The UN vs Trump 2.0
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 4 March stand out as the most revealing.
The US 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 US voted against the resolution, with representative Edward Heartney explaining that the US ‘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’.
Despite US opposition, the resolution ultimately passed with 162 countries voting in favour, two abstaining, and only three, the US, Israel and Argentina, voting against.
Then the US was the sole vote against a resolution reaffirming ‘the right of everyone to education … including equal opportunities for 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 US out of the WHO, and abandoned the Paris climate agreement.
His administration has also withdrawn the US from several UN bodies, including the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and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).
This week, the non-profit group Civicusannounced the inclusion of the US on its 2026 Watchlist, alongside the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Italy, Pakistan and Serbia.
The Trump administration is not merely unhappy with certain international institutions, it is fundamentally opposed to any multilateral framework that even suggests equality among countries.
Read also: Trump shock wave hits Nepal, Sudiksha Tuladhar
Some analysts argue that a complete US 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 even that advantage may no longer seem essential.
Should the US leave the UN, the financial consequences could be immediate and severe. As the UN’s largest financial backer, the US contributed a record $18.1 billion in 2022, accounting for roughly 20% of the organization’s total funding.
Notably, more than 70% of US contributions went to just four UN entities: 40% to the World Food Programme (WFP), 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 which Trump has shut down, it may have already vanished.
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 life-saving UN programs are now at risk.
Read also: The Great Game, 2nd Half, Sonia Awale
The paradigm shift in US foreign policy does not necessarily signal the impending decline or outright collapse of multilateralism and the UN system despite the Trump administration bullying 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 US helped establish nearly eight decades ago could begin to unravel.
Paradoxically, 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.
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.
Global solidarity is thus not just a moral imperative but an existential one. Many political leaders seem to understand this and remain committed to multilateralism. International negotiations on taxation, climate action, and development financing are moving forward, even without US participation.
In fact, the absence of the US, which has all too often acted as a spoiler anyway even under previous administrations, could pave the way for more ambitious and effective global agreements.
In this sense, the current climate of uncertainty and upheaval could represent a unique opportunity to build a truly international movement for progressive change.©Project Syndicate
Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is a member of the Club of Rome’s Transformational Economics Commission.