What Is the U.S. Posture Toward the United Nations

Critical Questions by Allison Lombardo

Published September 25, 2025

This week, President Trump spoke before the UN General Assembly (UNGA) for the first time in six years during the annual meeting of heads of state in New York City. The General Assembly is the 193-member legislative body of the United Nations that passes resolutions on a wide range of international issues. This year, there will be the traditional focus on crises of the moment, including the conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan, as well as discussion of "UN80"-the UN secretary general's forthcoming proposal for reform and efficiency gains for the UN bureaucracy.

At the 80th anniversary of its founding, the United Nations is staring down the unprecedented financial and political pullback of its founding member and the host of its headquarters, the United States. On September 23 in his UNGA address, President Trump asked: "What is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential. . . . All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter, and then never follow that letter up. It's empty words-and empty words don't solve war."

In just nine months, the second Trump administration has taken active steps to withdraw its political and financial support from the United Nations. This retreat began just two weeks into the new administration with the issuance of an executive order that accused some of the UN agencies and bodies of drifting from its founding peace and security mission, propagating anti-Semitism, and acting "contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies." This order also launched a 180-day review of U.S. participation in and contributions to all international organizations and treaties to determine whether they are against U.S. interests or can be reformed.

Even with his withering criticism, the president did not offer any clarity on the results of the review that was due to conclude in early August, nor make any financial or political announcements. So, many are still wondering, where does the United States stand with the United Nations now?

Q1: Where has the United States pulled back its engagement with the United Nations? Where is it still engaged?

A1: Despite this deep criticism of the United Nations, for the moment, the United States continues to actively participate in the UN Security Council (UNSC), General Assembly, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), many technical and scientific bodies, and the executive board of funds and programs.

The Trump administration signaled the importance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by meeting with its head in August. It has likewise invested in the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and thrown its support behind current leader and candidate for a second term, American Doreen Bogdan-Martin. With the addition of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United States has obligated funding for these three organizations regular budgets in 2025-the only three organizations to receive this type of funds.

But, the United States has withdrawn formally from participation in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). It signaled it will end its participation in the UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in December 2026. The administration also terminated all funding to the UN Population Fund. These withdrawals were largely expected as they also took place during the first Trump administration.

Perhaps more dramatically, the Trump administration has made clear that it will not support the development goals or human rights norms that the United States has traditionally championed at the United Nations. In March, the Trump administration said it "rejects and denounces" the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development-the blueprint adopted by 193 countries in 2015 to pursue 17 targets on issues like poverty, hunger, water, gender equality, and climate, known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One illustrative action is its rejection of the human rights architecture it helped establish: In August, the United States announced that it would not participate in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a peer-review mechanism created in 2006 by the OHCHR that enables countries to report on their own human rights progress (or lack thereof) and hear recommendations from other member states and civil society. This will be the first time since the creation of the UPR mechanism that a country does not participate in its own review.

Q2: In what ways has the Trump administration already pulled back U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations?

A2: The United States' financial withdrawal from the United Nations is consequential-and likely to have severe consequences. The United States is the single-largest contributor to the United Nations, accounting for 22 percent of the regular budget, 25 percent of the peacekeeping budget, more than 40 percent of the humanitarian budget, and millions more in voluntary contributions sprinkled throughout the system.

The Rescission Act of 2025 passed in July and the likely movement forward of the "pocket rescission" proposed in August would mean the United Nations will not get the funding it expected from the United States this year. The pullbacks from the FY 2024 appropriations bill and the FY 2025 full-year continuing resolution mean the pain will start immediately. Assuming Congress does not act, the United Nations will get less than half of what it was promised by the United States.

Q3: What is the status of U.S. financial support for the UN budget going forward?

A3: The Trump administration's proposed FY 2026 budget signals that the administration intends to renege on the majority of its assessed contributions, end its contribution to peacekeeping, and restrict voluntary funds. Instead of paying around $1.5 billion, the administration allocated just $300 million, which would mean paying only about one-fifth of the membership dues the United States owes the United Nations by treaty obligation.

The FY 2026 proposed budget also zeros out the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account that funds UN peacekeeping missions authorized by the UNSC. Historically, the United States pays 25 percent based on a long-standing legislative cap. To the United Nations, this will mean a $1.4 billion hole in the $5.6 billion global peacekeeping budget.

The administration's proposal also zeroes out the International Organizations & Programs (IO&P) account, eliminating all U.S. voluntary contributions to a wide range of UN agencies, such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), OHCHR, and others.

In FY 2026, the administration did specifically signal through the State Department's Congressional Budget Justification that it intends to provide funding for the IAEA, ICAO, ITU, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The FY 2026 proposal is not a done deal, though the outlook is not favorable. Both legislative chambers of Congress are currently negotiating on that budget proposal. Most recently, in mid-September, the House Foreign Affairs Committee rejected an amendment to add UN funding back into the draft bill, with committee chair Brian Mast (R-FL) calling UN peacekeepers "some of the worst."

Notably, in the scenario where the United States reduces its Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account by 83 percent, the United States risks losing its vote in UNGA after three years under Article 19, which says that a country "will have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years." Regardless, the United States would retain its permanent seat and veto on the UNSC.

Q4: What will happen to humanitarian and development funding that is contributed on a program basis, not by specific UN accounts?

A4: The United States is the world's top humanitarian donor and provided 40 percent of humanitarian assistance tracked by the United Nations in 2024, totaling over $14 billion. With the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the reorienting of the Department of State's Populations, Refugees and Migration Bureau, it is unclear how these pots of money will be managed in FY 2025 or whether they will exist in FY 2026. This year alone, U.S. funding for the World Food Program (WFP) has been cut by more than 90 percent. UNICEF received obligations of $1.1 billion in FY 2024 compared to just $168 million so far this year.

Some funding is still making its way to the WFP, UNICEF, and IOM for humanitarian response. However, the full scope of this funding is unknown.

On the development side, U.S. foreign aid has retracted more than 85 percent, some of which was programmed through various UN agencies and programs. Some of those programs provided complementary support to other UN efforts. For example, while the United States may not have directly funded OHCHR's work in Colombia, it was funding other democratic governance and peacebuilding programs that supported those efforts. There is now a $2.9 billion "America First Opportunity Fund" that will be allocated according to presidential priorities, though given his public criticism of the United Nations, it seems unlikely that multilateral institutions will be the president's preference. Coupled with the rejection of the SDGs, it will be difficult to quantify the full scope of the negative impact of U.S. political and financial retreat from foreign aid.

Allison Lombardo is a senior associate (non-resident) with the Humanitarian Agenda and Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Programs & Projects

Podcast Episode by Allison Lombardo and Ella Lipin - August 20, 2025