Much has been said about the demise of the so-called rules-based international order since President Trump took office for the second time. Even before the second Trump administration began, the United Nation’s uneven responses in Ukraine and Gaza were generating questions about the integrity of this order. To be clear, descriptions of the post-World War II international system were often more aspirational than real. International law has been inconsistently applied, and many countries—particularly the great powers—have freely trespassed on these norms when it has been expedient. There have been extended periods in which veto-wielding U.N. Security Council members, the permanent five, have gridlocked the body. If the General Assembly has been more active, that is in part because it lacks any material enforcement power.
Yet, it would be unfair to consider the United Nations a failure analogous to the League of Nations. In addition to fears of mutually assured destruction; the comparative stability of bipolarity as opposed to multipolarity; and an era of American hegemony, the United Nations deserves at least some credit for the absence of great-power war—the Korean War being the only potential exception—in the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st. The United Nations also has overseen effective responses to countless humanitarian crises, sparing countless lives. And, perhaps most importantly, the alphabet soup of technical “specialized agencies” that most Americans do not even know exist have made life safer, healthier, and more prosperous for people on every continent, including Americans.
Tragically, if predictably, none of this seems to matter to the Trump administration. The administration shares the mistaken, though dominant, view in conservative and MAGA circles that the United Nations is intrinsically biased against the United States. The conspiratorially minded subscribe to the fever dream that the United Nations is a world government in waiting, primed to dispossess Americans of their constitutional rights. More sober voices in the administration are fixated on the limitations of the United Nations and the amount the United States expends on annual dues and voluntary contributions, personifying Oscar Wilde’s definition of a “cynic” as “a man who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.”
While a complete withdrawal from the U.N. system does not appear to be on the Trump administration’s agenda, it is pursuing a series of initiatives to radically scale back U.S. involvement in ways that will harm both America and Americans. First, the administration launched a comprehensive review of the U.S. role in all international organizations, which was scheduled to be completed last month. Though we do not yet know the outcome, the expectation is that the administration will decide to exit at least some international bodies it deems to be less relevant to U.S. interests—perhaps the Food and Agriculture Organization or even the U.N. Development Programme. This a la carte approach to membership in U.N. bodies may seem like sensible cost cutting, but it ignores the reality that a country’s actions (or inactions) in one organization can reverberate positively or negatively in another. In one recent example, the Trump administration failed to prevent a Chinese bid to host a meeting of the International Telecommunications Union, the organization responsible for regulating access to digital connectivity (something that impacts Americans on a daily basis), breaking a streak of U.S. victories in the organization.
Second, President Trump has already withdrawn from several U.N. bodies, preempting the conclusion of his administration’s review and undermining U.S. influence over important policies. This includes the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the U.N. Human Rights Council. UNESCO is responsible for, among other issues, setting global artificial intelligence standards and rules, funding Holocaust education, and promoting scientific cooperation on shared global threats. While the WHO’s performance during the COVID pandemic left much to be desired, it would be preposterous to suggest that Americans would be better protected from communicable diseases in the absence of an established coordination mechanism.
Third, the Trump administration has, so far, cut $1 billion in financial contributions to the United Nations through a congressional rescission and is seeking to claw back another $1 billion appropriated by Congress. Even worse, President Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request would withhold the annual mandatory contribution to the U.N. regular budget; zero out peacekeeping funding from more than $1 billion; and slash voluntary U.N. contributions by $1.2 billion. Together, these cuts would amount to more than $4 billion—and that does not include planned cuts for refugee and migration funding that are often implemented by the United Nations. Critically, the administration’s financial wrecking ball would not only affect the bodies from which the administration has withdrawn but also organizations in which the United States remains a member. The International Labor Organization (ILO) is just one of the more inexplicable examples. President Trump should explain to American workers how ceasing funding for a body dedicated to promoting labor standards around the world—averting a race to the bottom in employment conditions—helps those negatively affected by globalization.
As has been reported, the major U.S. rival in great power competition, China, has eagerly stepped into the breach created by the Trump administration’s international retrenchment. Beijing has succeeded in placing at least 39 Chinese nationals in U.N. positions, increasing its influence across a wide array of issues and bodies. China also made a $500 million contribution to the WHO after the administration’s withdrawal from that organization. As President Trump is seeking to exit peacekeeping missions, China has contributed more than 1,800 uniformed personnel to missions, while Chinese financial contribution now account for nearly a quarter of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In many ways, Beijing’s response has created the worst of both worlds for Washington. China is supplanting the American role on the “cheap,” doing enough to overtake the United States, but not enough to ensure the same level of public goods and services to the international community.
Amid the deployment of the National Guard in American cities, brazen assaults on the First Amendment, and the denial of due process, Americans can be forgiven for being skeptical of the United Nation’s relevance to their lives. The reality, however, is not subject to interpretation: Every single American is affected by what happens outside U.S. borders and in global institutions. Whether it is privacy protections from AI systems, conditions in the workplace, or averting another pandemic, the American people have a direct interest in the United Nations. Just as at home, the Trump administration is selling out Americans, their values, and interests at the United Nations. Under this form of “leadership,” Americans will always come last—not first.