US Criticism Revives Debate on UN’s Effectiveness and Relevance

The United States’ growing hostility toward the United Nations appears to be escalating, as the cash-strapped world body struggles for financial survival.

Addressing the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee last week, Ambassador Jeff Bartos, U.S. Representative for UN Management and Reform, said:

“President Trump is absolutely right – the United Nations can be an important institution for solving international challenges, but it has strayed far from its original purpose.”

“Over 80 years, the UN has grown bloated, unfocused, too often ineffective, and sometimes even part of the problem. The UN’s failure to deliver on its core mandates is alarming and undeniable,” he added.

The United States has been, by far, the largest funder of the UN since its founding. Based on the most recent scales of assessment, the U.S. contributes more funding to the UN than 180 other nations combined, Bartos noted.

“For the United States, the era of business as usual is over,” he said. “We will work with this Committee to achieve deeper cuts to wasteful spending and stronger accountability, with a relentless focus on results.”

He also called for reductions in special political missions, the closure of unnecessary field offices, and the consolidation of executive offices—measures he said should become the rule rather than the exception.

Trump’s criticism and U.S. withdrawal from UN agencies

Addressing the UN General Assembly last month, President Donald Trump questioned the organization’s purpose, remarking, “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to its potential.”

Dismissing the UN as outdated and ineffective, he boasted: “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”

However, many observers argue that the UN’s political ineffectiveness stems largely from the power dynamics within the Security Council, where the five veto-wielding permanent members—the U.S., U.K., France, China, and Russia—often shield their allies accused of human rights abuses, war crimes, or genocide.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has officially withdrawn or is in the process of withdrawing from several UN agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). It has also ceased funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

This raises a critical question: what is the fate—and economic survival—of the UN under such an aggressive U.S. posture?

Analysts warn of self-defeating policies

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, said there is no other way to describe the Trump administration’s approach toward the UN than self-defeating and detrimental to U.S. national interests, while also eroding America’s global influence.

“It is hard to fathom how Trump, who wants to ‘Make America Great Again,’ demonstrates such blatant hostility toward the only global organization in which the United States has, over the years, played such a pivotal and leading role since the UN’s creation in 1945,” he said.

Dr. Ben-Meir described Ambassador Bartos’s remarks as “at best inaccurate and at worst totally wrong.” He acknowledged that UN reform is long overdue—especially in the Security Council and other agencies—but said dismissing the UN’s vital humanitarian and peacekeeping work “with one brush” is irresponsible.

“Cutting humanitarian assistance on which millions depend, or withdrawing from vital UN agencies, is unconscionable and highly damaging to U.S. leadership and national interests,” he said.

He questioned the logic behind U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, whose primary role is to coordinate global health responses and set international health standards.

“One would think that the U.S. would strongly support such an organization, which serves American interests from a global health perspective,” he added.

Similarly, he asked, “How can the Trump administration justify withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, which promotes and protects human rights worldwide through international cooperation?”

By stepping away from such institutions, he said, the U.S. is abandoning its leadership role in preventing human rights abuses and weakening international norms.

“Trump may care little about human rights violations, but how does withdrawing from such organizations serve U.S. national or global interests?” he asked.

‘Bullying, not politics’

James E. Jennings, PhD, President of Conscience International, told IPS that support for the United Nations is vital to global health and stability.

“Those who have worked on the front lines of UN agencies’ responses to wars, natural disasters, and famines cannot imagine the inhumanity of taking food from the mouths of babies, denying children education, and letting disease and epidemics rage unchecked,” he said. “This is not politics—it is bullying, and the world should see it for what it is.”

He added that Trump’s pattern of behaviour—vilifying perceived enemies and portraying himself as a saviour—extends to his dealings with the UN.

“After sidelining UN peacemaking efforts, which address the root causes of conflicts, he makes phone calls to leaders of countries on the brink of hostilities and claims to have ended seven wars, which is nonsense,” Jennings said.

“By sidelining the UN, he simply wants to dominate it. As the largest donor, the U.S. has the financial leverage to bend the organization to its will—unless national leaders, American citizens, and people everywhere stand firm in opposing such moves,” he warned.