When President Trump threatened to drastically cut American funding for the United Nations this spring, diplomats worldwide gathered in a secluded Swiss lakeside resort. Their agenda: confront the painful reality of potential budget reductions. One particularly stark suggestion highlighted the severe consequences of America’s potential withdrawal: a proposal to cut funding for critical U.N. human rights investigations. According to two diplomats present at the Human Rights Council meeting in Switzerland last May, it was the ambassadors from China and Cuba – nations frequently criticized for their own human rights abuses – who led the charge to restrict inquiries into state-sanctioned atrocities such as torture, war crimes, and the imprisonment of dissidents. These countries, alongside others with troubling records of jailing dissidents like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, have consistently advocated for reducing human rights investigations. Their reasoning, as noted by both diplomats and human rights activists, is ostensibly driven by cost-saving measures.
Since assuming office, former President Trump has significantly disrupted the United Nations’ operations. His administration has withdrawn from the Human Rights Council and other key agencies, frozen funds for others, and initiated a comprehensive review of America’s role in the international organization. As the host of the U.N. headquarters in New York City, the U.S. has historically been its most substantial financial contributor. Although the White House has yet to release the full findings of its review, it has already withheld $1 billion in U.N. funding and notified Congress of plans to cut another $1 billion. This has exacerbated the U.N.’s financial woes. Earlier this week, internal documents obtained by The Times revealed that top U.N. officials have proposed extensive budget cuts, targeting even vital human rights initiatives. Global leaders are keenly awaiting further announcements as President Trump is scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly’s annual meeting in New York next week.
Critics both inside and outside the former Trump administration contend that the United Nations is an inefficient, wasteful bureaucracy unfairly prejudiced against American interests. They argue that bodies like the Human Rights Council do more to validate abusive regimes than to genuinely improve conditions for people. However, proponents of the United Nations, who view it as one of the few global platforms capable of exposing injustices, assert that the Trump administration’s disengagement is actively empowering authoritarian states. These nations are now strategically working to remold the U.N. in ways that serve their own interests, a trend confirmed by interviews with dozens of diplomats and officials, as well as an examination of internal documents.
For example, Qatar, a nation with its own history of labor exploitation, has offered to host offices for the U.N. workers’ rights agency. Russia has suggested reducing speaking opportunities for advocacy groups during hearings, ostensibly to save costs. Meanwhile, Eritrea has pushed for the termination of a U.N. investigation into its own human rights violations. Phil Lynch, executive director of the International Service for Human Rights, a Geneva-based non-governmental organization dedicated to U.N. advocacy, explained that these nations are ‘using every opportunity, including the liquidity crisis and high-level meetings, to advance their agenda.’ He added, ‘Cuts are on the table, and it opens a window of opportunity for them.’
The State Department, in its official statement, maintained that the Trump administration’s review aims to make the United States ‘more effective in promoting the safety, security, and prosperity of America, not less,’ declining further comment until the review’s completion. While the U.N.’s proposed budget cuts are widely seen as a direct consequence of Trump’s policies, U.N. Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq stated that the budgetary reforms are actually part of a long-standing initiative to streamline the organization and enhance its efficiency. Requests for comment from the Cuban, Eritrean, Russian, and Qatari missions in Geneva went unanswered. The Chinese Embassy in Washington issued a statement asserting its opposition to ‘attempts by certain countries to politicize’ human rights, adding that ‘China has never intended to challenge or replace the United States.’
A Global Leadership Void: The Race to Redefine Influence
For decades, the world depended on American financial contributions and leadership to tackle pressing global issues such as pandemics, forced labor, and widespread poverty. Today, however, numerous international groups are exploring new benefactors, including China and Qatar, nations keen on reshaping the international framework for human rights and labor oversight. The United Nations was already grappling with a persistent financial crisis, evident in its Geneva office’s reduced meeting schedules, scaled-back interpretation services, and even multi-week closures. The U.S. traditionally contributes 22% of the U.N.’s $3.72 billion regular budget, along with billions in extra annual contributions to peacekeeping missions and various U.N. agencies. The White House has consistently argued that these expenditures do not align with American national interests.
Critics of American engagement with the U.N. frequently highlight China’s presence on the Human Rights Council, noting that China has used its position to criticize U.S. actions, such as the separation of migrant families. Brett D. Schaefer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, states that there’s ‘scant evidence of the council improving human rights,’ but ample proof that ‘governments elected to the council [use] it to shield themselves from scrutiny.’ Earlier this year, the Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization. This followed a July 22 departure from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the first U.N. agency to face such a review. The Trump administration’s growing distrust of international organizations has only deepened the U.N.’s financial strain, with some U.N. agencies in Geneva facing potential funding cuts of up to 40%.
In May, U.N. leadership directed departments to identify budget reductions and explore moving some operations from expensive cities like New York and Geneva to more affordable locations. The Geneva office, for instance, suggested an early termination of its lease for the building housing the U.N.’s human rights division. Furthermore, internal documents acquired by The New York Times reveal a proposal from the U.N. department responsible for peacekeeping rations to cut daily calorie allowances for troops from 4,500 to 3,250. This financial pressure has also spurred proposals to relocate various agency offices, a move that could significantly enhance the influence of the new host countries. Qatar, for example, dispatched a sizable delegation to Geneva, offering to accommodate several U.N. groups. Records indicate that leaders from the International Labor Organization (ILO) have had repeated meetings with Qatari diplomats. The ILO’s director-general is reportedly considering relocating some staff to Doha, despite past controversies surrounding Qatari funding and widespread criticism of its treatment of migrant workers. The ILO declined to comment on either its potential relocation or its discussions with Qatari officials.
