Will the United Nations survive Trump 2.0?

Paradoxically, the breakdown of the multilateral order the US helped establish could catalyse greater international cooperation

COMMENT | JAYATI GHOSH | Of all the geopolitical stunts Donald Trump has pulled since returning to the White House, the United States’ votes at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on March 4 stand out as some of the most revealing.

First, the U.S. opposed a seemingly innocuous resolution establishing an “International Day of Peaceful Coexistence” and reaffirming the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Despite its symbolic nature, the U.S. voted against the resolution, with representative Edward Heartney explaining that the U.S. “rejects and denounces the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course.” “Simply put,” he added, “globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box.” Despite U.S. opposition, the resolution ultimately passed with 162 countries voting in favour, two abstaining, and only three – the US, Israel, and Argentina – voting against.

Later that day, the U.S. doubled down by opposing UNGA resolutions calling for the establishment of an “International Day of Hope” and an “International Day for Judicial Well-Being.” It was also the sole vote against a resolution reaffirming “the right of everyone to education,” which highlighted “the importance of equal opportunities for young people, including young women,” likely because it conflicted with a pillar of the Trump administration’s domestic agenda: dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

These moves may well foreshadow America’s withdrawal from the UN – something Elon Musk and other Trump supporters have urged. Trump has already pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organisation and, as he did during his first term, abandoned the Paris climate agreement. His administration has also withdrawn the U.S. from several UN bodies, including the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and is now reassessing its involvement in the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It has also exited the ongoing UN Tax Convention negotiations.

These actions by the U.S. – along with its recent opposition to a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – show that the Trump administration is not merely unhappy with certain international institutions. Rather, it is fundamentally opposed to any multilateral framework that even suggests equality among countries.

Some analysts argue that a complete U.S. withdrawal from the UN is unlikely, given the disproportionate influence America wields through its Security Council veto. But given Trump’s law-of-the-jungle approach to geopolitics – where raw power, not diplomacy, dictates action – even that advantage may no longer seem essential.

Should the U.S. leave the UN, the financial consequences could be immediate and severe. Even if it stays, the Trump administration has made no secret of its intention to slash contributions. As the UN’s largest financial backer, the U.S. contributed a record $18.1 billion in 2022, accounting for roughly 20% of the organisation’s total funding.

Notably, more than 70% of U.S. contributions went to just four UN entities: 40% to the World Food Programme, 12% to the High Commissioner for Refugees, 10% to UNICEF, and another 10% to the Department of Peace Operations. And since much of this funding was channeled through USAID – an agency Trump has shut down – it may have already vanished.

This represents yet another blow to the already underfunded UN system. Given the current geopolitical climate, it would take nothing short of a miracle for other governments to step in immediately to fill the gap. As a result, many critical – and even life-saving – UN programs are now at risk.

But the paradigm shift in U.S. foreign policy does not necessarily signal the impending decline – if not outright collapse – of multilateralism and the UN system. To be sure, the Trump administration has made its preference for unilateralism and coercion abundantly clear, using its power to bully individual countries rather than work through international institutions. As the world’s leading superpower turns its back on global cooperation, the system of multilateral governance that the U.S. helped establish nearly eight decades ago could begin to unravel.

Paradoxically, however, Trump’s actions could also serve as a catalyst for greater international cooperation, impelling other countries to work together more closely. The reason is simple: no matter how vehemently the White House denies it, humanity’s most pressing challenges are global in nature. They will not go away simply because Trump refuses to acknowledge them.

After all, climate change, environmental degradation, extreme inequality, emerging health threats, the rise of disruptive new technologies, and the erosion of stable employment all transcend national borders. These forces are fueling social and political polarisation around the world, underscoring the need for collective solutions.

Global solidarity is thus not just a moral imperative but an existential one. Encouragingly, many political leaders seem to understand this and remain committed to multilateralism despite the influence of what John Maynard Keynes once called “madmen in authority.” International negotiations on taxation, climate action, and development financing are moving forward, even without U.S. participation. In fact, the absence of the U.S. – which has all too often acted as a spoiler, even under previous administrations – could pave the way for more ambitious and effective global agreements.

Ironically, the multilateral order that Trump seeks to destroy has largely served the interests of global elites and powerful countries like the U.S., often at the expense of the vast majority of the world’s population. In this sense, the current climate of uncertainty and upheaval could represent a unique opportunity to build a truly international movement for progressive change.

*****

Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is a member of the Club of Rome’s Transformational Economics Commission and Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.

Source: Project Syndicate