The United Nations is running desperately low on money — and without a much-needed cash infusion, it may need to close the doors of its New York headquarters by August. The cash crunch is one that President Donald Trump could easily rectify by simply paying the money that the U.S. owes the U.N. But by withholding billions of dollars, Trump is putting tens of thousands of lives on the line, furthering the destructive rampage he set into motion last year.
The U.N.’s annual budget for 2026 totals $3.45 billion, covering its work supporting human rights, international development and peace and security. But unlike national governments, which raise taxes to pay for projects, the U.N. depends on contributions from its members to function. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spelled out the severity of the crisis in a letter to the body’s 193 member states last week, warning that the current cash crunch is “deepening, threatening program delivery and risking financial collapse.”
The cash crunch is one that President Donald Trump could easily rectify by simply paying the money that the U.S. owes the U.N.
The annual dues that states are required to pay are based on GDP. As the largest economy in the world, the U.S. pays the lion’s share — 22% of the total funding the U.N. receives each year. China is close behind at 20% with Japan way back in third at only 6.9% of the U.N. budget resting on its shoulders. All told, the U.S. owes $2.2 billion to the U.N., a combination of the $760 million it owes for this year and unpaid dues from 2025.
Granted, the U.S. is not alone in its tardiness, with many countries paying their dues lackadaisically over the course of a year. As of last month, only 39 out of 193 states had coughed up their 2026 assessment in full. The lack of surety on that front is made worse by the U.N.’s obligation to give back any budgeted money that’s unspent at the end of the year, regardless of whether dues were paid at the beginning of the year or December.
“We are suffering a double blow: on one side, unpaid contributions; and on the other side, an obligation to return funds that were never received in the first place,” Guterres wrote in his letter to members. “In other words, we are trapped in a Kafkaesque cycle; expected to give back cash that does not exist.”
In some ways, Trump’s penny-pinching is on brand for a Republican president. The United Nations is rarely a high U.S. priority for a GOP White House, with many having an outright antagonistic relationship with the global body. During President Ronald Reagan’s two terms, the U.S. frequently withheld part of its dues in hopes of extracting reforms to an organization it considered biased against American interests. The decision set off a chain of debts that was still being untangled late into the 1990s — but even the Reagan administration never simply refused to pay at all.
There are hints that some within the Trump administration understand the importance of the U.N. Even while pushing for deeper cuts to its budget, Trump’s ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz has been adamant about how important it remains. “There needs to be one place in the world where everyone can talk,” Waltz told the New York Post in an interview last month. “We want that one place in the world to be in the United States, not in Brussels or Beijing.”
How many more could die without the U.N. to fill in the gap? But the math isn’t mathing, given the administration’s hostility toward funding the U.N. Last year, the White House attempted to unilaterally cut $7.9 billion from the State Department accounts that include U.N. funding. Its budget request for the current fiscal year likewise proposed slashing that account down to $263 million, or an 83% cut. Though Congress’ latest funding bill for the State Department has $1.3 billion set aside for paying obligations to international organizations, there’s still a chance that this White House illegally withholds the money anyway. In any case, Trump himself seems much more enamored with the league of dictators known as the Board of Peace that he established with himself as its head. Coupled with his longstanding grudge against the U.N. for not hiring him to renovate its headquarters, it seems unlikely that Trump will be stepping in to save the day. The shortfall that the U.N. faces is like nothing the organization has seen in even its darkest days, leaving its future in doubt. There are certainly areas where the U.N. has fallen short of the lofty goals it set for itself in the aftermath of World War II. But as a forum for the great powers to reduce tensions, a bulwark against climate change and a lifeline for people struggling to survive, it’s hard to overstate its importance to the international community. That’s especially true considering last year’s decision to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, placing even more of that weight directly onto the United Nations. According to at least one estimate, hundreds of thousands of people died due to the end of USAID assistance. How many more could die without the U.N. to fill in the gap? It’s a question I fear we may learn the answer to all too soon.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House. 
