a very potent strategy to use when you aren’t the first speaker.

How to Echo:

Echoing in an opening speech is usually best done right before your clash. You can also echo a country in the middle of your speech but it has a larger chance of getting missed.

Echoing in an opening speech can look something like this:

“Portugal agrees with Denmake, France and Haiti and disagreed with Russia and Pakistan.”

When you mention another country by name their ears perk up and they listen. You want allies and the opposing bloc to listen. You definitely want the countries you mention by name to listen.

Echoing in an opening speech needs to have a purpose. The purpose is usually to start putting your coalition together. Mentioning someone else in your speech grants you street credit with them. On a secondary level echoing helps set the Clash. Other countries will see that a number of delegates see your Clash as the issue to discuss and can choose to come on board, or at least acknowledge the Clash as something to be addressed.

If you are not one of the first speakers echoing it is also a way to show other delegates that you’re listening. If you mention countries who spoke at the beginning when you’re one of the later delages to speak, it sounds like your stopped listening at the beginning. It’s better to echo a country from the beginning, middle and a few speakers before you. This way the delegates in the room know your are attentive. 

Echoing other delegates as a way to communicate with them from within your opening speech. Those extra words can help you start building coalitions, and agreeing on what reality the committee is taking place in, before the opening speeches end.

Finally, remember that echoing is part of your word count . If you’re going to echo, factor that into your speech time. A strategy some delegates use is writing their opening speech with 10 words less than fits a minute to leave room for echoing.

Saying CtA Best > Saying CtA First

Some MUN topics have a limited number of policies that can be implemented. If you’re a further down the opening speech list it is very likely someone said your policy, or something like it. This too is a good thing. When the topic has only three or four viable policies, it should be expected that some ideas will repeat themselves.

If you’re dealing with an earthquake there are only so many ways to rescue people from under the rubble.

If you’re dealing with a virus, there are only so many ways to vaccinate and research an antidote.

This is why would should not worry about saying the Call to Action first. On some topics, if you’re the only one to say it, you likely have a much larger problem

This is where going into detail and SMART policy come into play. You can echo the other countries who mentioned your policy idea in one line and develop it. If they gave one line at the end of their speech but you take 25 seconds to explain, the credit will go to you.

Remember that your opening speech is not the end, it’s a beginning. The delegate who best develops the idea, and pushes it the furthest over time, is the one who gets the credit. Also, you don’t need to do it alone. Having one or two strong allies will make a big difference when it comes to getting your Call to Action a central place of the draft resolution. MUN is a team activity and there is no promise of an easy ride to a majority. That is also part of the fun and the magic that is MUN. Be open to working with others and see the other delegates who try to set your Clash or introduce your Call to Action as an opportunity. CIA alone is more work for you. Others joining and supporting  your CIA is the essence of cooperation and leveling up in Model United Nations.

There you have it. The secret to writing a great MUN opening speech. Remember, a speech alone is not though. You need to combine it with proper country representation , good coalition work, and resolution writing . However, if you give a bad opening speech you will need to work extra hard to catch up afterward. This can potentially be especially hard in an expert room.

You will also have to give other speeches after the first one. There are all types of follow up speeches that are needed to keep your CIA going. Once the ideas are out, their repetition is key to keeping your ideas on the table and yourself relevant. However, now that you gave a great opening speech, you have a much better chance to influence the direction the committee takes.

You should also use the tools of CIA speech writing to critically listen to others. Listen to hear what they are missing, whether it’s a Clash, a Call to Action or data to back it up. Write notes on their speeches and factor that into your general strategy.

The tools you gained here are relevant for high school MUN, college or university MUN as well as for other platforms that involve public speech. More importantly, these tools can also be used outside of MUN. After all, being relevant, interesting and driving conversation are even more important outside of a Model UN committee simulation. Make these tools second nature and they should serve you well for a long time.

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

How does MUN work?

The model un masterclass.

By award winning MUNers. For you. For free. Because MUN is about learning.

The basics. So you always know what's going on.

