The Issue
Thalif Dean, in his excellent article titled UN’s Biggest Crisis in 80 Years? appearing in this newspaper of 5 March 2025 says: “ The United Nations, in its nearly 80-year-old history, is on the verge of fighting for its survival, as the Trump administration continues with its threats to drastically cut funding and pull out of several UN agencies which provide mostly humanitarian assistance worldwide. Elon Musk, the tech billionaire, who acts as a virtual Prime Minister to President Trump, has called on the U.S. to exit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations. “I agree,” he wrote in response to a post from a right-wing political commentator saying, “it’s time” for the U.S. to leave NATO and the UN.”
Fox News of 20 February 2025 said that in a move that seeks to realign the United States’ foreign policy with an inward-looking approach, Republican lawmakers have initiated an effort aimed at severing the U.S. from the United Nations. This initiative has been propelled by concerns that the United Nations, as an international body devoted to humanitarianism and the protection of human rights, no longer serves the interests of the American people nor aligns with the “America First” philosophy championed by President Donald Trump.
Senator Mike Lee of Utah has taken the lead by introducing legislation titled the “Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle Act of 2025.” This legislative proposal aims to dissolve U.S. membership in the United Nations and its affiliated organizations, alongside ceasing American financial contributions to those bodies. The bill, which has gained traction within the Republican ranks, has been co-sponsored by Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee in the Senate.
The “United Nations Debacle Act of 2025,” spearheaded by Senator Mike Lee, with the support of Senator Marsha Blackburn, advocates for the United States’ complete withdrawal from the United Nations, including all of its associated bodies. The Act articulates a growing belief among certain members of the U.S. legislature that the UN has failed to effectively serve the national interests of the United States and is increasingly misaligned with the principles of the “America First” agenda championed by President Donald Trump. The proposed legislation seeks to end U.S. membership in the UN, along with the cessation of financial contributions to the organization and its various agencies, based on the conviction that the UN’s actions no longer promote or protect the interests of the American people. This move reflects a broader dissatisfaction within certain political circles with the UN’s perceived inefficacy and its failure to prioritize the goals of the U.S. within the international arena.
.The following are my thoughts.
The prospect of the United States withdrawing from the United Nations (UN) is a concept that raises profound questions not only in terms of international law and diplomacy but also in terms of global governance, peace, and security. The UN, founded in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War, was created to prevent conflicts between nations and to foster international cooperation. The United States, as one of the founding members, has played a central role in shaping the organization’s structure and policies. A withdrawal by the U.S. would have far-reaching consequences, the ramifications of which would not only affect the UN itself but also reverberate throughout various specialized international organizations where UN membership is a prerequisite for membership.
Legal Aspects
First and foremost, the legal framework governing the United Nations does not explicitly provide a mechanism for a member state to withdraw. While some international treaties contain provisions allowing for withdrawal, the UN Charter is silent on this issue. Article 108 of the Charter outlines the process for amendments, requiring the approval of two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of the member states, including all permanent members of the Security Council. This provision speaks to the difficulty of altering the UN Charter itself, yet it does not contemplate withdrawal. Instead, it suggests that, in theory, the UN is a permanent institution with an enduring commitment from its member states. In the absence of clear provisions for withdrawal, international law offers little guidance as to the procedural steps or the consequences of a country leaving the organization. Customary international law, in this regard, might refer to the principle of rebus sic stantibus, which holds that a fundamental change of circumstances may permit a state to terminate or suspend its obligations under a treaty. However, applying this principle to the UN is complex, given that it would require a very particular interpretation of what constitutes such a “fundamental change” and how it would justify unilateral action by a member state like the United States.
Moreover, the international legal system could face significant disruption. The United States is a signatory to numerous international agreements, treaties, and conventions facilitated by the UN. Its withdrawal from the UN would call into question the legal status of these treaties and agreements, as many require UN membership as a foundation. For instance, the United States is a key player in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial body of the UN, and its withdrawal could result in the weakening of international legal frameworks that rely on the ICJ for the resolution of disputes. In the absence of the U.S., it is likely that the authority of the ICJ would be diminished, as many nations, particularly those in the Western Hemisphere, align their legal systems and diplomatic relations in accordance with U.S. precedents. The international legal order would become more fragmented, with countries less willing to participate in multilateral legal processes. The result could be a decline in the effectiveness of international law, which has historically been a stabilizing force in the international system.
The UN Charter, like many international agreements, was designed to foster cooperation and consensus among nations, aiming for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Consequently, it contains no provisions that explicitly address the dissolution of the organization. This is significant because, theoretically, no member state should have the right to unilaterally withdraw, as doing so would disrupt the collective international order established by the Charter. Thus, a decision by the United States to withdraw would likely result in a complex legal and diplomatic situation, with uncertain legal consequences not only for the U.S. but for the organization as a whole. For example, such a move could potentially destabilize the entire framework of international relations by encouraging other states to follow suit, undermining the legitimacy of the UN.
