US Withdrawal From UN Does Not Serve America’s Interests
Since his inauguration, President Donald J. Trump has wasted no time telegraphing his domestic and international priorities for the next four years.
As his second term commences, much coverage has naturally centered around the president’s positions on immigration, trade, energy, and ending wars abroad. As a seasoned executive, he is already expediently implementing priorities in such areas via executive orders and other measures.
Yet, two of the president’s first actions after taking office also included announcing renewed plans to quit the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Those initial actions were complemented by the United States rejoining the Geneva Consensus Declaration and reinstating an expanded Mexico City Policy, which prohibits international non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortion from receiving federal funding, pausing all foreign aid for 90 days, and shuttering the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) due to concerns of fraud and abuse.
Given this flurry of activity, more attention than ever is also now being paid to potential reforms in both U.S. policy in official development assistance (ODA) and multilateral institutions of which the United States is a member, such as the United Nations.
During his first term, President Trump was generally critical of the UN and wary of multilateralism. Prominent actions during his last term included withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal). The first two actions were recently announced yet again via Executive Order.
Such precedents may partly be attributed to the president’s concerns, perhaps not altogether unjustified, regarding selectivity and bias at the UN and opaqueness regarding its expenditures. He may also have been sympathetic to criticism that elements within the UN system and the foreign aid industrial complex promoted ideological colonialism contrary to state sovereignty.
On the other hand, some of the president’s announced or confirmed appointees – from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to U.S. Ambassador to the UN Elise Stefanik – suggest a desire not to deviate from America’s prominent role on the world stage and push back against adopting an exclusively isolationist position. Indeed, nominee Rep. Elise Stefanik said at her confirmation hearing that she shares President Trump’s vision of ensuring strong American leadership at a reformed UN:
The purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations based on a shared respect for the principle of equal rights, solve international problems, and harmonize the actions of nations in the attainment of common ends. The UN has not lived up to this founding mission and we must demand better.
Somewhere on this continuum, much can be done to ensure that the United States’ continued participation in multilateral institutions and funding for international programs and initiatives is conducive to accomplishing the president’s foreign policy priorities, assuaging allies, and reforming international institutions to meet 21st-century challenges.
While Article II of the U.S. Constitution grants the president various powers in foreign affairs, Article I directs that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress. In this case, the president may have willing partners, albeit with narrow majorities, in the legislature.
Although other countries and private sector donors play an important role in funding the UN and international programs, the United States’ support remains significant. In 2023, the U.S. contributed $64.69 billion in total ODA.
U.S. funding to the United Nations and its bodies is authorized under the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and also included in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Congress generally appropriates such funding through three accounts in the annual State Department and Foreign Operations appropriations bill.
In 2023, the U.S. contributed almost $13 billion to the UN in both assessed contributions (required dues) and voluntary contributions, making it the single largest contributor by volume.
Under Article 17 of the UN Charter, the General Assembly approves the organization’s budget and apportions expenses. Article 19 threatens the loss of voting privileges for those Member States in arrears of payment.
The UN General Assembly’s Committee on Contributions recommends setting the scale of assessments based on a country’s economic data. U.S. assessments historically ranged from almost 40% post-World War II to around 22% today.
American conservatives have long argued that U.S. contributions have not always translated into improved UN working methods, or effective or adequate reforms in its various organs, mechanisms, and processes, or addressing fraud, abuse, and corruption in humanitarian assistance and development programming. However, there is some bipartisan precedent for promoting targeted reforms.
For example, in the late 1990s, then-Sens. Jesse Helms and Joe Biden introduced legislation funding the UN while reducing the U.S. share of its budget, which was subsequently supported by President Clinton. Other commentators have called for a renewed Helms-Biden Agreement to address contemporary concerns.
Various reforms have since been proposed, such as legislation calling for the U.S. to shift funding for the UN regular budget from assessed to voluntary contributions and tie contributions to selected benchmarks.
Due to the decentralized and disaggregated nature of the UN and U.S. government bodies, others have called for improved congressional reporting requirements to help determine the full level and extent of U.S. contributions.
Yet others have proposed expanding withholdings or legislating funding for specific entities or activities rather than as a lump sum to UN and related accounts, requiring foreign-based NGOs to provide information to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), improving vetting of aid organizations, and addressing current limitations on obtaining data about USAID-funded sub-awardees. One of the more controversial options has also been tying funding to voting outcomes in different UN bodies.
Finally, other reforms could include pressing for Member State access to UN audits, procurement contracts, and procedures, more effectively implementing its internal oversight of programs and activities, improving ethics mechanisms, and enhancing financial disclosure and whistleblower protection policies.
While other countries historically have cut funding to the UN or its agencies in select instances due to geopolitical developments, there are limited alternatives for UN funding and international aid funding as the U.S. withdraws support.
Nevertheless, tangible reforms to international aid programs and improving the UN’s efficiency, transparency, and accountability could also improve the sagging favorability ratings that Americans and others around the world currently have of it and foreign aid programs.
While there are many issues vying for the attention of the new administration, the United States need not cede its unique diplomatic, political, economic, cultural, military, and moral authority. Targeted, strategic, and selective reforms of the UN to ensure that it works based on consensus and adheres to the UN Charter on addressing fraud, abuse, and waste in international aid programs would benefit not only Americans but people the world over.