In 2001, a New York real estate developer met with the then-secretary general of the United Nations to discuss improvements to the UN’s headquarters in midtown Manhattan.
The UN was considering a $1.2 billion initiative to modernise the building from the 1950s.
The developer informed Kofi Annan that he could complete the project more efficiently and affordably, even with “brand new marble floors”.
However, he did not secure the contract.
“I’m a big admirer of the United Nations and its mission,” Mr. Trump, then a reality television personality, would later express during a Senate subcommittee hearing on the subject. He was even willing to offer his services to Mr. Annan at no charge.
Now, Mr. Trump is returning as President-elect of the United States, possibly presenting him the opportunity to reshape the United Nations significantly.
This time, however, the issues at stake involve far more than bricks, mortar, and outdated terrazzo floors.
Below are five critical areas where a Trump 2.0 administration might result in substantial changes at the United Nations.
Donald Trump addresses the UN General Assembly as president
Money
The US contributes approximately $18 billion annually to the UN, representing about a third of the organisation’s budget.
US financial support—comprising both assessed contributions (based on GDP) and voluntary donations—far exceeds that of any other member state.
The US often delays payments, leading to significant cash flow problems at UN headquarters.
During the frigid New York winters, for instance, UN officials (and even correspondents) can be seen wearing coats and gloves in unheated offices and navigating motionless escalators turned off to save costs.
Nevertheless, Congress typically resolves late payments eventually.
While the UN has grown accustomed to handling late contributions, it now faces a more persistent funding crisis.
When Donald Trump first spoke at the United Nations General Assembly as president in 2017, he expressed dissatisfaction with the “unfair cost burden” on the US.
This sentiment has gained popularity among lawmakers. The phrase “Defund the UN” became a common rallying cry during this year’s Republican primaries, with a bill aimed at achieving this already introduced in Congress.
Some politicians view America’s financial backing of the UN as a worthwhile investment in maintaining its status as a superpower.
However, this perspective may shift as the UN begins to reflect a more multipolar global landscape.
“The US has gained an outsized benefit from the United Nations,” stated Anjali Dayal, an associate professor of politics at Fordham University in New York, “because it can shape international peace and security to its own interests.”
As long as the US finances a significant portion of the UN’s budget, “other nations should expect that the organisation will be subject to US whims and fluctuations,” she added.
The pressing issue now is whether other member states will be willing to step up if the US tightens its financial grip.
Will they demonstrate their commitment to a multipolar world through financial contributions?
So far, no offers have been made, it appears.
“No, no discussions of that nature have occurred,” Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for the UN Secretary General, told RTÉ News.
Donald Trump announces US withdrawal from WHO during Covid-19 pandemic, April 2020
Health
As the Covid-19 pandemic spread globally, then-President Trump accused the UN’s health agency, WHO, of being overly aligned with China and mishandling the initial reaction.
He abruptly withdrew the US from the agency, causing turmoil in the global health community during a pandemic.
Joe Biden later reinstated annual contributions of $700 million.
Will Trump cut funding to WHO again?
That may depend on whether the organization aligns with America’s goals, according to Professor Richard Sullivan from the Centre for Conflict and Health Research at King’s College London.
The new administration might demand changes in leadership at WHO or seek to defund specific health programs while boosting others.
“Initiatives deemed ‘woke’ are likely to be targeted,” he stated.
Programs related to reproductive rights, diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as LGBTQ issues, are likely to be rejected by the administration, he added.
Trump may reinstate the “global gag rule,” which prohibits funding for NGOs that provide abortion services, as previous Republican administrations have done.
If Robert F. Kennedy is confirmed as Health Secretary, he might introduce his vaccine skepticism into the international health dialogue.
However, the international influence of any individual US health secretary is usually limited, noted Professor Sullivan. Besides, vaccine development is a lucrative business, unlikely to welcome profit reductions.
“I can’t envision the US relinquishing its superpower status in vaccine technology,” he asserted.
What is likely, however, is that China will continue to enhance its influence in global health if the US withdraws.
But we will get back to China later.
Elise Stefanik, incoming US Ambassador to UN, calls it “den of antisemitism”
Israel and Palestine
The US has historically been the largest contributor to UNRWA, the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency, donating $344 million to the agency in 2022.
However, following Israeli accusations against UNRWA employees regarding the events of October 7, the Biden administration halted further funding.
UN officials estimate that the chances of reinstating funding under Trump are nearly zero.
Once again, will other member states step in to fill the gap?
There hasn’t been a single indication yet, according to UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini.
“Member states rarely approach you to say they will cover the shortfall,” he stated to RTÉ News, “they often wait until you are in a dire situation before offering assistance.”
UN insiders also anticipate that Trump will lead the most pro-Israel administration in years.
His choice for UN Ambassador, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York, is a strong advocate for Israel’s military actions in Gaza and a vocal critic of the UN, describing it as “a den of antisemitism.”
Ms. Stefanik praised Donald Trump’s move to relocate the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018—a decision welcomed by the Israeli government but which infuriated Palestinian leaders and Arab nations.
If the UN does not comply with US demands regarding Israel, Ms. Stefanik is likely to advocate for withholding funding.