Ramifications
In considering the ramifications of such a withdrawal, it is essential to understand the central role the United States plays in the functioning of the UN. The United States is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, holding veto power over substantive resolutions. As such, its withdrawal would significantly alter the balance of power within the Security Council, undermining its ability to function effectively in maintaining international peace and security. In fact, many of the UN’s peacekeeping and conflict-resolution missions have been strongly influenced or even led by the United States, whether through military or financial support. The absence of the U.S. from the Security Council would inevitably shift the dynamics of decision-making and may render the Council less effective in addressing global conflicts. Additionally, the United States is a significant financial contributor to the UN system, providing roughly 22 percent of the organization’s regular budget. A withdrawal would leave a substantial financial void, which could affect the operations of various UN agencies and programs, ranging from humanitarian aid and development assistance to peacekeeping operations.
The repercussions of a U.S. withdrawal from the UN would also extend to other specialized international organizations, many of which require UN membership as a precondition for participation. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), for example, is a specialized agency of the UN that sets global standards for civil aviation safety, efficiency, and environmental impact. The ICAO’s work is integral to ensuring the smooth functioning of international air travel, a system in which the U.S. plays a leading role. The United States, as the world’s largest air traffic market and a major aviation technology leader, has a vested interest in the global regulatory frameworks that ICAO helps establish. However, ICAO’s membership is contingent upon a country being a member of the UN. If the United States were to withdraw from the UN, it would no longer be eligible to be a member of ICAO, potentially disrupting the global aviation system. The U.S. would lose its ability to influence and participate in the formation of international aviation regulations, and its absence could lead to less coherence in the application of safety standards and regulations worldwide. Other states, particularly those in the developing world, would find it increasingly difficult to navigate international air travel regulations without the leadership and influence of the U.S.
Similarly, the U.S. plays a significant role in the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which works to defeat hunger and improve nutrition and food security worldwide. The FAO operates under the framework of the UN and relies heavily on the participation of member states for its effectiveness. A withdrawal of the United States would not only diminish the capacity of the FAO but could also shift the balance of power within the organization, limiting the effectiveness of international food security efforts. The U.S. is a major food producer and a key player in global agricultural markets. Its absence from the FAO would reduce the agency’s capacity to coordinate global efforts to address hunger, malnutrition, and sustainable agricultural practices. Furthermore, it could create a leadership vacuum, leaving developing countries without the technical expertise and support that the United States has traditionally provided.
The World Health Organization (WHO), another specialized agency of the UN, faces a similar challenge. The WHO plays a crucial role in managing global health issues, such as disease outbreaks, health research, and the establishment of international health standards. The United States, being one of the largest contributors to the WHO’s budget and an active participant in its initiatives, would be sorely missed in any global health crisis. The WHO’s work in providing technical support to countries battling diseases such as COVID-19, malaria, and tuberculosis would be severely hampered by a U.S. withdrawal. The global health community depends on the leadership and resources provided by the United States, and without its participation, global health initiatives would likely suffer, leaving developing countries particularly vulnerable. The absence of the U.S. would reduce the WHO’s ability to respond to pandemics effectively, undermining the international health system.
The question then becomes: what would a world look like without the United States in the UN? The United States has long been a driving force in global governance, providing leadership in international diplomacy, humanitarian aid, peacekeeping operations, and global economic development. Its withdrawal from the UN would not only challenge the existing order of international relations but also present a threat to the very system of multilateralism that underpins the functioning of the modern world. The global system would likely become more fragmented, with regional powers attempting to fill the void left by the U.S. This would lead to an increase in the number of bilateral agreements, as states seek to navigate global challenges independently of multilateral frameworks. While such agreements could be beneficial in some areas, they would fail to provide the global cooperation needed to address transnational issues such as climate change, pandemics, or terrorism.
My Take
A U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations would have wide-ranging implications not only for the UN system but also for the many specialized agencies that depend on UN membership. The absence of the United States from these agencies, such as ICAO, FAO, and WHO, would undermine the effectiveness of international cooperation in critical areas like aviation safety, food security, and public health.
Furthermore, the legal, financial, and geopolitical consequences of such a withdrawal would leave the global system in a state of disarray, with the potential for increasing fragmentation and a decline in the effectiveness of international law. The importance of multilateralism and collective action in solving the world’s most pressing challenges cannot be overstated. The withdrawal of the United States from the UN would undoubtedly disrupt this system, with consequences that would be felt across the globe for generations to come. Therefore, rather than disengaging from the UN, the United States should work toward strengthening the institution, ensuring that it remains a robust platform for addressing global issues and promoting peace and security.
