The New York Times reports (Gift link!) that the United Nations announced it was “facing imminent financial collapse and would run out of money by July” because the United States had not paid its annual dues for 2025. If the situation isn’t rectified, the U.N. will be forced to shut down its New York City headquarters this summer. Also in jeopardy: the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “which responds to global emergencies like conflicts and natural disasters.”
U.N. secretary general, António Guterres, sent a letter to all 196 member states warning of “imminent financial collapse.” “The crisis is deepening, threatening program delivery and risking financial collapse,” he wrote. “And the situation will further deteriorate in the near future. I cannot overstate the urgency of the situation we now face.”
The United Nations’ 2026 budget is $3.45 billion. That is supposed to cover what the U.N. calls its “three core pillars of work: peace and security, sustainable development and human rights.”
What has the U.N. done for “peace and security” lately? “Sustainable development”…sound like “climate change” to me. Human rights? The U.N. criticizes the United States for alleged human rights violation, while letting actual human rights atrocities.
The United States is entirely responsible for the current crisis, because 95% of the money owed to the United Nations is our share. And this is because the United States pays a ridiculously excessive share of the expenses of an organization that has increasingly done this nation little good and a great deal of harm for decades.
Ethics Alarms 
[T]he United States also owes the United Nations … $43.6 million for tribunals such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, said the senior U.N. official in the briefing.
Hahahahaha.
My take on this issue is from a perspective of realpolitik, which prioritizes national interests and power balance over ideology and ethics.
How has the United Nations advanced the interests of the United States and its allies such as Israel in the last decades? The truth of the matter is that the UN advances the interests of declared enemies of the United States and Israel, such as Hamas and Iran. The United Nations is worse than useless when it comes to protection of human rights, as its actions are not informed by ethics but by political interests of its members. Example: the obsession of the UN with Israel compared with the indifference to massacres in Iran and Nigeria. I do not see how neither the actions nor the existence of the UN are in the interest of the USA. So my preference would be to starve the UN of resources and stay in the UN and on the Security Counsel to paralyze this organization to prevent the UN from doing anything harmful.
You can make the following ethical arguments to justify throttling the UN: 1) the UN is an unethical organization e.g. rife with antisemitism 2) the USA government has a higher ethical responsibility to the interests of the USA and its people (the MAGA argument).
Just like my subscription to Netflix, the US has a contractual annual subscription to the UN’s services regardless of the benefits or lack of. The debt should be paid. Especially now when our international goodwill isn’t at its peak. If we wish to no longer fund the UN we need to clearly state the intention to stop, not just be grumpy when we get the bill sent to the debt collectors. I do realize it’s complicated, but in its simplest form this is a debt the US has committed to and didn’t announce its intention to stop as far as I’m aware. If it did, then we can happily not pay the UN fees we cancelled.
I could make a breach of contract and good faith argument. Has the UN fulfilled its commitments or honestly pursued its mission? The usual penalty for not paying dues is that the member is kicked out of the club. “Go ahead, make my day!”
Non-payment makes a pretty clear statement.
1) the UN is an unethical organization e.g. rife with antisemitism.
If someday someone actually describes fairly how Israel was re-founded, and the extent of the errors and crimes it had to commit to reestablish itself, then the topic of Israel in realpolitik terms could be discussed fairly and productively. That is not the case however, so all opposition to the US collusion with Israel cannot ever be addressed rationally.
Israel (and Jewry generally) always place themselves at the center of things and always assume a role in all matters. Especially controversial ones. So, it follows that Israel (the primary Jewish project of the 20th century) will get focus that other nations won’t.
My question about the UN is: What will be the effects on a world PR level if the Trump admin declares it will not longer fund UN? How could the ethical question be answered if the ramifications are not addressed?
let it go under, than Mamdani can use the building to house the illegal imigrants of his sanctuary city.