• Find definitions of all important terms in our MUN Cheat Sheet
• Read some real world UN Resolutions here .
• Read the rules of procedure of one of our partner conferences Karlsruhe Model United Nations (KAMUN) here .
• Deliver a 1-minute speech in front of a mirror on the topic Pizza vs. Burgers. Take into account the three essential speech guidelines of the General Speaker's List.
• What's the difference between being "present" and being "present and voting"? Show Answer
• What is a moderated caucus? Show Answer
• How can I ask the chair about how the rules of procedure work when in session? Show Answer
• What's the most important thing to know about MUN? Show Answer

How to prepare for your next conference without wasting time.

• Read some actual Security Council resolutions .
• Find country facts in the CIA World Factbook .
• Discover more about your country using the Freedom House Index .
• Discover background information on the topic of your next conference. If you're just practicing search for the current agenda of the UNGA Security Council resolutions and pick the first topic they are going to discuss.
• Discover who your allies are. If you are preparing for a specific conference search for allies of the country assigned to you, else find a random country here .
• Figure out your country's (approximate) policy on the issue and write a 300 word abstract about it.

How to overcome anxiety and deliver award-winning speeches.

• Our friends from Wisemee assembled a clever list of 20 tips for delivering speeches in Model UN here .
• On the UN Web TV page for the General Assembly you can find an archive of speeches. Finding one of the country you're representing can give you a great idea of what tone you might want to strike during your speeches too. UN Web TV .
• Watch this speech this speech by Barack Obama, by some considered the speech that made him president.
• Which elements can you use to deliver a great speech in MUN? Show Answer
• To get a sense for the time limit start by scripting and delivering in front of a mirror a 60s speech on why weekends should be three days instead of two.
• Deliver a 60s speech in front of a mirror on the topic of why coffee and tea should be drank out of mugs instead of glass cups. Give yourself no more than 90s to prepare and only note bullet points.
• Deliver a 90s speech on why it should be international law that every person in the world should have your favorite food at least once a week. Prepare for no more than 60s and only note bullet points.

How to write working papers and resolutions that hold up in committee.

• Find a list of operators used in UN resolutions here .
• A guide by the United Nations for drafting resolutions can be found here .
• The Security Council resolution Alex is looking at in the video can be found here
• What's the purpose of a position paper? Show Answer
• What is the difference between operative clauses and preambulatory clauses in a draft resolution? Show Answer
• In which three kinds of ways can amendments change operative clauses of a draft resolution? Show Answer
• Which questions should any operative clause answer? Show Answer
• Write an operative clause with the goal of trying to get member states to ensure that every fast food restaurant also has broccoli on the menu. It should answer all questions every operative clause should answer. Remember, no full stops are allowed in clauses. Example Solution

Public Speaking Tips

Writing and delivering speeches is an important aspect of the MUN simulation. Speeches help delegates convey the positions of their Member States, help build consensus and start formulating resolutions. Usually, the committee sets the speaking time, as the delegates make a motion to set the duration and if the motion has been seconded, the body then votes upon the suggestion.

Although speechmaking is very important to the MUN simulation, many delegates’ biggest fear is public speaking. It is essential that delegates come to the conference well prepared: meaning that they have completed prior research, know their country’s position, and even have objectives for a resolution.

Delegates should observe ‘decorum’ (i.e., be polite) when speaking. The opening of a speech should begin with: “Thank you- Honorable-Chair, Fellow delegates…”

An opening speech should include:

• Brief introduction of your country’s history of the topic
• Past actions taken by the U.N., Member States, NGOs, etc. to combat the problem
• The current situation of the topic
• Your country’s overall position on the topic/reason for position
• Possible ideas or goals for a resolution
• Whether there is room for negotiation on your position

As there are no set guidelines for how delegates should execute their speeches, delegates should decide how they feel most comfortable delivering their speeches. Some delegates utilize their position papers as their opening speeches, others just write out some key points, and many just speak without any aides. Since public speaking is a skill it is important to practice, practice, practice.

Remember the audience should always be considered when making a speech. Be aware of the audience and their diversity. The beginning of the speech must captivate the audience and motivate them to want to hear more. It must pertain to an audience’s interests.

Mr. Anthony Hogan, Model U.N. International, suggests the system of six “C’s” to improve your ability:

1. Confidence Confidence is portrayed by being as knowledgeable as possible on your subject and conveying this knowledge through the power of your voice and eyes. As a Model U.N. delegate, you are the authority and representative of your respective country. Research well and speak as if you know you are undoubtedly right. As the speaker, you must have confidence in yourself; otherwise, the audience will have little confidence in you.

