The Shift
Scaling Back UN-Based Cooperation and Mandates
On February 3, the US Congress approved a bill providing USD 50 billion in foreign assistance in the 2026 budget for the Department of State’s foreign operations. Democrats hailed the bill as a success for international engagement, pointing out that the funding was 61 percent higher than the USD 31 billion President Donald Trump had requested, despite the administration’s nationalist rhetoric and chipping away at international institutions. Meanwhile, Republican leaders celebrated the 16 percent cut in funding from 2025, claiming the bill was an enabler of “America First” policies and saying it would “hold accountable” the United Nations.
Indeed, the bill comes amid a paradigm shift in the US approach to international engagement. On January 7, Trump issued a memorandum directing US withdrawal from a wide range of international institutions. This followed an executive order mandating a comprehensive review of US engagement in international entities. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the 66 listed institutions and initiatives – among them 31 United Nations (UN) entities – as “redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, [and] poorly run.” Included are programs and institutions directly linked to the UN’s three pillars of peace and security, human rights, and development – notably, the Peacebuilding Commission, UN Women, and UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). For UN entities, the memo specifies that “withdrawal” means ceasing political participation and funding “to the extent permitted by law.”
This disengagement from multilateralism began on day one of Trump’s second term, when the US pulled out of the WHO and the Paris Agreement on climate change. However, the memo’s hostile language and sheer number of institutions affected mark a turning point. It is no coincidence that this retreat came on the heels of the US intervention in Venezuela and intensifying threats against Greenland.
Trump’s new “Board of Peace,” launched at the World Economic Forum and naming Trump chairman for life, exemplifies the changing nature of US diplomacy. Originally entrusted with a narrow Security Council mandate for Gaza, the Board of Peace now envisages a broader scope, according to its Charter. In his January memo, Trump had announced the US withdrawal from the UN Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Commission, mandated to support peace efforts in conflict-affected countries. The Board of Peace de facto sidelines UN mechanisms, establishing a parallel, US-centric structure for global peace efforts.
Paradigm shifts are also apparent in executive actions targeting “globalist” or “woke” agendas allegedly in conflict with US interests. The administration has withdrawn from the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has underpinned global climate efforts for more than three decades and is universally accepted by all UN members. And it expanded the Mexico City Policy, known as the “global gag rule,” to deny funding to organizations providing abortion-related counselling and services, catering to trans people, or supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The Implications
The UN at Risk of Fragmentation and Politicization
The UN is facing one of its most severe crises to date. In January, Secretary-General António Guterres warned of “imminent financial collapse,” citing unpaid dues by several members. At the end of 2025, the General Assembly had already approved a 15 percent funding cut for the 2026 budget, with a 19 percent cut in staffing. The US – the largest contributor to the UN – has been in arrears in its payments for the regular budget. Against this backdrop, it is notable that the bill now approved by Congress provides for the US to “fully meet its treaty dues.” Despite its criticism, the US will leverage its UN membership to align mandates with “America First” priorities, as the UN is undergoing critical reform.
The Trump administration’s à la carte approach to funding will, however, weaken the UN’s role in global health, development cooperation, and humanitarian assistance. For instance, while its 2026 foreign assistance budget foresees USD 9.4 billion for global health, the administration is focusing on dispersing funds through bilateral agreements, rather than multilateral institutions. Consequently, specialized UN agencies or programs that depend on voluntary contributions will be severely affected – such as the WHO or UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency. In many cases, the US has been their largest funder, contributing up to 40 percent of their budget. UNHCR has estimated that funding cuts could eliminate humanitarian assistance for as many as 11.6 million people, about one-third of those reached by the agency in 2024. Together with substantial cuts at the International Organization for Migration (IOM), global migration and refugee operations have been severely undermined, including critical lifesaving frontline activities. This heightens migration pressures at a time when conflicts and intensifying climate shocks intersect with growing resistance to migrant arrivals in many countries, alongside threats to core refugee protection principles – as seen currently in the US.
Other powers could leverage their relative gain in financial importance – China now contributes about 20 percent to the UN’s regular budget. Autocratic states are also proactively seeking influence in key mandates, such as on intellectual property rights – a domain of strategic competition with both Europe and the US. In addition, reports indicate that autocracies, such as China and Cuba, have proposed limiting human rights investigations to save costs. China also pursues an alternative vision of development, which focuses on infrastructure development in key sectors and aims to gain political leverage in the Global South.
The Response
Defending the UN System, Investing in Integrated Security
In his address at the 2026 World Economic Forum, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz responded to the emergence of great power politics and challenges to the rules-based order: “We do not have to accept this new reality as fate. We are not at the mercy of this new world order.” Given the UN’s pivotal role, Germany and its European partners should act decisively to counter attacks on UN-centered multilateralism and help to revitalize the organization. Concretely, they should:
Fill power vacuums and funding gaps. Responding to geopolitical turmoil, European Union (EU) members, alongside other Western democracies, have been redirecting funding away from development and humanitarian work toward defense. However, this might be a false dichotomy as military means alone cannot achieve security in an interconnected world. To strengthen its geopolitical position, Europe needs to invest in all three sources of power – military, economic and soft power – also in response to China’s growing influence. While Europe cannot fill all funding gaps, even moderate increases for key mandates could help save lives and contribute to the EU’s own security.
Sponsor mandates in key partner regions and host programs. Germany’s and Spain’s offer and UNDP’s decision to move a large share of the program’s posts from New York to Bonn and Madrid is a welcome development. In addition, funding special advisors or peacekeeping missions could maintain operational readiness. This could also provide political benefits as Germany applies for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2027-2028.
Actively engage in ongoing UN reform processes. These provide an opportunity to consider neglected demands and perspectives, also of the Global South. Today’s economic and political power dynamics are inadequately reflected in several UN fora; many established 80 years ago. This issue goes beyond the often-invoked reform of the UN Security Council. It also applies, for instance, to the multilateral financial system, where developing countries face structural barriers like high public debt and disproportionate capital costs.
