President Trump is set to address the United Nations General Assembly today, an occasion that often reignites debate among New Yorkers and many Americans about the rationale for U.S. taxpayer support of the international body. Critics frequently point to the organization's perceived mismanagement, recurring scandals, and its tendency to act contrary to American interests, questioning its ability to fulfill its core mandate.
Recent polling data from Gallup underscores this skepticism, revealing that 73% of Americans believe the UN performs poorly in "maintaining international peace and security." Similarly, 70% express dissatisfaction with its efforts in "upholding international law" and "protecting human rights." This represents a significant indictment of an institution that commands an annual budget of approximately $70 billion.
The UN's global standing, however, varies. Poorer nations, which form the majority of its membership, often view the organization more favorably, primarily seeing it as a conduit for financial assistance from wealthier states. Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, are noted for their strong support of the expansive body.
Reforming Financial Practices and Operations
Ambassador Mike Waltz, the Trump administration’s envoy to the UN, shed light on one mechanism of wealth transfer during recent Congressional testimony. He described how the UN allowed member states to leverage peacekeeping missions as a revenue source for their militaries. "Peacekeepers could bring equipment, park it, never use it, take it home brand new, and get it paid for by the UN," Waltz explained. These operations, which can involve "10,000 to 18,000 soldiers," incur "quite significant" costs. Waltz is actively working to terminate this practice, viewing it as a crucial step in reforming the UN, whose budget has reportedly quadrupled over the past quarter-century.
American apprehension is also fueled by the UN's voting record, which frequently opposes the United States or its ally, Israel. For 33 consecutive years, the General Assembly has voted to condemn the U.S. embargo on Cuba. For decades, it has also consistently opposed Israel's measures to safeguard its citizens from Palestinian militant groups. Ambassador Waltz has characterized the body as a "cesspool of antisemitism."
Beyond perceived hostility, the UN is sometimes criticized for what some deem as incongruous activities. A recent example includes an overwhelming vote to adopt a new global map that significantly exaggerates Africa's size, with the U.S. being the sole dissenting nation. Deputy U.S. Representative Yaryna Ferencevych, in a memo explaining the outlier vote, dismissed such resolutions as "barnacles on our work here." She further stated, "Instead of focusing on genuine problems of international peace… this body is debating map projects from the 16th century, and their role in promoting reparations and 'cognitive justice.'"
The UN's tangible impact on critical global conflicts is often questioned. Critics frequently ask what the organization has accomplished regarding the Russia-Ukraine War or in ensuring the continuous flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz. In both instances, the perceived answer is negligible.
Instead, the UN is seen by some as overly focused on issues like climate change and gender equality, which, while important to a globalist agenda, appear less directly connected to its foundational mission of peace and security.
Addressing Liquidity and Leadership
Compounding these issues, the UN has been grappling with financial instability. Last year, The Economist reported on a then-unreported $600 million (17%) cut to its $3.7 billion administrative budget, aimed at preventing a default. This included a hiring freeze, yet the report suggested it might not be sufficient due to a combination of unpaid member contributions and problematic budget regulations, leading to a liquidity crisis. The article also cautioned that a "leaked memo" suggesting the Trump administration might cut UN funding threatened a "financial crash in the citadel of peace and security."
The Trump administration has not sought to bankrupt the UN through funding withdrawal. Instead, it appointed Ambassador Waltz to spearhead necessary reforms. Waltz is reportedly "generally well-regarded, including among many Democrats on Capitol Hill," a rare commendation for an administration appointee.
Waltz's initiatives include rightsizing the UN's extensive workforce of 100,000 individuals, who, according to him, receive approximately 17% higher compensation than equivalent U.S. civil servants. During Congressional testimony a few months prior, Waltz detailed how his team secured a "historic 15% cut," amounting to $570 million from the UN’s regular budget, which would eliminate nearly 3,000 headquarters positions. This change alone has reportedly saved U.S. taxpayers $126 million. Waltz recently indicated that total budget cuts have now reached $1 billion.
Furthermore, Waltz is engaged in a comprehensive overhaul of UN peacekeeping operations, some of which, he notes, have been active for "30, 50 or even 80 years." While Waltz acknowledges the importance of such forces in creating space for political conflict resolution, he stresses that this cannot become "an excuse to not have a political resolution." He cited the example of a peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo that has been present for 30 years at an annual cost of a billion dollars, arguing that such long-term deployments should conclude.
Ambassador Waltz's reform agenda is still in its early stages, and implementing changes in such a vast and complex institution requires time, which may be limited. The UN is preparing to elect a new Secretary-General to succeed Portugal's António Guterres, who assumed office in 2017. Many of the announced candidates appear open to embracing the reforms advocated by the White House, seemingly motivated by concerns that President Trump might significantly reduce UN funding if substantial changes are not made and a U.S.-friendly official is not elected.
Financial leverage is not the administration's sole tool. Politico reported that when the White House established the Board of Peace last year to oversee the Israel-Gaza conflict, "U.N. officials and diplomats were really, really unnerved," viewing it as a potential "rival peacemaking institute."
However, the election process is unpredictable, given that permanent members of the Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—possess veto power over candidates. Should members fail to reach a consensus, Guterres' term could be extended by another year, which would likely diminish the Trump administration's influence over the outcome. Such a development could undermine the White House's objective to "Make the UN Great Again" and potentially prove detrimental to the organization itself.