2. Clear A speaker can do many things beforehand to assist them in speaking clearly. Write an outline of the topics that are going to be said, and follow it when speaking. Always speak slowly. This will allow the audience to hear everything that is said. Know your terminology well beforehand to avoid fumbling with words. Try to enunciate words properly.

3. Concise A good public speaker presents his/her points in a clean and clear-cut fashion. Unnecessary words and information should not be used to fill in the speech. The speech should be brief and to the point—say what you have to say. Do not ramble on about the topic in order to appear knowledgeable.

4. Constructive An effective public speech needs to be constructed properly. Start with a solid foundation that brings together all of your ideas, present your points, and then connect them by reviewing what was said. There should be an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. It is a known fact that three is a magic number. Say it once, say it and review it, then say it again. This method will help the audience to remember what was said.

5. “Con Passion” It is always important to speak from the heart—with passion—hence the Spanish term “con passion”. Always maintain eye contact with the audience. In doing so the audience will feel connected to you and your speech. This is what you want. You want to grab and hold the audience’s attention.

6. Critique It is better to critique than to criticize. Critiquing is constructive and allows for people to grow and improve. Criticizing brings peoples’ motivation and confidence down. A critique should be accepted positively since it is a tool that is used to strengthen one’s public speaking.

Some additional tips for effective public speaking

• ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY SPEECH FILLERS from your communication. Fillers are words and phrases such as “umm,” “well,” “it is sort-a like,” “it’s kinda like.” These take away from the message you want to convey. Some of the words and phrases to eliminate include: “you know,” “I think,” “I’m sorry,” “just,” “but,” “should,” “like,” “um,” and, “a,” etc.
• USE THE POWERFUL PAUSE. Do not be afraid to have a moment of silence between sentences. A pause, after thought, and prefacing a response to a question holds the attention of the listener.
• BREATHE from the diaphragm. Breathe deeply and often.
• PACE YOURSELF. Do not talk too fast or too slow.
• PHYSICALLY POSITION YOURSELF POWERFULLY. Be aware of your posture when you speak. Slouching, tilting your head, and crossing your arms or legs diminishes the message. Stand up straight, shoulders down, feet firmly planted, and knees unlocked.
• PROJECT YOUR PRESENCE. Your voice is the herald that carries your message. Speak from your diaphragm not your throat. Keep the sound in the low- to medium-range. This projects authority. Speak loudly enough to be easily heard. Focus on speaking with enthusiasm, and energy and create color with your voice.
• GESTURES. Do not be a statue. Consider occasionally exaggerating a gesture. Speaking from a platform is different than holding a one on one conversation. Use your whole body when you speak.
• CONNECT WITH YOUR AUDIENCE. Use a lot of eye contact. Speak directly to individual members of the audience. Do not take your eyes off your audience or focus on a point over their heads.
• COMMUNICATE CONFIDENCE. Make a conscious effort to project yourself confidently. This is as important as the message.

[Source: MKCMUN]

• Our Mission
• Our Programs
• Fees and Aid
• Conference Schedule
• Guide to Chicago
• MUNUC 36 Awards
• Position Papers
• Traditional Committee Trainings
• Specialized Committee Trainings
• Hybrid Committee Trainings
• Crisis Committee Trainings
• Become a Sponsor
• International Programs
• CHPMUNC Program

How Do I Give Speeches in MUN?

There are a few ways of making sure your MUN speeches are as strong as possible:

Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any questions. We are eager to help in any way we can.

You can also call us at  (773) 834-0547  or fax us at (773) 834-0548 (please address all faxes to MUNUC).

