The UN’s Final Birthday: How ‘America First’ is Remaking the World Order

Photo via AP/Yuki Iwamura

***

The United Nations has survived many crises since its founding in 1945, including the mysterious death of its Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, the Rwandan Genocide in the 1990s, and the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003. Still, no crisis feels as existential as this one. World leaders descended on New York in late September to celebrate the UN’s 80th birthday, held under the theme “Better Together,” but as the body faces problems it must solve, the week felt less like a birthday and more like a countdown.

The UN’s future now rests largely on President Donald Trump’s shoulders, as the U.S. is paramount to any attempt at international governance. The world’s first attempt at a global government was doomed from the start by the U.S. Senate’s refusal to ratify the League of Nations after the end of World War I. Its successor has only lasted for eight decades because generations of American leaders have agreed that, despite its flaws and evident weaknesses, the UN has promoted a liberal international order and reinforced U.S. foreign policy objectives. 

Yet, in President Trump’s eyes, the value has all but vanished. Like higher education in America, the UN has struggled to articulate a strong defense to the Trump administration as to why it exists and, more importantly, why it deserves taxpayers’ money. It’s long been assumed that the U.S. will continue to fund these institutions, but Trump has challenged that norm. The U.S., responsible for 22% of the UN’s budget, has not paid its obligatory dues for 2025. While habitually late in its payments, the U.S. usually pays its outstanding dues and remains the backbone of any UN work. However, Trump has not indicated that he plans to restore the funds anytime soon. Universities, deprived of federal funds, struggled to plead their case but emerged from the fight largely intact. The UN faces an eerily similar situation: justify its relevance or risk being left behind.

That skepticism was on full-display during Trump’s 58-minute address to the General Assembly, offering clear insight into how he views the world and America’s long-time allies. He spent the hour scolding countries for recognizing a Palestinian state, praising his own peacemaking prowess, and proclaiming that “your countries are going to hell” for worsening the migrant crisis. Most consequentially, he questioned the UN’s purpose and asserted that the organization had not helped his efforts in ending seven “un-endable” wars. In his eyes, all it does is write strongly worded letters without any follow-up. “Empty words don’t solve war.”

To a certain extent, he makes a convincing point. The UN has long struggled to dissuade major powers from circumventing the institution and playing their own games. The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Still, because of Russia’s veto power, the Security Council, the only organ able to issue legally binding resolutions, was at an impasse regarding the invasion. Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory has been unaffected by any action the UN has taken.

Through another lens, Trump himself can be seen as the cause for the UN’s lack of effectiveness; he believes that global crises should be resolved by strong, influential leaders hammering out a deal rather than using multilateral bodies like the UN to resolve disputes. Under Trump, the U.S. has withdrawn from major UN organizations, restricting funding and cutting off critical sources of information needed by the World Health Organization, for example, to function. According to the White House, the reasoning is that the UN has strayed far from its founding principles and has acted against the interests of the United States. 

During a post-speech meeting with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Trump remarkably changed his tune. Guterres, instead of criticizing the president’s reckless abandon in which he conducts his foreign policy, opted for flattery and worked with Trump on issues he’s invested in. He praised Trump’s constant pursuit for peace and suggested the UN would be a powerful tool to achieve the president’s aims. Trump accepted the olive branch and commended the organization and its potential for world peace. 

Trump’s complicated relationship with the UN has become particularly pronounced during his second term. Notably, during a Senate confirmation hearing, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz proclaimed that he would “make the UN great again.” He and Trump recognize the importance of the UN in maintaining a U.S.-led world order. While Trump’s foreign policy positions have been anything but stable, his anti-China stance has largely remained unchanged, and as China attempts to draw power away from the UN and toward BRICS, Trump’s vision for a liberal world order must be implemented quickly. 

Trump’s concepts of a plan for the UN start with prioritizing “America First” policies on the world stage, including a UN that offers a transparent budget and combats antisemitism. Waltz also envisions de-radicalizing UN policies and creating U.S.-led standard-setting bodies in aviation, telecommunications, and intellectual property. With the A.I. race at breakneck speed, the Trump administration recognizes the importance of maintaining any advantage it has over the Chinese. Previous Democratic administrations have promoted similar goals, particularly budget transparency, standard-setting, and anti-China policies. These administrations thought continuing to fund the UN and fixing it through legislation was more effective. However, Trump has opted for the jackhammer instead of the super glue.

So what does a MAGAfied UN look like?

The answer is unclear. Trump is a major fan of showy, pompous deals (e.g., One Big Beautiful Bill Act) and would love a sweeping agreement that permanently installed America as the de facto head and Trump as the “savior” of the UN. A complete restructuring of the UN will undoubtedly be complex, as China and Russia have the power to nix any effort to force them out of power. Although China seeks to circumvent the UN system through its own international forums and economic organizations, it does have an incentive to drag its feet and prevent any U.S.-led agendas from being passed. The more Trump feels disenfranchised by the UN system, the more likely he will abandon the organization and pursue a world order filled with unpredictability. While countries are apprehensive of China’s growing power, they might be more open to China’s open arms than to Trump’s “America First” platform.

Therefore, Trump’s vision for an entirely redesigned UN must be scaled back. One popular idea is to swap UN peacekeeping for the practice of peace diplomacy. Despite the overall success of peacekeeping, its failures have been highlighted, and many find it outdated and old-fashioned. The same critics suggest that classic peace diplomacy is the path forward in dissuading conflicts involving major powers. The debate over what prevents conflicts stretches back for centuries, but the current gridlock in the Security Council has done little to avoid disputes that directly involve one of the P5. The idea of the peacemaking aspect of the UN as merely a forum for strong leaders to reach peace agreements interests Trump. His approach to the Russia-Ukraine War and the Israel-Palestine conflict, favoring extremely publicized meetings over liberal institutions, is a realist’s dream and indicates his belief that peace is achieved through power, personality, and direct negotiation.

The details and specifics of the UN are largely irrelevant when the organization’s existence is at stake. António Guterres must continue to entertain Trump through any means necessary, as the UN faces a $500 million budget cut this coming year. Any further drop in funds would be catastrophic to the work the UN has so vehemently tried to defend.

With Guterres’s term set to end in 2026, the next Secretary General faces a tall task of engaging Trump while not alienating other key members. Until recently, the consensus was that a Latin American woman would be the pick, but Trump deems the choice to be the epitome of the woke ideologies that have consumed the UN. At a Moms for Liberty event in 2024, Trump suggested that his daughter, Ivanka, would make a great Secretary-General. The fact that the world has to even entertain this idea is preposterous, but such is the reality of the UN’s grim future.

***

This article was edited by Emma Zadrima and Eliana Tesfaye.