Philippe Lazzarini, head of UNRWA, says no member state has offered to fill US funding gap
In a September article for the Washington Examiner, Congresswoman Stefanik stated that the US must offer the UN a choice: “Reform this broken system and restore its status as a beacon of peace and freedom, or continue down this antisemitic path without the support of American taxpayers.”
She may also focus on the Human Rights Council, from which the US withdrew during Trump’s previous term, accusing the body of anti-Israel bias.
Then there’s the International Criminal Court, which the US is not a member of. In 2020, Trump imposed sanctions on the court’s chief prosecutor, in response to its criticism of Israel and its investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan.
One can expect a similar reaction to the ICC’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In votes within the UN General Assembly, the wider UN membership has predominantly condemned Israel’s ongoing military actions in Gaza, which have led to an estimated 44,000 Palestinian deaths.
Yet, within the 15-member Security Council—the UN’s foremost decision-making body—the Biden administration has exercised its veto multiple times to shield Israel from UN intervention.
However, it is widely acknowledged within the UN that the US abstentions, which allowed votes on humanitarian access to Gaza, were driven by the US mission in New York, actively countering White House policy.
“We should not expect to see that in a US Mission to the United Nations led by Elise Stefanik,” said Professor Dayal.
Climate activists at COP29, Baku, November 2024
Climate
When Donald Trump assumes office next year, one of his first actions is expected to be withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, which he initially exited in 2017. This agreement aims to reduce carbon emissions and maintain global temperature rises at or below 1.5C.
Trump is likely to turn away from the American climate leadership established under Biden with the appointment of former US Secretary of State John Kerry as special envoy.
After all, “drill, baby, drill” is one of his favorite slogans, appealing to America’s fossil fuel sector.
He has selected fracking executive Chris Wright to lead his energy department.
“There is no climate crisis, and we’re not undergoing an energy transition,” Wright stated in a social media video in 2023.
For climate experts, this represents a disheartening moment.
“It’s an absolute nightmare,” commented Allison Chatrchyan, adjunct professor of environmental law at Cornell University in New York.
“We won’t have representation at the COPs (the UN’s annual climate summit), we won’t play a leadership role, and other countries won’t take us seriously,” she added.
“I cannot begin to articulate the foolishness and sheer insanity of the US retracting from the Paris Agreement,” she further expressed.
The US’s departure from the Paris deal could trigger a ripple effect among the other 194 signatories. Why would they adhere to stringent carbon emission limitations if the US—one of the leading polluters—is not?
However, Trump may face domestic challenges with climate policy. Much of the funding for new energy infrastructure under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act has been allocated to Republican-controlled states and has proven popular among voters. Legislators may resist attempts to repeal it.
Moreover, American businesses will likely be hesitant to lag behind globally, where there is “incredible momentum for green investments and renewable energy,” added Professor Chatrchyan.
UN Chief Antonio Guterres meets China’s leader Xi Jinping, as Chinese influence at UN grows
If not the US, then who?
China, of course.
If the US once again steps back from the United Nations, China is poised to fill that void, capitalising on its progress during Trump’s initial term.
Expanding its influence in multilateral institutions has been a long-term goal for the Chinese regime, which has made key personnel appointments within the UN in recent years.
China has also increased its contributions to the organization, becoming the UN’s second-largest donor after the United States.
“There has been a noticeable push from Beijing, indicating they have solutions for the Gaza crisis, the Ukraine conflict, and the ongoing situation in Myanmar,” said Courtney Fung, a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute in Sydney.
China will seek to present a stable, consistent approach to global governance, contrasting with the perceived chaotic US withdrawal during the last Trump presidency, she stated.
However, in the absence of US leadership, other nations may turn to China for both financial aid and crisis management, which is not without costs for Beijing.
“China will need to offer real, effective solutions instead of broad initiatives and talking points,” she warned, “and this is a complex area for Beijing to navigate.”
This also provides an opportunity for China to further its efforts to shift the UN away from its foundations in Western liberal values, such as individual freedoms and human rights, towards a focus on development and security that Beijing prefers.
The irony is that much of the suspicion among Republican lawmakers towards the UN in Washington stems from concerns about China’s growing influence in the multilateral framework—something US disengagement is likely to expedite.
Ultimately, the extent to which the United Nations is affected by Trump 2.0 will hinge on which iteration of Trump takes office.
“Trump is not inherently antagonistic towards the UN; in fact, in many respects, he appreciates the organization,” noted Anjali Dayal.
Indeed, when he informed the 2005 US Senate subcommittee of his admiration for the United Nations, he pointed to his decision to construct Trump World Tower—a striking gold and black skyscraper overshadowing UN headquarters—right across the street.
He has reportedly enjoyed the pomp and circumstance of addressing the General Assembly and the global platform it provides.
Additionally, during his last term, he established a cordial working relationship with Secretary General António Guterres, who has two years remaining in his tenure.
Furthermore, the upcoming administration has pledged significant efforts towards border security, trade tariffs, and ending the war in Ukraine—issues that are likely to occupy US Congress for the foreseeable future.
This indicates that a drastic overhaul at the United Nations may not be a priority in the near term.
Many UN officials are certainly hoping it remains that way.