• NAME * NAME
• EMAIL ADDRESS * EMAIL ADDRESS
• PURPOSE OF CONTACT * General Inquiries Committee Questions Partnerships/Sponsorships Registration and Fees Technology Issues PURPOSE OF CONTACT
• SUBJECT * SUBJECT
• MESSAGE * MESSAGE
• General Assembly
• Economic and Social Council
• Regional Bodies
• Specialized Agencies
• Hybrid Committees
• Continuous Crisis
• Ad Hoc Committee of the Secretary-General
• Online Non-Traditional
• Online Continuous Crisis
• Online Traditional (Large)
• Online Traditional (Medium)

404 Not found

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand

The porn star testified for eight hours at donald trump’s hush-money trial. this is how it went..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

It’s 6:41 AM. I’m feeling a little stressed because I’m running late. It’s the fourth week of Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial. It’s a white collar trial. Most of the witnesses we’ve heard from have been, I think, typical white collar witnesses in terms of their professions.

We’ve got a former publisher, a lawyer, accountants. The witness today, a little less typical, Stormy Daniels, porn star in a New York criminal courtroom in front of a jury more accustomed to the types of witnesses they’ve already seen. There’s a lot that could go wrong.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

Today, what happened when Stormy Daniels took the stand for eight hours in the first criminal trial of Donald J. Trump. As before, my colleague Jonah Bromwich was inside the courtroom.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

It’s Friday, May 10th.

So it’s now day 14 of this trial. And I think it’s worth having you briefly, and in broad strokes, catch listeners up on the biggest developments that have occurred since you were last on, which was the day that opening arguments were made by both the defense and the prosecution. So just give us that brief recap.

Sure. It’s all been the prosecution’s case so far. And prosecutors have a saying, which is that the evidence is coming in great. And I think for this prosecution, which is trying to show that Trump falsified business records to cover up a sex scandal, to ease his way into the White House in 2016, the evidence has been coming in pretty well. It’s come in well through David Pecker, former publisher of The National Enquirer, who testified that he entered into a secret plot with Trump and Michael Cohen, his fixer at the time, to suppress negative stories about Trump, the candidate.

It came in pretty well through Keith Davidson, who was a lawyer to Stormy Daniels in 2016 and negotiated the hush money payment. And we’ve seen all these little bits and pieces of evidence that tell the story that prosecutors want to tell. And the case makes sense so far. We can’t tell what the jury is thinking, as we always say.

But we can tell that there’s a narrative that’s coherent and that matches up with the prosecution’s opening statement. Then we come to Tuesday. And that day really marks the first time that the prosecution’s strategy seems a little bit risky because that’s the day that Stormy Daniels gets called to the witness stand.

OK, well, just explain why the prosecution putting Stormy Daniels on the stand would be so risky. And I guess it makes sense to answer that in the context of why the prosecution is calling her as a witness at all.

Well, you can see why it makes sense to have her. The hush money payment was to her. The cover-up of the hush money payment, in some ways, concerns her. And so she’s this character who’s very much at the center of this story. But according to prosecutors, she’s not at the center of the crime. The prosecution is telling a story, and they hope a compelling one. And arguably, that story starts with Stormy Daniels. It starts in 2006, when Stormy Daniels says that she and Trump had sex, which is something that Trump has always denied.

So if prosecutors were to not call Stormy Daniels to the stand, you would have this big hole in the case. It would be like, effect, effect, effect. But where is the cause? Where is the person who set off this chain reaction? But Stormy Daniels is a porn star. She’s there to testify about sex. Sex and pornography are things that the jurors were not asked about during jury selection. And those are subjects that bring up all kinds of different complex reactions in people.

And so, when the prosecutors bring Stormy Daniels to the courtroom, it’s very difficult to know how the jurors will take it, particularly given that she’s about to describe a sexual episode that she says she had with the former president. Will the jurors think that makes sense, as they sit here and try to decide a falsifying business records case, or will they ask themselves, why are we hearing this?

So the reason why this is the first time that the prosecution’s strategy is, for journalists like you, a little bit confusing, is because it’s the first time that the prosecution seems to be taking a genuine risk in what they’re putting before these jurors. Everything else has been kind of cut and dry and a little bit more mechanical. This is just a wild card.

This is like live ammunition, to some extent. Everything else is settled and controlled. And they know what’s going to happen. With Stormy Daniels, that’s not the case.

OK, so walk us through the testimony. When the prosecution brings her to the stand, what actually happens?

