By Qamar Bashir
The United States was once the proud architect of global multilateralism. In the aftermath of World War II, Washington orchestrated the creation of the United Nations and insisted on its headquarters being located in New York. With its generous financial contributions and diplomatic influence, the U.S. wielded immense leverage—projecting soft power and shaping international norms without firing a single shot. But over time, the very mechanisms it built began to emancipate other nations: the UN’s equal‑vote structure and independent agency frameworks enabled coalitions from the Global South and beyond to advance policies often contrary to U.S. interests.
By 2023, the U.S. remained the UN’s single largest benefactor, contributing approximately $13 billion, equating to over 25% of the total UN membership’s funding. In the UN’s internal budgeting, the U.S. covered 22% of the regular budget (about $820 million of a $3.5 billion total) and 26–27% of peacekeeping costs (~$1.5 billion of $5.9 billion), though a congressional cap limited payments .
But when U.S. influence waned at the UN—particularly in bodies without veto power such as WHO, UNESCO, the World Food Programme, and the International Court of Justice—the U.S. responded not with diplomacy, but retreat. Between 2017 and mid‑2025, American funding was slashed in key areas: $4 billion pledged to the Green Climate Fund was rescinded, its funding to UNAIDS and global health programs through USAID was terminated or dramatically reduced, malaria initiatives saw a 47% decrease, and the Gavi immunization grant of $2.63 billion was cancelled .
The consequences for the UN and global initiatives were immediate. Budget shortfalls threatened operations—from humanitarian relief to refugee assistance—forcing agencies like WHO, UNHCR, and UNAIDS to cut services, suspend projects, and initiate emergency cost-saving responses. Millions of the most vulnerable suffered as health programs, AIDS treatment, and refugee care unraveled across fragile regions .
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and external analysts warned of institutional trauma: internal memos showed plans for a 20% reduction in Secretariat staff, slicing about $740 million from the UN budget and slashing nearly 7,000 jobs—a move driven by withheld U.S. dues and prolonged arrears that had exceeded $1.5 billion .
What’s unfolding is not mere disengagement; it is a dismantling of the post-war consensus. The unilateral “America First” doctrine has weaponized aid, redefined participation, and normalized punitive economics—whether blaming the UN for “anti-Israel bias” or freezing grants to agencies perceived as insufficiently subservient. U.S. states denying Israeli products risk losing federal disaster relief. UN rapporteurs and ICC judges investigating human rights violations are sanctioned or barred from U.S. soil. The result is bureaucratic sabotage: not just cutting checks, but cutting support for institutional integrity.
Still, the damage is irrevocable. Key UN functions—peacekeeping, health coordination, humanitarian relief—are now subject to fragmentation or politicization. Climate negotiations wobble without U.S. investment. Global norms—on human rights, nuclear non-proliferation, refugee protection—lose enforcement power. In effect, the United Nations, conceived as a shield against global chaos, risks becoming collateral damage of U.S. isolationism.
With 193 member states in the General Assembly, each with one vote, the U.S. often found itself on the losing side of key resolutions, particularly in bodies where no single nation wields a veto—agencies such as the World Health Organization, UNESCO, the World Food Programme, and the International Court of Justice. As emerging powers began to use these forums to challenge American and Israeli policies, Washington’s frustration grew.
When influence through persuasion failed, the United States resorted to withdrawal and defunding. In 2017, it exited UNESCO, citing alleged anti-Israel bias, and pulled its funding—striking a blow to global cultural preservation and educational programs. In 2018, it withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council for the same reason, abandoning its role in shaping human rights discourse. In 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, it walked out of the World Health Organization, accusing it of favoring China, leaving a leadership vacuum during the greatest health crisis in a century. It has also sanctioned ICC judges investigating alleged U.S. and Israeli war crimes, an unprecedented attack on international judicial independence.
In March 2024, the United States imposed sanctions on Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, for her outspoken reports on Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank. This targeting of UN officials is emblematic of a broader strategy: punish not just institutions, but individuals who challenge U.S. and Israeli narratives.
Now, under President Donald Trump’s second term, the assault has intensified. His administration has declared that any U.S. state that bans Israeli products, criticizes Israeli policy, or supports boycotts will lose federal disaster relief and other funding. In effect, Washington is applying the same coercive tactics at home that it once used abroad—weaponizing financial power to enforce political loyalty.
The United Nations itself is caught in this storm. Its credibility has been battered by repeated U.S. vetoes blocking resolutions on Gaza, climate change, and refugee resettlement—not because there was no global consensus, but because American protection of Israel took precedence. The result is paralysis on some of the most urgent issues facing humanity.
Yet there is an unexpected twist. As the U.S. retreats, other nations are stepping into the void. Countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have increased their contributions to UN agencies, keeping programs alive despite U.S. funding cuts. This growing independence has allowed the General Assembly and other bodies to pass resolutions reflecting a broader global consensus, often in defiance of U.S. and Israeli positions.
Yet amid this American retreat, a countervailing force emerged. Philanthropic actors like Michael Bloomberg stepped in; Bloomberg philanthropy covered U.S.’s UNFCCC dues gap of approximately €7.2 million . Similarly, European nations—including the Netherlands and Belgium—quickly filled the funding vacuums at UNRWA, sustaining Palestinian refugee aid when U.S. funding was abruptly halted . In effect, the U.S. defunding inadvertently catalyzed a diversification of UN support, buttressed by a growing coalition of mid-tier and emerging donors.
Still, Washington’s antagonism poses an existential threat to the UN’s long-term viability. The steady withdrawal of funds, coupled with sanctions on its personnel, undermines its capacity to respond to humanitarian crises, mediate conflicts, and uphold international law. If left unchecked, this campaign could transform the UN from a guardian of global peace into a hollow relic—a powerless bureaucracy unable to stand against tyranny or aggression.
The United States once claimed to be the moral compass of the free world. Today, it risks becoming the wrecking ball that shatters the very framework it built. If Washington truly believes in liberty, justice, and the rule of law, it must stop treating the United Nations as an adversary to be subdued—and start acting like the founding member it once proudly was.
Only by returning to cooperation, fairness, and shared humanity can America reclaim the leadership role that once inspired the world. Anything less will not just diminish the United Nations—it will diminish the United States itself.
About writer ; Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attache to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA
