President Donald Trump has sharply criticized the United Nations while keeping the United States engaged with the organization, pointing instead toward a smaller, less expensive and more sovereignty-focused UN.
Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the United Nations and reduced U.S. involvement in several UN-related institutions. But his approach has not amounted to a decision to leave the United Nations itself. Instead, Trump has argued that the organization has significant potential if it cuts bureaucracy, spending and what he describes as ideological agendas. That leaves Washington trying to reshape the institution from within while maintaining America's influence over the international system.
President Donald Trump returned to the United Nations General Assembly this week with a message that was critical of the institution but did not call for the United States to abandon the UN altogether.
Instead, Trump said the United Nations has "great potential" while arguing that it needs major changes. He criticized what he described as excessive bureaucracy and ideological influence and pointed to budget reductions and staff cuts carried out under his administration.
The position creates an important distinction: Washington has been willing to leave or reduce participation in individual international organizations and UN bodies, while still retaining the United Nations as a major diplomatic platform.
Trump Has Already Pulled Back From Parts of the UN System
The Trump administration has already taken significant steps away from parts of the wider UN system.
In January 2026, Trump ordered the United States to withdraw from 31 UN entities identified by his administration as contrary to U.S. national interests, while also directing withdrawals from numerous non-UN international organizations. The administration said the move was intended to protect U.S. sovereignty and redirect taxpayer resources.
The United States has also reduced funding and withdrawn from several UN-related institutions during Trump's second term. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that Washington remained the largest assessed contributor to the UN regular budget in 2026, even as its overall engagement was reduced.
Why Not Simply Leave the United Nations?
Leaving the United Nations entirely would be different from withdrawing from individual agencies or programs. The UN remains the principal forum where almost every government can meet in the same institutional setting.
The organization currently has 193 member states, making it an unusually broad diplomatic platform. During the 2026 General Assembly, roughly 130 heads of state and government were expected to participate.
For Washington, remaining inside the institution also preserves a direct role in debates over wars, sanctions, international security, humanitarian issues, artificial intelligence and other global questions.
Reform Gives Washington More Influence
Reforming an institution from inside can also give a government more influence over what the institution becomes.
Trump's approach has emphasized reducing costs, cutting bureaucracy and limiting international initiatives that his administration believes interfere with U.S. sovereignty. His September 22 speech again focused on those themes while maintaining that the UN has potential.
Analysts have similarly noted that describing Trump's foreign policy simply as a rejection of multilateral institutions can miss the variation across different organizations. Some areas involve withdrawal, while others involve attempts to reshape institutions or use them selectively.
The Money Question
Funding is central to the dispute. The United States has historically been the UN's largest financial contributor, and in 2026 it was assessed at 22% of the organization's regular budget and about 26% of its peacekeeping budget.
That gives Washington considerable financial leverage, but it also means that a major reduction in U.S. funding can affect the organization's ability to operate.
The UN is already dealing with financial pressure. Reuters reported that the United States paid $725 million toward its regular budget during the General Assembly week but still owed more than $1 billion.
The Bigger Debate: What Should the UN Become?
Trump's position is part of a broader debate about whether the UN's institutions still reflect the distribution of global power in the 21st century.
Countries including the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France retain permanent seats and veto power on the Security Council, reflecting the power structure created after World War II. Other governments, particularly in Africa and elsewhere in the Global South, have continued to push for changes that would give emerging powers a larger role.
That means the argument over UN reform extends beyond Trump. It is also a question about whether the institution can adapt to a world in which economic, military and technological power is increasingly distributed among more countries.
Reform or Retreat?
The Trump administration's current approach is therefore more complicated than simply staying or leaving.
Washington has withdrawn from some UN bodies, reduced funding and challenged international programs it considers inconsistent with U.S. interests. At the same time, Trump continues to use the UN General Assembly as a platform for American foreign policy and argues that the wider institution can still be useful if it changes direction.
The result is an effort to redefine America's relationship with the UN rather than simply end it. Whether that produces lasting institutional reform will depend on negotiations with the other 192 member states and on how much agreement can be reached over funding, sovereignty, security and the UN's future role.
Trump's UN strategy is less about abandoning the world's largest diplomatic institution and more about changing the terms on which America participates in it. The larger question is whether reform from inside can produce an organization that Washington considers more useful while still retaining broad international support.
Global affairs, technology, business and the forces shaping the world.