It starts, as every witness does, with what’s called direct examination, which is a fancy word for saying prosecutors question Stormy Daniels. And they have her tell her story. First, they have her tell the jury about her education and where she grew up and her professional experience. And because of Stormy Daniels’s biography, that quickly goes into stripping, and then goes into making adult films.

And I thought the prosecutor who questioned her, Susan Hoffinger, had this nice touch in talking about that, because not only did she ask Daniels about acting in adult films. But she asked her about writing and directing them, too, emphasizing the more professional aspects of that work and giving a little more credit to the witness, as if to say, well, you may think this or you may think that. But this is a person with dignity who took what she did seriously. Got it.

What’s your first impression of Daniels as a witness?

It’s very clear that she’s nervous. She’s speaking fast. She’s laughing to herself and making small jokes. But the tension in the room is so serious from the beginning, from the moment she enters, that those jokes aren’t landing. So it just feels, like, really heavy and still and almost oppressive in there. So Daniels talking quickly, seeming nervous, giving more answers than are being asked of her by the prosecution, even before we get to the sexual encounter that she’s about to describe, all of that presents a really discomfiting impression, I would say.

And how does this move towards the encounter that Daniels ultimately has?

It starts at a golf tournament in 2006, in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Daniels meets Trump there. There are other celebrities there, too. They chatted very briefly. And then she received a dinner invitation from him. She thought it over, she says. And she goes to have dinner with Trump, not at a restaurant, by the way. But she’s invited to join him in the hotel suite.

So she gets to the hotel suite. And his bodyguard is there. And the hotel door is cracked open. And the bodyguard greets her and says she looks nice, this and that. And she goes in. And there’s Donald Trump, just as expected. But what’s not expected, she says, is that he’s not wearing what you would wear to a dinner with a stranger, but instead, she says, silk or satin pajamas. She asked him to change, she says. And he obliges.

He goes, and he puts on a dress shirt and dress pants. And they sit down at the hotel suite’s dining room table. And they have a kind of bizarre dinner. Trump is asking her very personal questions about pornography and safe sex. And she testifies that she teased him about vain and pompous he is. And then at some point, she goes to the bathroom. And she sees that he has got his toiletries in there, his Old Spice, his gold tweezers.

Very specific details.

Yeah, we’re getting a ton of detail in this scene. And the reason we’re getting those is because prosecutors are trying to elicit those details to establish that this is a credible person, that this thing did happen, despite what Donald Trump and his lawyers say. And the reason you can know it happened, prosecutors seem to be saying, is because, look at all these details she can still summon up.

She comes out of the bathroom. And she says that Donald Trump is on the hotel bed. And what stands out to me there is what she describes as a very intense physical reaction. She says that she blacked out. And she quickly clarifies, she doesn’t mean from drugs or alcohol. She means that, she says, that the intensity of this experience was such that, suddenly, she can’t remember every detail. The prosecution asks a question that cuts directly to the sex. Essentially, did you start having sex with him? And Daniels says that she did. And she continues to provide more details than even, I think, the prosecution wanted.

And I think we don’t want to go chapter and verse through this claimed sexual encounter. But I wonder what details stand out and which details feel important, given the prosecution’s strategy here.

All the details stand out because it’s a story about having had sex with a former president. And the more salacious and more private the details feel, the more you’re going to remember them. So we’ll remember that Stormy Daniels said what position they had sex in. We’ll remember that she said he didn’t use a condom. Whether that’s important to the prosecution’s case, now, that’s a much harder question to answer, as we’ve been saying.

But what I can tell you is, as she’s describing having had sex with Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is sitting right there, and Eric Trump, his son, is sitting behind him, seeming to turn a different color as he hears this embarrassment of his father being described to a courtroom full of reporters at this trial, it’s hard to even describe the energy in that room. It was like nothing I had ever experienced. And it was just Daniels’s testimony and, seemingly, the former President’s emotions. And you almost felt like you were trapped in there with both of them as this description was happening.

Well, I think it’s important to try to understand why the prosecution is getting these details, these salacious, carnal, pick your word, graphic details about sex with Donald Trump. What is the value, if other details are clearly making the point that she’s recollecting something?

Well, I think, at this point, we can only speculate. But one thing we can say is, this was uncomfortable. This felt bad. And remember, prosecutor’s story is not about the sex. It’s about trying to hide the sex. So if you’re trying to show a jury why it might be worthwhile to hide a story, it might be worth —

Providing lots of salacious details that a person would want to hide.

