U.S. Keeps UN Afloat With $725 Million Payment

For a short but sweet period of time, it looked like an international agency created to destroy U.S. sovereignty might collapse. But, once again, the Trump administration managed to dash hopes it once raised.

According to a congressional notification seen by Reuters, the Trump administration notified Congress that it will pay $725 million to the United Nations. This isn’t surprising. The American ambassador to the UN made it clear late last year that the United States will not let the UN completely collapse.

A silver lining is that this is a fraction of the $4 billion the United States owes in UN member dues. The bad news is the payment “keeps the ship afloat a little longer,” as one UN official happily pointed out. However, “if the U.S. does not make further payments it will likely lose its voting rights in January,” the official added.

Ronny Patz, an expert in UN finance with the German ⁠think tank IDOS, seconded what this money will accomplish. He told Reuters it will get the UN through the year.

Americans have paid more into the UN than any other people. Historically, we have provided up to 30 percent of all UN funding. In 2022, Americans doled out $18 billion to the UN. The following year, in 2023, it was $13 billion. In the late 1940s, just after the UN was created, the United States paid 40 percent of the UN’s regular budget.

Big Problems

But the Trump administration has caused big financial problems for the agency. It has ceased, vowed to stop payment, or promised to completely withdraw from tens of UN agencies and agreements. In June, UN officials said the organization was on the verge of bankruptcy. A UN budget report from May shows that at the top of the delinquent list is the United States. In total, the UN is facing a $6.4 billion budget hole, with the United States owing a majority of that. President Trump has publicly skewered the destructive policies of this international body, especially the green initiatives and mass migration campaigns wrecking Europe. The UN also played a role on the migrant invasion that happened when Joe Biden was president.

U.S. withholding has forced the UN to reduce its 2026 ​budget by 9.2 percent, and transfer more than 2,000 jobs from costly cities such as Geneva and New York to more affordable ones. But that’s still a long way from what’s best for Americans, i.e., the complete elimination of the UN.

Trump’s Order

Despite its failure to completely abandon the UN, the Trump administration has withdrawn participation in, ceased funding, or vowed to cease funding from more UN agencies and programs than any previous administration. In January, Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. government to withdraw from several international organizations, including 31 under the UN. The executive order lists those agencies, agreements, or treaties.

It’s difficult to know if funding to everything that was listed has halted. Treaties, however, require a one-year waiting period to go into effect. So we can be sure that the United States is still involved in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for now.

The order from early this year built on similar action from 2025, when the United States announced it was cutting ties with the World Health Organization (WHO), UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and stopping funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). In January, the United States officially withdrew from WHO. This was the first time any country had withdrawn from that agency. The UN, not surprisingly, issued a hysterical response. It said the withdrawal will make the world less safe and defended all the disastrous policies the United States cited as reasons for leaving. It defended its tyrannical Covid edicts and it denied that it was disproportionately influenced by the Chinese.

Back Again

The glaring issue with the minor success of the withdrawals is that what’s done by executive order can be undone the same way. The pin-ponging with UNESCO is a perfect example. The United States left UNESCO under President Ronald Reagan, and rejoined in 2003 under President George W. Bush. America left again in 2018 under Trump’s first term, only to have the people running the Joe Biden presidency join the agency again. By the end of this year, when the one-year waiting period is completed (interestingly, there is no waiting period to join), the United States will once again have nothing to do with UNESCO.

How long this stint will last is anyone’s guess. If a Democrat takes the White House in 2028, the United States will almost certainly be back in UNESCO. The outcome is just as likely if another true neoconservative ends up in the White House. And, as we’ve explained in previous articles, the problem with UNESCO is that it seeks to establish “its authority as a global school board that will direct lifelong education for every soul on the planet.” And what this board promotes is abortion, population control, usurping national sovereignty, and new — and un-Christian — spiritual guidelines for humanity.

Get US Out

It is a shame that American taxpayers, who are already swimming in debt, will continue to fund this subversive organization. This becomes more regrettable when one considers that the UN was created as a nervous system for a future world government. Since it was established in 1945 by literal communists, the organization has grown like an octopus extending its tentacles. It went from an organization with a handful of agencies to one with more than 100 agencies, departments, or programs that meddle in the business and policies of nations worldwide. Its agencies exerted scary influence during the Covid era. And even its ground forces bring chaos and destruction. For decades, UN peacekeepers have gotten away with rape, torture, and sex trafficking.

Staying in

But no matter how bad it is, America is not cutting ties. In November, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said outright the United States would not leave the UN. America’s goal was to reform, not abandon, the organization. As we reported, Waltz’s reasoning came down to this: America is part of an international economic system that is significantly affected by the regulations and influence of globalist bodies such as the UN. Retreating would hurt American corporations, industry, and citizens more than staying in would. Another reason the United States won’t abandon the UN is because someone else would step in and set rules that will affect America regardless. 

What Waltz said rings true, sort of. But the UN has been signaling that it can’t survive without American money. So, how are China or other hostile nations going to weaponize it against U.S. interests if there is no UN in the first place? If China is willing to take over, why haven’t they already stepped in to save the day?

We encourage readers to learn the truth about the UN, and how they can help build momentum for a U.S. exit here.