The United Nations reacted with unusual clarity. After the Trump administration announced that it would end support for more than 30 UN-affiliated bodies and a total of 66 international organizations, Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres made it clear: The United States remains legally obligated to pay its assessed contributions. Declarations of withdrawal do not change that. From the UN\u2019s perspective, the situation is unambiguous, as is the legal framework. Contributions to the regular budget and to peacekeeping missions are decided by the General Assembly. They are binding on all member states \u2013 including the United States. This was stated not only by Guterres himself, but also by his spokesperson St\u00e9phane Dujarric in unusually sharp terms. The UN Charter, he said, is not a construction kit from which states can pick and choose parts to suit them. Renegotiation is not on the table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The conflict is the provisional peak of a tense year. Since Donald Trump\u2019s return to the White House, his administration has pursued a systematic retreat from multilateral cooperation. Billions of dollars for international programs have been cut or called into question, humanitarian aid reduced, payments delayed. UN officials held talks for months, publicly and behind closed doors, to prevent a complete rupture. As recently as last month, an agreement on two billion dollars in humanitarian aid seemed to slow this course. The irritation was therefore all the greater when the latest decision came without formal notification \u2013 diplomats learned of it through media reports and the White House\u2019s social media posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n The United Nations bases its position directly on the\n Charter of the United Nations<\/strong>. Payment of approved assessed contributions is not a political courtesy, but a legal obligation of all member states \u2013 including the United States.\n <\/p>\n\n \n Note:<\/strong> Assessed contributions cover both the regular budget of the United Nations and \u2013 separately \u2013 the financing of peacekeeping missions. Selective payment is not \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0443\u0441\u043c\u043e\u0442\u0440ed under the UN Charter.\n <\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n Affected are numerous entities, including the United Nations Population Fund, which supports programs for women\u2019s health worldwide, as well as the UN climate regime. Beyond the United Nations, Washington is also withdrawing from international groupings. In total, 66 organizations, commissions and programs are to have their funding suspended or terminated. Many of them deal with climate, labor, migration or development policy \u2013 areas that the Trump camp broadly categorizes as ideologically undesirable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some of these steps did not come as a surprise. The United States had already suspended its support for the World Health Organization, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, the Human Rights Council and the cultural organization UNESCO. What is new, however, is the scope \u2013 and the open stance of paying contributions only selectively. The Trump administration is effectively treating the UN budget like a subscription that can be canceled or adjusted on a monthly basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The break is particularly evident in climate policy. Withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/strong> ends U.S. participation in the treaty framework that has formed the basis of international climate policy since 1992 and also underpins the Paris Agreement. UN climate chief Simon Stiell warned that this decision would not only weaken international cooperation, but also harm the United States itself \u2013 economically and socially \u2013 as extreme weather events continue to increase. At the same time, he emphasized that the door to a return remains open. Financially, the sums involved are significant. The regular UN budget is funded by all 193 member states, calculated according to economic capacity. The United States is required to pay 22 percent, China 20 percent. For peacekeeping missions, the U.S. share is even 25 percent. UN officials confirmed that Washington did not transfer its assessed contributions last year \u2013 a clear violation of the Charter. Any state that falls two years into arrears loses its vote in the General Assembly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the United States hesitates or blocks, all other permanent members of the Security Council have paid their contributions in full. China transferred more than 685 million dollars, as did France, the United Kingdom and Russia their respective shares. This constellation reinforces the impression in New York that Washington is not merely economizing, but deliberately exerting pressure. For the UN leadership, more than money is at stake. Guterres said through his spokesperson that the work of the affected organizations will continue \u2013 for those people who depend on support. But behind the scenes, it is clear: The American course has effects beyond Washington. European states are also reviewing their budgets, shifting funds from humanitarian aid to military spending. The U.S. withdrawal accelerates this trend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The message from the United Nations is therefore not only legal in nature. It is political \u2013 and unusually direct. Membership means obligation. Those who helped build the foundation cannot simply detach themselves from it without violating the rules. In New York, there is readiness to confront this conflict. The Charter, the clear message goes, applies even to the world\u2019s most powerful economy. And for Trump: Enjoy it when the voting rights are gone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n