Thanks to Donald Trump, the United Nations may now be facing its greatest existential crisis. According to some reports, there exist draft executive orders reducing US funding to the United Nations and other international organizations by at least 40% overall. That would reshape the organization, whose aim is world peace and international cooperation, unalterably.

The UN is no stranger to criticism, having recently braved a round of bashing from Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While the organization is certainly overdue for serious internal changes, it is still concretely in the interest of Trump, his administration, and the American people to actively participate in, and fully fund its share of, the UN.

Constant whispers of the US leaving or defunding the UN have now become shouts. In addition to the draft executive orders, recent tweets by Trump have referred to the UN as “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time”. And even as Nikki Haley was confirmed as the next US ambassador to the UN, Alabama representative Mike Rogers was proposing a bill to “terminate” the US’s UN membership.

The case for the UN has been made many times from many different perspectives: it is unique because it is universal; it has the power to bring to the table almost any group of nations in the world; and it takes on the most difficult and humane challenges across the globe. However, with an America that believes less and less in the post-WWII global structure and with the introduction of the new administration’s policies, the time is right to reassess what the UN means to Americans today.

The UN seeks to eradicate extreme poverty, end hunger, maintain international peace and security, promote sustained economic growth, ensure availability of fresh water, provide access to energy, maintain biodiversity, combat climate change and the list goes on. The US has supported many of the same objectives individually though direct foreign aid and bilateral agreements.

While President Trump may have different policies and approaches than past US presidents, his appeal has largely come from the expectation that he will bring his business prowess to the US government, increasing efficiency and encouraging partners and allies to hold up their ends of the bargain.

Trump is absolutely right when he expresses that the US should not get stuck paying the bill every time. Instead, the burden must be shared by spreading the cost of achieving common goals among all beneficiaries. This concept has been a central principle of the UN since its establishment in 1945.



The US participates in most UN functions altruistically, but also for its own self-preservation. Global biodiversity means new medicines for Americans; food security overseas means we protect key sources of our food; fresh water means less future conflict over access to clean water in the future. Global progress on human rights and rule of law combined with sustainable development means a better, more stable, and more secure world for the United States to lead.

UN funding for these programs helps our economy and provides a multiplier effect to our military and foreign aid dollars so we can devote more funding to domestic issues, and not policing the world.

Nowhere is the necessity of burden sharing more relevant than in the security arena. President Trump has made strong border controls and effective counter-terrorism measures priorities for his administration. In both areas the UN helps facilitate those goals.

UN assistance to refugees around the world helps avoid massive population movements that can destabilize neighboring countries. On counter-terrorism, the UN has taken steps, from the Bush administration on, to coordinate the activities of nearly all international and regional counter-terrorism institutions so that every state has tight anti-terrorism laws, stronger borders, better banking systems, and constantly improving capacities to deal with terrorist threats.

As Colin Powell once noted: “Terrorism really flourishes in areas of poverty, despair and hopelessness, where people see no future.” The UN’s overall impact helps reduce what would be terrorist breeding grounds by preventing states from failing or becoming terrorist safe havens. As the US learned since 2001, brute force cannot stop or prevent terrorism.



In terms of ongoing conflicts and keeping the peace, the UN now maintains 16 UN peacekeeping operations with 117,000 troops, police, military observers, civilian personnel and volunteers from over 125 countries. In the current UN budget, these operations cost $7.87bn a year. The US defense budget in FY 2016 was approximately $600bn.

For a truly tiny cost, close to 1% of the American defense budget, America receives a huge dividend from the UN – peace in many remote parts of the world, making them safe for American trade, investment and tourism. If the US tried to do all this alone (which it would be unable to), it would cost first, American lives, and second, billions more in US tax dollars.

Finally, UN global sanctions are a critical tool that do not use force, but universal action to contain dangerous and unacceptable behavior by states like North Korea and Iran. The UN rallies the world to try to ensure such countries do not threaten us with their missiles or capabilities to build weapons of mass destruction.

While the UN can be slow to react, operate, and is often unable to function when the major powers disagree, as in the case of Syria, its overall programs and unique status has enabled the US to achieve a wide range of its previous and current policy goals. The Trump administration owes it not to the world, but to every American, to fund and engage the United Nations.