— exposing them to how bad that story feels and reminding them that if they had been voters and they had heard that story, and, in fact, they asked Daniels this very question, if you hadn’t accepted hush money, if you hadn’t signed that NDA, is this the story you would have told? And she said, yes. And so where I think they’re going with this, but we can’t really be sure yet, is that they’re going to tell the jurors, hey, that story, you can see why he wanted to cover that up, can’t you?

You mentioned the hush money payments. What testimony does Daniels offer about that? And how does it advance the prosecution’s case of business fraud related to the hush money payments?

So little evidence that it’s almost laughable. She says that she received the hush money. But we actually already heard another witness, her lawyer at the time, Keith Davidson, testify that he had received the hush money payment on her behalf. And she testified about feeling as if she had to sell this story because the election was fast approaching, almost as if her leverage was slipping away because she knew this would be bad for Trump.

That feels important. But just help me understand why it’s important.

Well, what the prosecution has been arguing is that Trump covered up this hush money payment in order to conceal a different crime. And that crime, they say, was to promote his election to the presidency by illegal means.

Right, we’ve talked about this in the past.

So when Daniels ties her side of the payment into the election, it just reminds the jurors maybe, oh, right, this is what they’re arguing.

So how does the prosecution end this very dramatic, and from everything you’re saying, very tense questioning of Stormy Daniels about this encounter?

Well, before they can even end, the defense lawyers go and they consult among themselves. And then, with the jury out of the room, one of them stands up. And he says that the defense is moving for a mistrial.

On what terms?

He says that the testimony offered by Daniels that morning is so prejudicial, so damning to Trump in the eyes of the jury, that the trial can no longer be fair. Like, how could these jurors have heard these details and still be fair when they render their verdict? And he says a memorable expression. He says, you can’t un-ring that bell, meaning they heard it. They can’t un-hear it. It’s over. Throw out this trial. It should be done.

Wow. And what is the response from the judge?

So the judge, Juan Merchan, he hears them out. And he really hears them out. But at the end of their arguments, he says, I do think she went a little too far. He says that. He said, there were things that were better left unsaid.

By Stormy Daniels?

By Stormy Daniels. And he acknowledges that she is a difficult witness. But, he says, the remedy for that is not a mistrial, is not stopping the whole thing right now. The remedy for that is cross-examination. If the defense feels that there are issues with her story, issues with her credibility, they can ask her whatever they want. They can try to win the jury back over. If they think this jury has been poisoned by this witness, well, this is their time to provide the antidote. The antidote is cross-examination. And soon enough, cross-examination starts. And it is exactly as intense and combative as we expected.

We’ll be right back.

So, Jonah, how would you characterize the defense’s overall strategy in this intense cross-examination of Stormy Daniels?

People know the word impeach from presidential impeachments. But it has a meaning in law, too. You impeach a witness, and, specifically, their credibility. And that’s what the defense is going for here. They are going to try to make Stormy Daniels look like a liar, a fraud, an extortionist, a money-grubbing opportunist who wanted to take advantage of Trump and sought to do so by any means necessary.

And what did that impeachment strategy look like in the courtroom?

The defense lawyer who questions Stormy Daniels is a woman named Susan Necheles. She’s defended Trump before. And she’s a bit of a cross-examination specialist. We even saw her during jury selection bring up these past details to confront jurors who had said nasty things about Trump on social media with. And she wants to do the same thing with Daniels. She wants to bring up old interviews and old tweets and things that Daniels has said in the past that don’t match what Daniels is saying from the stand.

What’s a specific example? And do they land?

Some of them land. And some of them don’t. One specific example is that Necheles confronts Daniels with this old tweet, where Daniels says that she’s going to dance down the street if Trump goes to jail. And what she’s trying to show there is that Daniels is out for revenge, that she hates Trump, and that she wants to see him go to jail. And that’s why she’s testifying against him.

And Daniels is very interesting during the cross-examination. It’s almost as if she’s a different person. She kind of squares her shoulders. And she sits up a little straighter. And she leans forward. Daniels is ready to fight. But it doesn’t quite land. The tweet actually says, I’ll dance down the street when he’s selected to go to jail.

