In September, President Donald Trump posed a direct question to the UN General Assembly: “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” This query was not merely rhetorical but rather a precursor to a significant policy shift.
In the following weeks, Ambassador Jeff Bartos addressed the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, commending Secretary-General António Guterres’s suggested budget cuts as “only a beginning.” The Trump administration depicted this as a necessary ‘reform,’ but in reality, it indicated a wider retreat from and redefinition of the postwar multilateral order that the United States had long stood behind.
This retreat, however, is not an exclusively American phenomenon. In the past year alone, major donors such as Canada, the UK, and Germany have made substantial cuts to their foreign aid budgets. This has caused a profound weakening of a long-standing global consensus on the shared responsibility for human dignity.
According to research published by The Lancet, the cuts to US aid alone could lead to over 14 million deaths, with 4.5 million of those being children under the age of five. What is at stake, thus, goes beyond financial allocations to encompass lives, institutional legitimacy, and the future of cooperative global governance.
Traditional Perspectives on Reform
Since its inception, the UN has been subject to criticism from various US administrations regarding its inefficiencies, with efforts made at various times to streamline its mandates. Unilateral actions have occurred, notably the 2003 invasion of Iraq that took place without Security Council authorization. However, past actions that deviated from multilateralism were often framed as temporary departures from a system that the US claimed to still support.
What marks the current period as distinctive is the systematic dismantling of this global architecture rather than rare exceptions. Earlier signals of unilateralism, such as John Bolton’s overt disdain for the UN and Nikki Haley’s demands to cut peacekeeping budgets, set a precedent that led to a more institutionalized retreat under the Trump administration. Here, the term ‘reform’ has become a euphemism for austerity measures.
Officials from the Trump era have manipulated multilateral reform initiatives—like the UN80 Initiative launched by Guterres to commemorate the UN’s 80th anniversary—as tools to enforce budget cuts and promote ideological conformity. Under US pressure, Guterres proposed eliminating over 2,600 posts and instituting a colossal $500 million budget reduction, an unprecedented action in the organization’s history.
Ambassador Bartos, rather than seeing this as a compromise, deemed it as “only a beginning” and pushed for deeper cuts. He used his address before the Fifth Committee to advocate for reductions to become the standard practice rather than an exception.
Power Dynamics and Legitimacy
Bartos’s critiques targeting staff compensation—such as housing subsidies, education grants, and tax exemptions—were presented as rational challenges to perceived institutional extravagance. He urged delegates to justify UN salaries to the everyday contributors at home. However, the UN Common System is designed to be compared with national civil services—including that of the US—to ensure equity and attract global expertise.
The contention lies not solely in fiscal accountability but in the ideological battle for control. By branding multilateral expertise as elitist and viewing global norms as infringements on sovereignty, the Trump administration aims to redefine cooperation as an imposition rather than a necessity.
This strategy has resulted in a selective engagement approach. Instead of a complete withdrawal, the US increasingly cherry-picks engagements with institutions and initiatives that align with immediate strategic objectives while simultaneously undermining or defunding those viewed as limiting.
In peacekeeping endeavors, Bartos’s call for “clear exit strategies” reflects a significant pivot toward short-term, transactional metrics. Washington’s push to convert assessed peacekeeping contributions into voluntary funding mirrors similar tendencies in development aid, where global public goods are financed based on geopolitical priorities rather than collective need.
As articulated by Rajiv Shah, the postwar vision was based on the principle that “powerful nations came together around the concept of universal dignity,” codified into frameworks such as the United Nations. Shah acknowledges the promise of new country-led development models but indicates that this foundational concept of shared institutional responsibility is being eroded in the name of efficiency.
Reduced Multilateralism to Utility
The new understanding of multilateralism reduces it to a tool: the UN is perceived as beneficial only when it provides direct returns on American funding. Historical precedents illustrate this trend. Under Trump’s administration, the US exited the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, and the UN Human Rights Council, citing reasons like sovereignty and inefficiency. Each departure lacked constructive plans for reform or alternatives for engagement.
This contemporary pattern stands in stark contrast to earlier unilateral actions. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an assertion of exceptionalism without questioning the UN’s legitimacy. Today’s retreat goes beyond specific actions, disputing the very foundation that multilateral institutions deserve international confidence and financial support.
Emerging Influences in a Power Vacuum
American disengagement has opened up opportunities for other global players to fill the vacuum. However, rather than strengthening the existing global order, these actors, notably China and Russia, seek to pursue their own agenda.
China, for instance, has increased investment in UN development programs while utilizing international bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union for its own state-centric governance approach—favoring sovereignty over data management. Concurrently, Russia has paralyzed the Security Council to evade responsibility for its actions in Ukraine and Syria while utilizing the platform to propagate disinformation against Western actions.
Moreover, private tech companies have begun to occupy spaces in governance that were traditionally the purview of international consensus. Microsoft has collaborated with the UN Refugee Agency on digital identity systems since 1999, and Palantir recently raised concerns over its significant contract with the World Food Programme, which involved data on millions of aid recipients. These partnerships increasingly guide humanitarian data practices in areas like refugee registration and aid logistics.
These developments yield inconsistent results. In some circumstances, the absence of the US may have actually helped facilitate multilateral agreements. For example, some observers believe that the Pandemic Treaty might not have emerged—or would have been less equitable—if the US had remained involved in the discussions.
However, this shift carries substantial costs: fragmented legitimacy, weakened implementation capacity, and the risk that agreements made without the consensus of powerful nations may only be aspirational.
The Implications of UN80
The UN’s 80th anniversary aimed at reaffirming the institution’s enduring purpose but risks becoming a referendum on the resilience of multilateralism in an era governed by unilateral executive actions.
The erosion is evident not only in funding and personnel but also in diminishing trust among member states and civil society in a rule-based system that is capable of holding global power accountable. When the US withdraws from significant organizations such as the WHO during a pandemic or defunds peacekeeping operations amidst conflicts based solely on fiscal quarterly evaluations, the clear message conveyed is that commitments are conditional and multilateral obligations can be discarded when politically expedient.
What is unfolding is a transformation not only of the UN but of the fundamental understanding of legitimacy in a multilateral context. Promising alternatives are emerging, as noted by Shah, with leaders from the Global South exploring ownership over their development through innovative technology and financing models.
Yet, while these shifts are crucial, they currently fall short of replacing the institutional legitimacy and collective capacity inherent in effective multilateralism.
The pressing question now remains: will the United States, as one of the architects of this global system, continue to undermine the foundations of multilateralism, or will it choose to reclaim a leadership approach rooted in sustained engagement, reliable funding, and respect for collective agreements, rather than opportunistic involvement?
Multilateralism has always been fraught with imperfections, but its necessity remains indisputable. While reform is undoubtedly essential, it must prioritize revival over retreat.
image source from：theglobalobservatory
