The United Nations, an institution that has endured for nearly eight decades, now faces an existential crisis as the Trump administration continues its threats to significantly cut funding and withdraw from various UN agencies that primarily offer humanitarian aid worldwide.
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who wields considerable influence over President Trump, has advocated for the U.S. to leave both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations. Responding to a right-wing political commentator’s post suggesting, “It’s time” for the U.S. to exit NATO and the UN, Musk simply wrote, “I agree.”
Widely described as Trump’s most powerful advisor, Musk has aggressively targeted the U.S. federal bureaucracy in his role as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This has raised concerns about whether the UN will be his next target.
The threat to the UN has gained momentum with a group of Republican lawmakers recently introducing a bill calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the organization. They argue that the UN does not align with Trump’s “America First” agenda.
Kul Chandra Gautam, a former UN assistant secretary-general and former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, told IPS that if any proof was needed of the Trump-Musk administration’s “mean & malevolent intentions,” this is it.
As part of its cost-cutting measures, the U.S. has decided to terminate funding for several critical global programs, including those targeting polio, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and nutrition. Many of these initiatives have been implemented by reputable international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), UN agencies, governments, and private contractors known for their efficiency and success. Previously, the State Department had deemed these programs essential and granted them waivers to continue receiving funding.
“Here is a case of throwing the baby with the bathwater—millions of children and women cruelly condemned to become sick, malnourished, and dying to satisfy the ego and hubris of the world’s richest man and a would-be Master of the Universe,” Gautam said.
He further noted that this move shattered the illusion of a “waiver” for essential and lifesaving projects, exposing the lack of credibility in Trump and Senator Marco Rubio’s assurances that crucial humanitarian efforts would be protected.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addressed the crisis in a press briefing last week, expressing deep concern.
“I want to start by expressing my deep concern about information received in the last 48 hours by UN agencies—as well as many humanitarian and development NGOs—regarding severe cuts in funding by the United States. These cuts impact a wide range of critical programs,” Guterres said.
He highlighted the far-reaching consequences of the funding reductions, affecting areas ranging from lifesaving humanitarian aid to support for communities recovering from war or natural disasters, as well as development efforts, counterterrorism initiatives, and the fight against illicit drug trafficking.
“The consequences will be especially devastating for vulnerable people around the world,” he warned.
Andreas Bummel, executive director of Democracy Without Borders, told IPS that while calls for a U.S. withdrawal from the UN have periodically emerged from the Republican Party, Trump’s position remains uncertain.
“While it seems unlikely, it cannot be ruled out that Trump will support this at some point or at least use the scenario to build up diplomatic pressure,” Bummel said.
He pointed out that the U.S. stands to lose more than it gains from such a move. However, Trump’s decisions are not always rational or aligned with America’s best interests. “Certainly, it can be expected that the U.S. first will reduce or threaten to reduce its UN contributions,” he added.
Currently, the U.S. provides 22 percent of the UN’s budget through assessed contributions. The organization’s 2024 regular and peacekeeping budget stands at $3.59 billion.
When asked whether the U.S. can unilaterally cut its contributions, Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury of Bangladesh, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative, explained that it cannot.
“No, the U.S. cannot do that unilaterally,” Chowdhury told IPS. He clarified that changes in contributions are negotiated in the Committee on Contributions and must be approved by the Fifth Committee, typically by consensus, before being confirmed by the UN General Assembly.
He pointed out that U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke played a crucial role in 2000-2001 in securing an agreement to lower the U.S. contribution from 25% to 22%, which required negotiations with all member states.
Because UN contributions must total 100%, any reduction by one country must be offset by increases from others. However, if the U.S. withdraws from a UN entity, it would no longer be obligated to pay.
“In cases of pending contributions, negotiations would follow,” Chowdhury said. He recalled that in the past, the U.S. has used tactics such as delaying full payments or making partial contributions to exert financial pressure on the UN.
In 2000, Ambassador Holbrooke convinced Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to agree to clear U.S. arrears to the UN in exchange for a reduction in the country’s contribution rate.
When asked how much money the UN stands to lose and which programs would be affected, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters on February 28 that the situation remains chaotic.
“We have been informed, and this started a while back but intensified over the last few days, that various agencies have gotten letters. We don’t have a ballpark figure, because this has been done in a bit of a… frankly, in a chaotic way,” Dujarric said.
He provided specific examples of the impact, stating that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has had approximately 50 projects terminated. The agency’s Mexico office, which works to curb fentanyl trafficking, may have to shut down, affecting programs in Central America and the Darien Gap that focus on combating human trafficking.
“The IOM’s (International Organization for Migration) programs in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have basically shut down. Their programs in Haiti are at risk. And our FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) colleagues received 27 termination letters, and the list goes on,” he said.
Guterres has been in contact with the heads of major humanitarian and development agencies to discuss the situation and assess the scale of the crisis. However, Dujarric described the overall outlook as grim.
Agencies are attempting to reach out to their U.S. government counterparts for clarification, but those efforts have yielded little engagement.
“So, we’re continuing to try to seek some clarity. But I can tell you that for our side, our priority and our focus and our determination remain on doing everything we can to continue to provide life-saving aid to those who urgently need it,” Dujarric stated.
He emphasized that the U.S. has been a critical and founding member of the UN for decades, with American generosity helping to lift millions out of poverty, eradicate diseases, and promote global stability.
“The generosity of the American people has helped to lift millions out of poverty, has helped to eradicate diseases, has frankly helped to build a more prosperous and safer world for which Americans benefit and the whole world benefits. We have tried at a fairly senior level to engage, especially on this issue, but I can’t say we’ve detected much interest in engaging on this issue,” he noted.
When asked whether the UN is considering cost-cutting measures as a contingency plan, Dujarric acknowledged that the organization is exploring ways to diversify funding sources and increase efficiency.
“Our colleague, Tom Fletcher, the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, who chairs what we call the Interagency Committee—which brings together UN agencies and NGOs—his message has also been clear, which is that we have to figure out how we can save money,” Dujarric said.
He added that efforts are underway to eliminate inefficiencies, overlaps, and bureaucratic turf wars, recognizing that any organization can find ways to work more effectively.