And Daniels goes off on this digression about how she knows that people don’t get selected to go to jail. That’s not how it works. But she can’t really unseat this argument, that she’s a political enemy of Donald Trump. So that one kind of sticks, I would say. But there are other moves that Necheles tries to pull that don’t stick.

So unlike the prosecution, which typically used words like adult, adult film, Necheles seems to be taking every chance she can get to say porn, or pornography, or porn star, to make it sound base or dirty. And so when she starts to ask Daniels about actually being in pornography, writing, acting, and directing sex films, she tries to land a punch line, Necheles does. She says, so you have a lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real, right?

As if to say, perhaps this story you have told about entering Trump’s suite in Lake Tahoe and having sex with him was made up.

Just another one of your fictional stories about sex. But Daniels comes back and says, the sex in the films, it’s very much real, just like what happened to me in that room. And so, when you have this kind of combat of a lawyer cross-examining very aggressively and the witness fighting back, you can feel the energy in the room shift as one lands a blow or the other does. But here, Daniels lands one back. And the other issue that I think Susan Necheles runs into is, she tries to draw out disparities from interviews that Daniels gave, particularly to N-TOUCH, very early on once the story was out.

It’s kind of like a tabloid magazine?

But some of the disparities don’t seem to be landing quite like Necheles would want. So she tries to do this complicated thing about where the bodyguard was in the room when Daniels walked into the room, as described in an interview in a magazine. But in that magazine interview, as it turns out, Daniels mentioned that Trump was wearing pajamas. And so, if I’m a juror, I don’t care where the bodyguard is. I’m thinking about, oh, yeah, I remember that Stormy Daniels said now in 2024 that Trump was wearing pajamas.

I’m curious if, as somebody in the room, you felt that the defense was effective in undermining Stormy Daniels’s credibility? Because what I took from the earlier part of our conversation was that Stormy Daniels is in this courtroom on behalf of the prosecution to tell a story that’s uncomfortable and has the kind of details that Donald Trump would be motivated to try to hide. And therefore, this defense strategy is to say, those details about what Trump might want to hide, you can’t trust them. So does this back and forth effectively hurt Stormy Daniels’s credibility, in your estimation?

I don’t think that Stormy Daniels came off as perfectly credible about everything she testified about. There are incidents that were unclear or confusing. There were things she talked about that I found hard to believe, when she, for instance, denied that she had attacked Trump in a tweet or talked about her motivations. But about what prosecutors need, that central story, the story of having had sex with him, we can’t know whether it happened.

But there weren’t that many disparities in these accounts over the years. In terms of things that would make me doubt the story that Daniels was telling, details that don’t add up, those weren’t present. And you don’t have to take my word for that, nor should you. But the judge is in the room. And he says something very, very similar.

What does he say? And why does he say it?

Well, he does it when the defense, again, at the end of the day on Thursday, calls for a mistrial.

With a similar argument as before?

Not only with a similar argument as before, but, like, almost the exact same argument. And I would say that I was astonished to see them do this. But I wasn’t because I’ve covered other trials where Trump is the client. And in those trials, the lawyers, again and again, called for a mistrial.

And what does Judge Marchan say in response to this second effort to seek a mistrial?

Let me say, to this one, he seems a little less patient. He says that after the first mistrial ruling, two days before, he went into his chambers. And he read every decision he had made about the case. He took this moment to reflect on the first decision. And he found that he had, in his own estimation, which is all he has, been fair and not allowed evidence that was prejudicial to Trump into this trial. It could continue. And so he said that again. And then he really almost turned on the defense. And he said that the things that the defense was objecting to were things that the defense had made happen.

He says that in their opening statement, the defense could have taken issue with many elements of the case, about whether there were falsified business records, about any of the other things that prosecutors are saying happened. But instead, he says, they focused their energy on denying that Trump ever had sex with Daniels.

And so that was essentially an invitation to the prosecution to call Stormy Daniels as a witness and have her say from the stand, yes, I had this sexual encounter. The upshot of it is that the judge not only takes the defense to task. But he also just says that he finds Stormy Daniels’s narrative credible. He doesn’t see it as having changed so much from year to year.

