An Imperiled United Nations

Author: Stephen Schlesinger

Author of Act of Creation about the UN’s founding, American historian, political commentator, and international affairs specialist. In the mid-1990s, Mr. Schlesinger worked with UN Habitat.

The American presidency has played a central role in the operations of the United Nations for all 80 years of the Organization’s existence. There are obvious reasons for this: the United States was the original architect and mastermind behind the founding of the institution; it was the only country with the wherewithal to organize such a body after the Second World War; it is the largest financial contributor to the Organization, paying most recently 22% of the UN’s regular budget; it is still the strongest nation on the planet with the world’s most powerful economy; and, as a recognition of its stature, the UN headquarters is in New York City.

American presidents have stayed directly involved in the Organization for the past 80 years in myriad ways. President Eisenhower, for example, pushed for the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Others, in turn, have been responsible for the creation of the UN agency UN Women, for funding the humanitarian work of the UN, for helping to set up the Millennium Development Goals, for backing the UN Relief and Works Agency, for upholding such singular entities as UNESCO and UNICEF, and for underwriting urgent peacekeeping missions.

Given its outsized standing, however, one wonders every time a fresh administration takes power in Washington, what the repercussions will be on the institution. This is very true now in our currently troubled times. In looking back through history, examining the various trade-offs, compromises, power struggles and conflicts that have long gone on between Washington, D.C. and the UN, one can gain some perspective on how the US has otherwise impacted the body. Not surprisingly, America’s influence on the UN’s war and peace decisions, on the selection of the UN Secretaries-General, on the financing of UN civil and military operations, and on the development of the body’s commitments can be inconsistent as well as powerful—far more than is true for any other member state. At the same time, the UN’s own unique role in providing, or not providing, legitimacy to US demands—as well as setting the norms that apply to all 193 participating nations—still plays a vital role in managing the world body.

However, in the 80 years of the UN’s existence, we are at an inflection point. Our current leader, President Donald Trump, some would say, poses possibly the gravest threat to the survival of the Organization at any time in its history, despite his pronouncements supporting the UN as an important forum for diplomacy. Indeed, no other American president’s actions have so upended the place. Sadly, let us count the ways. First, his budget for the UN for 2026 represents the largest reduction in US funding that has ever happened—so drastic that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has had to set up a so-called UN80 unit solely designed to handle the dramatic loss of monies from the USA. Trump’s 2026 UN budget announced last May cuts back by almost 83% the US’ legally-required dues to the body, its voluntary contributions to various important UN agencies (forcing some to leave New York for Kenya where rents are lower), and US repayment of its arrears, amounting to almost $4 billion.

Furthermore, he has already withdrawn US membership in and funding for a large swath of UN agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the Human Rights Council, UNICEF, UNESCO, UN Women, and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), among others. In deference to Trump, though, these moves are not particularly special to him—all previous Republican Presidents have also withdrawn from these entities. Still, such rejections on the part of the US seriously weaken these entities in their efforts to assist and improve societies around our planet. In addition, most importantly, Trump has been openly dismissive of the UN Charter itself, especially its provisions barring illegal interference in the affairs of sovereign nations. How? Most significantly, he has called for the possible US takeover of Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada, Gaza and Cuba—and has already directly attacked Venezuela and Iran with US forces without prior approval from the UN Security Council.

Now Trump, it is true, has not planned a total withdrawal from the UN. He has made clear that he still wants to keep the institution alive—albeit in a shrunken, less influential size. Apparently, the main reason for this is because he needs the UN’s worldwide platform, so, he can deliver speeches advising states on how they must conduct themselves and proclaim the magnificence of his “America First” policy. In addition, the UN also enables him to slap sanctions on countries he does not like, primarily North Korea and Iran. Lastly, he realizes that, without an American presence in the body, Russia or China will hold greater sway with delegates.

Where does that leave us today? This is a truly worrying moment. Trump has frankly put the skids under the Organization. In practically bankrupting the UN, Trump has tolled a proverbial bell. His rejection of the rules-based order from global trade policy to public health policy, to security policy, has shortened the UN’s writ, lessened its reach, diminished its moral authority, constricted its capacity to work for peace, and, in a perverse way, made the world confront a new reality—a return to the Darwinian universe of yester years, where might makes right—ironically the very hell-hole the UN was designed to deliver us from. As we mark the UN’s 80 years of existence and the 250th year of the existence of the United States, this is the challenge which the international community needs to reckon with today.