Why it Matters

In a July 22 House hearing, the Trump administration defended its overhaul of the UN and sweeping budget cuts to the organization's budgets, despite concerns from Democrats about abandoning international institutions.

The Big Picture

Since January 2025, the Trump administration has withdrawn the U.S. from sixty-nine different UN entities and agencies following their 'America First' policy. The stated goal was to increase transparency, reduce waste and politicization, counter maligned foreign influence, and ensure U.S. taxpayer contributions advance American interests. The changes represent a significant shift from traditional approaches to multilateral diplomacy. Ambassador Mike Waltz, testifying as U.S. Representative to the United Nations, presented the cuts as historic achievements during the hearing. Ambassador Jeff Bartos, the U.S. Representative for UN Management and Reform, appeared alongside him to detail the administration's restructuring efforts.

What They're Saying

The hearing quickly devolved into dueling narratives about America's role at the UN.

Chair Brian J. Mast opened with a forceful indictment. "The UN today is a sprawling bureaucracy of 193 member states with over 100,000 personnel," he said, describing it as corrupt and entrenched. Mast noted that in 2024 alone, the UN system received over 68 billion dollars in revenue. He highlighted specific examples of alleged waste, including the United States paying over one billion dollars for 1,000 Kenyan peacekeepers in Haiti, only to have a private American contractor accomplish the same mission at a fraction of the cost.

Ranking Member Gregory W. Meeks fired back with a different concern. "The Trump administration has withdrawn from 66 different entities and UN agencies since January 2025," Meeks said, accusing the administration of "retreat" and "abandoning international institutions instead of improving them." He cited the administration's opposition to UN resolutions on human rights, women and children, and refugees over cultural objections.

Meeks also raised the human cost of the administration's foreign policy. "The war in Iran has cost the lives of 18 U.S. service members," he stated, naming Sergeant Angel Rambashad from Ozone Park, New York, who was killed in the conflict. He further accused Ambassador Waltz of moving into his UN role after texting classified war plans to journalists alongside other senior officials.

"Our charge is to make the UN great again," he said, insisting the administration was pursuing reform rather than withdrawal. "The U.S. and UN have worked to cut the UN budget for the first time in its existence by a billion dollars over the last six months," Waltz testified. The cuts, he noted, required agreement from all 190 countries on every line of the budget.

Waltz described specific achievements: the elimination of 4,000 UN headquarters positions, a 75 percent reduction in U.S. costs in Haiti through international troop deployment, and repatriation of 25 percent of peacekeepers identified as sexual abusers. He also pointed to the administration's success in securing a 136-country UN Security Council resolution condemning Iran's attacks and weaponization of the Strait of Hormuz, and credited Trump's Gaza peace plan with securing Security Council endorsement and resulting in zero hostages in Gaza for the first time in a decade.

He noted that Iran was nominated to the UN committee responsible for shaping UN priorities on human rights and counter-terrorism, and was selected as vice president for the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

"I have become the first House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman in history to vote against funding for the United Nations," he declared.

Political Stakes

The administration's claims of budget cuts and personnel reductions represent concrete achievements it can point to as evidence of its "America First" foreign policy.

For Democrats, the hearing exposed a fundamental disagreement about American leadership. Meeks and other Democrats worry that the administration's withdrawal from UN entities and opposition to human rights resolutions will cede influence to other major powers like China. The Global Policy Forum warned in February 2026 that UN funding cuts "will almost certainly contribute to thousands of unnecessary and avoidable deaths in conflict regions."

For Meeks, the challenge is articulating a reform agenda that acknowledges real problems at the UN while opposing the administration's more radical restructuring.

The Bottom Line

Critics of the administration's approach argue the U.S. is not making UN reform demands in good faith. The IPI Global Observatory contended that the United States has no intention of fully honoring its financial obligations to the United Nations, even as it demands reforms. However, the same organization acknowledged that UN reform is worth pursuing despite concerns about U.S. commitment. Meanwhile, Harvard's Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights warned that the absence of the U.S. from UN bodies means more influence for other large nations like China. Ultimately, the hearing produced no immediate legislative outcomes, but served to shine light on the ongiong conversation around U.S. foreign intervention and involvement.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article