What a Second Trump Presidency Means for the UN
Trump's approach to the UN is more nuanced than critics might think
The important thing to understand about Donald Trump’s approach to the United Nations is that he is not intrinsically hostile to it. In his first administration, he had several productive engagements with the UN, working through the Security Council on sanctions for North Korea and Iran, for instance. He also had a good working relationship with António Guterres, whom he invited to the White House. By all accounts, he rather enjoyed his annual addresses to the General Assembly and the pomp that surrounds UNGA each September.
Neither is Trump particularly sympathetic to the UN. His administration took actions against the UN that are in line with the typical Republican approach to the institution. For example, Trump blocked American funding for the UN Population Fund, a move every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan has taken. He also suspended funding for UNRWA, the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees (something Biden did as well), and supported American non-engagement with the UN Human Rights Council. These are all more or less standard Republican positions at this point.
However, there were certain actions Trump took during his first administration that were completely aberrational in terms of how conventional Republicans have historically approached the UN — and exceedingly hostile. These moves can probably give us some insight and clues into how the United States’ relationship to the UN will evolve in the coming years.
For the UN, one of the most immediate questions moving forward is how Trump might approach the World Health Organization. Previously, Donald Trump sought to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO in an overt attempt to deflect blame from his own mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a key question is whether Trump still holds this animosity toward the WHO, or if it was merely a product of the political climate in 2020. This remains an open question without a definitive answer. Trump may still bear that grudge, but we don’t know for certain.
What we do know for sure is that he would likely seek to withdraw the U.S. again from the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Global Compact on Migration. This seems almost inevitable at this point. However, regarding the Paris Agreement, there is a substantial waiting period between a withdrawal request and its implementation, so such a move might not have any immediate practical impact.
Another significant way a second Trump administration could impact the UN is through personnel decisions, particularly concerning top UN leadership. Antonio Guterres’ second term as Secretary-General expires at the end of 2026, and the Security Council will need to choose his replacement. Normally, the U.S., UK, and France broadly agree on the type of candidate they want (if not the specific individual) and then negotiate with Russia and China. While the geopolitical landscape of 2025 remains uncertain, we do know that Trump would hold a veto.
Trump would also influence the leadership of various UN agencies, such as UNICEF and the World Food Programme. In the latter part of his first term, Trump nominated candidates with views far outside the mainstream, including a candidate for the International Organization for Migration who had a history of racist and Islamophobic rhetoric. Although this candidate was ultimately rejected by a majority of IOM members, the episode illustrated Trump’s willingness to promote extremists for UN roles.
The larger question moving forward is whether the U.S. might attempt to withdraw from the UN altogether. While this might sound far-fetched, consider that in June, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed a spending bill that eliminates funding for the UN’s regular budget, to which the U.S. contributes nearly 25%. Such a move would cripple the UN’s bureaucracy and severely hinder its ability to respond to global crises. If enacted, the U.S. would eventually lose its vote in the General Assembly, likely reducing its involvement to Security Council votes alone.
While Trump is not inherently hostile to the UN, such a move is within the realm of possibility. Project 2025 explicitly threatens to cut UN funding if the UN does not bend to the will of the incoming administration. Given Trump’s unpredictable and often volatile approach to foreign policy in general, and the UN in particular, such an outcome cannot be ruled out. But, of course, neither is it a given.
Rest assured, dear reader, that I’ll be following this story every step of the way over the next four years. But I need your support now more than ever. Please buy a subscription so I can keep up with this story and continue Global Dispatches’ unique brand of humanitarian journalism.
-