Rwanda, whose government has been criticized for supporting rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo (rebels accused of widespread human rights abuses like unlawful executions, rape, and war crimes), has also expressed interest in hosting a ‘long-term U.N. campus,’ as revealed in a letter from its prime minister obtained by The Times. (This letter was first reported by Nile Post, a Uganda-based news site.) U.N. Deputy Spokesman Mr. Haq clarified that the organization generally does not disclose communications from member states and that any relocations would proceed ‘in a phased manner’ with the approval of U.N. member states. The Rwandan mission in New York did not respond to a request for comment. China, consistently aiming for a more prominent role within the United Nations, is actively increasing its influence across various bodies. In May, just months after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO), China dispatched a vice premier to the WHO assembly, pledging $500 million in funding over five years. The WHO has faced accusations of allowing Beijing to guide its investigation into the pandemic’s origins, rather than pursuing a more rigorous inquiry within China – a claim denied by both the Chinese embassy and the WHO. This new substantial financial commitment could further solidify Beijing’s influence within the organization.
Mounting Pressure on Human Rights and Essential Aid
Despite these concerted efforts, not all measures proposed by China, Russia, and their allies to undermine human rights protections have been successful. During the private Human Rights Council meetings this spring, proposals to cut funding for human rights investigations and reduce speaking time for independent activists were ultimately rejected. Similarly, in July, Eritrea’s attempt to end a U.N. investigation into human rights abuses within its borders was also turned down. However, public discussions regarding the Eritrea investigation and funding for other U.N. human rights activities are still slated for reduction. It’s important to acknowledge that the United States itself has a history of human rights issues, and its global standing has diminished in recent years, weakening its moral authority within the United Nations. Now, its withdrawal has left vital human rights monitoring efforts severely under-resourced.
Volker Türk, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, informed The Times that his office would be forced to discontinue an investigation into war crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo and implement cuts across numerous other projects. Additionally, scheduled visits by monitors investigating torture globally will be reduced. Mr. Türk ominously warned, ‘We will probably see the rise of more torture.’ He emphasized, ‘If you weaken human rights, you open the floodgates to the ones who want to exercise power in an unconstrained manner.’
Following Mr. Trump’s February directive to review U.S. involvement in the United Nations, internal messages reviewed by The Times show that staff in some U.N. agencies were instructed to halt spending on previously allocated U.S. funds, leading to a freeze on various projects. Many agency heads in Geneva were taken by surprise. Filippo Grandi, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, reportedly told staff in May that the dual shock of the U.S. funding freeze and cuts from other donors meant, ‘Unfortunately, regrettably, we will have to do less with less.’ He warned that ‘this will impact the lives of millions of people.’ While some limited U.S. funding has since been restored to the refugee agency, it announced in July that aid for up to 11.6 million refugees might still be cut. Separately, the U.N.’s food agency estimates that up to 16.7 million people could lose critical food assistance. European diplomats in Geneva explained that their nations are unable to bridge the funding gap, primarily because the Trump administration has simultaneously pressured them to increase defense spending. China is unlikely to compensate for the lost American contributions. Its current financial commitment to the WHO, for instance, is considerably less than what the United States would have provided had it remained a member. Richard Gowan, the United Nations director at the International Crisis Group, an organization dedicated to preventing violent conflicts, highlighted the paradox: ‘The Chinese don’t need to step up in a big way to gain more influence. Because the U.S. walking out means that by definition, the Chinese are more powerful.’
America’s Soft Power at Risk
Former President Trump and his allies often criticize U.N. ‘globalists,’ accusing them of prioritizing other nations’ interests over those of the United States. Yet, it was the U.S. that played a pivotal role in establishing the United Nations 80 years ago, and for decades, it exerted immense soft power, influencing U.N. elections and shaping policies on human rights and other critical global issues. Now, that long-standing influence is in jeopardy. Andrew Bremberg, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, recounted successfully campaigning against a Chinese candidate in the 2020 election for the leadership of the U.N.’s intellectual property organization. This was achieved by leveraging State Department support, underscoring the U.S.’s historical ability to influence an agency crucial for setting international rules in an area frequently contested by the U.S. and China. Washington also demonstrated its diplomatic strength at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a lesser-known yet powerful U.N. agency that governs satellite communications and internet infrastructure. China had previously led the ITU for eight years, using its position to promote 5G technology developed by Huawei. In 2022, the U.S. successfully advocated for the election of an American, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, who has since helped U.S. technology companies gain traction in developing nations. However, this influence now has its limits. At an ITU meeting in June, American diplomats attempted to prevent Shanghai from hosting the 2027 conference on satellite regulations, according to sources close to the negotiations. A Chinese host city would have raised significant security concerns for American companies planning to attend. In response, the U.S. proposed Washington as a last-minute alternative venue. This kind of vote-swaying was once a hallmark of American soft power, a skill at which it historically excelled. This time, however, the U.S. bid was unsuccessful.