• The Trump administration has initiated a sweeping reduction of U.S. funding to the United Nations, defunding key agencies and rescinding over $1 billion in approved payments.
  • Officials argue the UN misuses funds and supports causes contrary to Western interests, a move that aligns with a broader shift away from multilateralism.
  • The funding cuts are creating severe budget shortfalls, threatening global health, humanitarian, and development services and sparking tensions with international allies.

Efforts to restructure the United States' financial relationship with the United Nations have escalated dramatically in 2025, with the Trump administration taking concrete steps to pull funding from a wide swath of UN agencies. An executive order signed in February initiated a comprehensive review and reduction of U.S. contributions, a policy the former president has publicly justified by accusing the UN of "funding an assault" on Western countries.

The administration's actions are both broad and specific. According to people familiar with the matter, the U.S. has moved to defund the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), while also withdrawing from UNESCO and the Human Rights Council. In a significant July development, Congress rescinded $1 billion in previously approved funding for broad UN operations, including peacekeeping and humanitarian programs. A State Department spokesperson, when reached for comment, reiterated the administration's position that the UN system has repeatedly treated the U.S. unfairly.

The policy extends beyond general funding cuts. The administration has invoked the Kemp-Kasten Amendment to halt funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and has reinstated an expanded version of the "Mexico City Policy," restricting U.S. support for organizations that provide abortion services or information. These measures fit into a well-established pattern from Trump's first term but are being applied with new comprehensiveness and severity.

The immediate impact on UN operations is becoming clear. Internal memos from several agencies, reviewed by our reporters, describe an acute liquidity crisis that threatens lifesaving services, particularly for women and girls in crisis zones. "Without a deal to backfill these funds, some programs will face potential shutdown within months," said one official from a humanitarian agency, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the negotiations. The U.S. has been the UN's largest single funder, and the sudden withdrawal of support creates a gap other major donors, primarily in Europe, are struggling to fill, leading to tense diplomatic exchanges.

The long-term implications point to a potential weakening of international cooperation structures. While some administration officials frame the move as a necessary assertion of U.S. sovereignty and fiscal restraint, experts warn of irreversible damage to multilateral systems for development and global health. The funding freeze exacerbates a pre-existing UN liquidity crisis, partially caused by delayed payments from other large contributors. This trend could shift influence within the UN to other powers, such as China or the European Union, or force a fundamental contraction of its global operations. Allies are exploring stopgap measures, but officials concede they face significant political and budgetary constraints.