The Trump administration is set to begin distributing payments amounting to billions in overdue dues to the United Nations in the coming weeks.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Walz mentioned that these payments would have specific conditions attached. He dismissed allegations suggesting that the U.S. was responsible for the financial troubles facing the organization.
“The United States contributes funds to over 180 countries through the UN system,” Walz stated. “Historically, we have been the UN’s largest supporter, but under President Trump, we’re insisting on reform.”
Walz noted that the administration’s efforts have already yielded results, as the United Nations has agreed to eliminate around 3,000 staff positions at its headquarters and has sanctioned its first budget reductions in eight decades. Additionally, the organization intends to cut its peacekeeping forces by 25%.
As of early February, the U.S. had an outstanding balance of approximately $2.19 billion owed to the UN’s regular budget. Furthermore, the country is accountable for an additional $2.4 billion in peacekeeping costs and $43.6 million for UN tribunals.
On February 3, President Donald Trump approved a spending bill that allocates $3.1 billion for U.S. contributions to the UN and other global organizations.
“We will definitely get the first funding soon,” Walz informed Reuters. “It would be a considerable initial payment toward the annual obligation.”
UN Secretary-General António Guterres cautioned last month that all 193 member organizations might face imminent financial failure, with funding possibly running out by July.
Walz expressed concerns that the United Nations has drifted from its original purpose and has become overly extensive. “The UN budget has quadrupled in the last 25 years,” he remarked. “In contrast, we haven’t seen a quadrupling of peace globally. In fact, it seems to be declining.”
He highlighted inefficiencies within the organization, pointing out that seven different UN agencies focus on climate change. “Currently, we don’t require seven agencies, no matter how you view the climate change discussion,” he concluded.
