For a brief moment, it appeared that an international agency designed to undermine American sovereignty could face collapse. But the Trump administration once again dashed such hopes.
According to a congressional notification obtained by Reuters, the Trump administration informed Congress of its intent to pay $725 million to the United Nations. This payment aligns with prior statements from the U.S. ambassador to the UN confirming that the country would not allow the organization to fully collapse.
While this contribution represents only a fraction of the $4 billion in dues owed by the United States, it provides temporary relief. A UN official described the payment as “keeping the ship afloat a little longer.” However, they also warned that without further payments, the U.S. would likely lose its voting rights in January.
Ronny Patz, an expert in UN finance with the German think tank IDOS, confirmed this sum would secure the organization through the current fiscal year.
Americans have historically contributed more to the UN than any other nation. The United States has provided up to 30 percent of all UN funding. In 2022, American contributions totaled $18 billion; in 2023, this figure dropped to $13 billion. During the late 1940s—shortly after the UN’s founding—the United States covered 40 percent of its regular budget.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration has significantly strained the UN’s finances. The U.S. has ceased funding, pledged to halt payments, or vowed to withdraw from numerous UN agencies and agreements. In June, UN officials warned the organization was nearing bankruptcy. A May budget report revealed that the United States ranks at the top of the delinquent list for a $6.4 billion shortfall in the UN’s budget—where the U.S. owes the majority.
President Trump has publicly criticized the UN’s policies, particularly its environmental initiatives and large-scale migration programs he claims destabilize Europe. The UN was also implicated in the migrant crisis during Joe Biden’s presidency.
U.S. actions have forced the UN to slash its 2026 budget by 9.2 percent and relocate over 2,000 jobs from expensive cities like Geneva and New York to more affordable locations. However, this remains far from what would be most beneficial for Americans—namely, the complete elimination of the UN.
Despite failing to fully exit the UN, the Trump administration has withdrawn from or ceased funding for more UN agencies and programs than any prior administration. In January, President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to withdraw from 31 international organizations under the UN umbrella. The order lists these entities, agreements, and treaties.
It remains unclear whether all listed funding has been suspended. However, treaties typically require a one-year implementation period before full effects take place. Thus, the United States remains involved in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for now.
This recent action builds upon similar moves made in 2025, when the U.S. announced it would sever ties with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and halt funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). In January, the United States officially withdrew from WHO—a first for any country. The UN responded with alarm, claiming the withdrawal would make the world less safe and defending the disastrous policies the U.S. cited as reasons for leaving. It also defended its stringent pandemic measures and denied being disproportionately influenced by China.
The precarious nature of these withdrawals is evident in the case of UNESCO. The United States left UNESCO under President Ronald Reagan and rejoined in 2003 under President George W. Bush. It left again in 2018 during Trump’s first term, only to be re-admitted by the Biden administration. By year-end, after the one-year waiting period expires (with no such requirement for withdrawal), the United States will once again have no ties with UNESCO.
The duration of this current arrangement is uncertain. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, the United States is likely to rejoin UNESCO. This outcome is equally probable under another neoconservative administration. As previously detailed, UNESCO seeks to establish “a global school board that directs lifelong education for every soul on the planet,” promoting abortion, population control, erosion of national sovereignty, and new—un-Christian—spiritual guidelines.
It is regrettable that American taxpayers, already burdened by debt, continue funding this organization. This becomes even more troubling when one considers that the UN was established in 1945 by communist leaders and has since grown into a vast network with over 100 agencies, departments, and programs that interfere globally. Its agencies exerted significant influence during the pandemic era, and its peacekeeping forces have been linked to widespread human rights abuses, including rape, torture, and sex trafficking for decades.
Despite these issues, America remains in the UN. In November, U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz stated unequivocally that the United States would not leave the organization. His rationale centered on the need to reform rather than abandon the UN, arguing that U.S. economic interests would suffer more from withdrawal than retention and that other entities would inevitably impose rules affecting America.
Waltz’s reasoning holds some merit. Yet the UN has repeatedly signaled its inability to survive without American funding. So how might China or other adversaries exploit a non-existent UN to advance their goals against U.S. interests? If China is willing to assume leadership, why have they not already taken action?
We encourage readers to learn more about the truth regarding the United Nations and how they can support efforts toward a U.S. exit.