How Mike Waltz is leading the Trump administration’s ‘a la carte’ approach to UN funding

THE UNITED NATIONS — Mike Waltz approaches his new role as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and President Donald Trump’s mandate to cut funding for what were once U.S. priorities the same way he set out to represent Florida in Congress.

“I approach almost every possible decision here with America first, with the American taxpayer first,” Waltz said virtually at a recent event at the Richard Nixon Foundation. “So if I had to show up at a town hall with a group of mechanics and firefighters and nurses and teachers and testify to them that their money is being spent well, in line with our interests, that would be incredibly difficult right now.”

He added: “And that is why we are using, quite frankly, our contribution as leverage for reform” at the UN.

In recent meetings with U.N. officials, including Secretary-General António Guterres, Waltz and his colleagues at the U.S. mission argued that the United States — the U.N.’s largest donor — would no longer foot the bill as it has since the world organization was founded eight decades ago.

Instead, U.S. officials are taking an a la carte approach to paying dues at the U.N., choosing operations and agencies that they believe fit Trump’s agenda and those that no longer serve U.S. interests. It’s a major shift from how previous administrations — both Republican and Democratic — have treated the U.N., and it has forced the world body, already subject to its own internal assessments, to respond with a series of staff and program cuts.

Shortly after being confirmed as ambassador, Waltz met with Guterres as world leaders gathered at the United Nations General Assembly last month. The former congressman said in a Sept. 25 interview with Larry Kudlow on Fox Business that he made it clear to the top U.N. official that U.S.-backed changes should take place “before we start talking about taxpayer dollars.”

“Washington’s decision sends a worrying signal that powerful countries can get away with actually trying to exert more pressure through a process intended to give the organization the support it needs to carry out the mandates that each country has agreed to,” said Daniel Forti, a senior U.N. analyst at the International Crisis Group.

The U.S. mission to the United Nations did not respond to requests for comment or an interview with Waltz.

The United States is demanding changes to the salaries and benefits of some top U.N. officials until it “can achieve better transparency,” and it wants the creation of an independent inspector general to oversee the complex financial system at the world body.

But some UN organizations have been deregistered entirely. Waltz said in interviews that U.S. withdrawals from agencies such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations aid agency in Gaza known as UNRWA and the Human Rights Council were permanent. In other areas, such as contributions to the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO, the US decision to withdraw support will not take effect until December 2026.

Many U.N. staffers and groups are now waiting to see whether the Trump administration’s targeting of climate and gender equality initiatives will also lead to significant reductions in two of the U.N. operation’s most important priorities.

This pressure, coupled with years of declining support for humanitarian aid, forced Guterres to propose a 15% cut to the entire UN budget, 18% to staff and 25% to global peacekeeping operations.

“This is a deliberate and considered adjustment to an already conservative proposal for 2026 – reflecting both the urgency and ambition of the reforms we are undertaking,” Guterres told a UN budget committee this month.

One of the most drastic cuts so far has been to U.N. peacekeeping, with the United States pledging to pay $680 million for various missions out of an outstanding bill of more than $2 billion, according to a senior U.N. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private negotiations. As a result, around 13,000 to 14,000 military and police personnel out of more than 50,000 peacekeeping troops deployed in nine global missions will be sent home.

U.N. officials have warned that the consequences of withdrawing these troops from previous conflict zones, in South Sudan, Kosovo and Cyprus, among others, would be serious and long-term.

Guterres says that although it “represents a tiny fraction of global military spending – about half of 1% – UN peacekeeping remains one of the most effective and cost-effective tools for building international peace and security.”

U.N. observers say the U.S. cuts and changes go beyond imposing conservative financial values ​​on an international organization and will lead to a shift that will fundamentally change the way the United Nations operates around the world.

“What we also found is that there is really no other country in the world, other than the United States, that has the willingness or the ability to step up and take on this financial guarantor role in a meaningful way,” said Forti of the International Crisis Group. “Neither China, nor the European countries, nor the Gulf countries. »

This is forcing development and humanitarian agencies to reduce “what the UN can actually deliver on the ground and with little chance of the United States returning on a large scale to the role it previously played”, he said.

Even with these budget cuts underway, Waltz pushed back against fears of a complete U.S. withdrawal from the U.N., echoing Trump’s recent speech to the General Assembly about the world organization’s “great” but untapped potential.

The United States wants to expand its influence in many UN normative initiatives where there is competition with China, such as the International Telecommunications Union, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Labor Organization.

“We’re still the biggest bill payer,” Waltz said at the Nixon event last week. “China is coming very close, and this is a key space in our competition with the People’s Republic of China.”

He said he understands those in the Republican base who say “we should just shut the place down, turn off the embassy lights and leave.”

But Waltz added: “We still need a place in the world where everyone can talk, even if it’s with the North Koreans, the Venezuelans, the Europeans, the Russians (and) the Chinese.”