Interesting. So in thinking back to our original question here, Jonah, about the idea that putting Stormy Daniels on the stand was risky, I wonder if, by the end of this entire journey, you’re reevaluating that idea because it doesn’t sound like it ended up being super risky. It sounded like it ended up working reasonably well for the prosecution.

Well, let me just assert that it doesn’t really matter what I think. The jury is going to decide this. There’s 12 people. And we can’t know what they’re thinking. But my impression was that, while she was being questioned by the prosecution for the prosecution’s case, Stormy Daniels was a real liability. She was a difficult witness for them.

And the judge said as much. But when the defense cross-examined her, Stormy Daniels became a better witness, in part because their struggles to discredit her may have actually ended up making her story look more credible and stronger. And the reason that matters is because, remember, we said that prosecutors are trying to fill this hole in their case. Well, now, they have. The jury has met Stormy Daniels. They’ve heard her account. They’ve made of it what they will. And now, the sequence of events that prosecutors are trying to line up as they seek prison time for the former President really makes a lot of sense.

It starts with what Stormy Daniels says with sex in a hotel suite in 2006. It picks up years later, as Donald Trump is trying to win an election and, prosecutors say, suppressing negative stories, including Stormy Daniels’s very negative story. And the story that prosecutors are telling ends with Donald Trump orchestrating the falsification of business records to keep that story concealed.

Well, Jonah, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Of course, thanks for having me.

The prosecution’s next major witness will be Michael Cohen, the former Trump fixer who arranged for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen is expected to take the stand on Monday.

Here’s what else you need to know today. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a defiant response to warnings from the United States that it would stop supplying weapons to Israel if Israel invades the Southern Gaza City of Rafah. So far, Israel has carried out a limited incursion into the city where a million civilians are sheltering, but has threatened a full invasion. In a statement, Netanyahu said, quote, “if we need to stand alone, we will stand alone.”

Meanwhile, high level ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas have been put on hold in part because of anger over Israel’s incursion into Rafah.

A reminder, tomorrow, we’ll be sharing the latest episode of our colleague’s new show, “The Interview” This week on “The Interview,” Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with radio host Charlamagne Tha God about his frustrations with how Americans talk about politics.

If me as a Black man, if I criticize Democrats, then I’m supporting MAGA. But if I criticize, you know, Donald Trump and Republicans, then I’m a Democratic shill. Why can’t I just be a person who deals in nuance?

Today’s episode was produced by Olivia Natt and Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Lexie Diao, with help from Paige Cowett, contains original music by Will Reid and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.

• May 17, 2024   •   51:10 The Campus Protesters Explain Themselves
• May 16, 2024   •   30:47 The Make-or-Break Testimony of Michael Cohen
• May 15, 2024   •   27:03 The Possible Collapse of the U.S. Home Insurance System
• May 14, 2024   •   35:20 Voters Want Change. In Our Poll, They See It in Trump.
• May 13, 2024   •   27:46 How Biden Adopted Trump’s Trade War With China
• May 10, 2024   •   27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand
• May 9, 2024   •   34:42 One Strongman, One Billion Voters, and the Future of India
• May 8, 2024   •   28:28 A Plan to Remake the Middle East
• May 7, 2024   •   27:43 How Changing Ocean Temperatures Could Upend Life on Earth
• May 6, 2024   •   29:23 R.F.K. Jr.’s Battle to Get on the Ballot
• May 3, 2024   •   25:33 The Protesters and the President
• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Jonah E. Bromwich

Produced by Olivia Natt and Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Lexie Diao

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Will Reid and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

This episode contains descriptions of an alleged sexual liaison.

What happened when Stormy Daniels took the stand for eight hours in the first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump?

Jonah Bromwich, one of the lead reporters covering the trial for The Times, was in the room.

On today’s episode

Jonah E. Bromwich , who covers criminal justice in New York for The New York Times.

Background reading

In a second day of cross-examination, Stormy Daniels resisted the implication she had tried to shake down Donald J. Trump by selling her story of a sexual liaison.

Here are six takeaways from Ms. Daniels’s earlier testimony.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney’s office and state criminal courts in Manhattan. More about Jonah E. Bromwich

Advertisement