CHATHAM HOUSE Does the US want to weaken the UN or make it ‘great again’? At the UN General Assembly this week, the Trump administration will seek to undermine and weaken elements of the UN system. The question is, will it also want to rebuild it? Expert comment Published 22 September 2025

 

CHATHAM  HOUSE

Does the US want to weaken the UN or make it ‘great again’?

At the UN General Assembly this week, the Trump administration will seek to undermine and weaken elements of the UN system. The question is, will it also want to rebuild it?

Expert comment

Published 22 September 2025 —

4 minute READ

Image — United Nations and US flags are seen in front of UN headquarters in New York on 4 October 2023. Photo by DANIEL SLIM/AFP via Getty Images.

Laurel Rapp

Director, US and North America Programme

Leaders gather in New York this week to mark the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. The theme of this year’s UN General Assembly (UNGA) is ‘Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights’, seeking to emphasize the enduring value of cooperation.

But compelling evidence for this vision is hard to find these days. It has been a troubled year for the UN, amid divisions among major powers, growing suspicion of institutions and greater emphasis on domestic issues. This trend has been particularly strong in the United States, the host country to the UN and its largest financial backer.  

Nonetheless, the show will go on this week. Delegates from 193 member states will attend major UN events on climate, development finance, Palestinian statehood, and AI governance, along with an array of bilateral meetings and side events. As they take stock of massive challenges to the global system, they must confront the changing role of the US.

Making the UN Great Again

Since returning to power in January, the Trump administration has taken a jackhammer to the UN. It has withdrawn (again) from major UN institutions, cut $1 billion in funding and fired over a thousand US experts whose portfolios reinforced major UN functions.

Related content

Can the international order survive Trump 2.0?

Despite this, the US administration has – at least rhetorically – stated a desire to remain engaged in the UN. In his Senate hearing this summer, US Permanent Representative to the United Nations Michael Waltz nodded to the UN’s value as the one place where ‘everyone can talk…to resolve conflicts’. 

Waltz outlined his vision for a more focused, reformed institution. A UN focused on preventing and resolving disputes with a new approach to peacekeeping. A UN that offers transparency in its budget, combats antisemitism and abandons ‘radical politicization’ of US domestic politics. He pledged strong US leadership to counter China’s influence at the UN and a steady US voice in UN standard-setting bodies in aviation, telecom and intellectual property.  ‘I’m confident we can Make the UN Great Again’, Waltz concluded.

Previous Democratic administrations have promoted similar goals – particularly on budget transparency, China and standard setting – though they believed greater US influence would flow from first paying its bills and rejoining institutions. The Trump administration may be testing an inversion of this strategy: weaken first and reengage later.

Ultimately, there may be no amount of reform the UN can undertake to satisfy the Trump administration.

This week, the US will roll out its ‘weaken’ strategy, by countering elements of the UN’s programme and offering alternative approaches to long-agreed norms. It hopes to combat the ‘bloated bureaucracy that compromises national sovereignty and pushes destructive ideologies like DEI’.  A US-hosted event reportedly aims to reshape practices surrounding asylum and immigration. 

Perhaps the starkest illustration of this strategy will be on display at the Question of Palestine summit, which aims to build support for a Palestinian state. While the UK, Australia, Canada and Portugal have all announced their recognition of Palestine in the run-up to UNGA, the US has made headlines by denying over 90 visas for the Palestinian delegation. 

Washington seems undecided whether it wants to simply weaken the UN, or whether it wants to pursue a proactive agenda to ‘make it great again’ by revitalizing its core function.  ‘There are great hopes for it but it’s not being well run…they’ve got to get their act together’, President Trump said of the UN in February.  To build the more responsive peace and security toolkit it has said it wants, the Trump administration will need to decide whether it wants to dive into the roots of the UN system to test the power of financial conditionality. 

UN peace and security agenda could be key to maintaining US support

Just as the US is unsure of its approach to the UN, the UN has yet to settle on a viable strategy towards the US.  

In the first Trump administration, UN Secretary-General Guterres sought to forestall a broader collapse of the system by cultivating personal ties with Trump and practicing strategic patience. Now, Guterres is trumpeting his UN80 Initiative, a series of incremental reforms to streamline UN bureaucracy and improve cost effectiveness. Unfortunately, it risks feeling like branch pruning as the tree trunk pulls at the roots.

Partners who seek an enduring US role at the UN – including the UK and other European countries – likely now recognize that simply ‘waiting it out’ will not work. This position has avoided hard questions about the UN system and its foundational norms absent its most influential member, though answers are not readily apparent.

Topics

America’s international role United Nations (UN) US foreign policy

Regions

United States of America

Departments

US and North America Programme

Ultimately, there may be no amount of reform the UN can undertake to satisfy the Trump administration. US funding cuts are likely here to stay through 2028, and Washington may never view the UN as a constructive home to drive its major foreign policy priorities.

Related content

Independent Thinking: Will China lead a post-American world?

Meanwhile, countries like China and Russia will be celebrating a diminished US presence at the UN and may seek to fill this leadership vacuum. There will be more Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meetings featuring warm embraces between Putin, Xi and Modi, while the BRICS may develop more coherent political and economic tools. In this more fractured and fragmented system, non-Western alternatives to the UN will become more powerful – and will set new norms.

While UN backers may hope the US awakens to the perils of a new global order shaped by its competitors, there are signs that the US is also trying to reshape long-held norms outside the system. Indeed, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned that the existing global order is ‘not just obsolete’ but is ‘a weapon being used against us’.

To maintain US support for the UN, Washington will need to see tangible benefit to its core interests. The clearest place to start is the UN’s peace and security agenda. President Trump has seemingly relished his role as a ‘global peacemaker’ and has called for more UN support in resolving conflicts. An initial workplan could include bolstering the UN’s core peace and security functions, strengthening its mediation capacity and better connecting US negotiators with UN technical experts.

But such a plan may be too modest given the scale of the challenges facing the UN. It may may also be doomed to fail as it would face strong opposition from Russia and China, and those who seek to prioritize other issues at the UN. However, it could be a first step. Given the high stakes for the UN system, it may just be worth a shot.