BY COMFORT OGBONNA
The United States has paid approximately $160 million toward the more than $4 billion it currently owes the United Nations, a spokesperson for the global body confirmed on Thursday. The payment comes at a time of renewed scrutiny over Washington’s financial commitments to the U.N., coinciding with President Donald Trump hosting the inaugural meeting of his newly formed “Board of Peace” initiative—an effort that has drawn criticism from diplomats and international policy experts.
According to the United Nations, the $160 million payment represents a partial settlement of past dues to the organization’s regular budget. As of early February, U.N. officials said the United States owed approximately $2.19 billion to the regular budget alone—accounting for more than 95% of the total outstanding contributions owed by all member states combined. In addition, Washington owes about $2.4 billion for current and past peacekeeping operations, along with $43.6 million earmarked for U.N. tribunals.
The United States remains the largest single contributor to the United Nations budget, reflecting its status as one of the organization’s founding members and a permanent member of the Security Council. However, under the Trump administration, Washington has refused to make several mandatory payments to both the regular and peacekeeping budgets. It has also significantly reduced voluntary funding to various U.N. agencies, many of which rely heavily on U.S. support to carry out humanitarian and development missions around the world.
During remarks at the opening of the “Board of Peace” meeting, Trump pledged that Washington would continue to support the United Nations financially, stating that the United States would ensure the institution remains viable. He acknowledged the organization’s potential but argued that it has not lived up to expectations. “We’re going to help them money-wise, and we’re going to make sure the United Nations is viable,” Trump said, adding that he believes the body has “really great potential.”
Despite these assurances, the broader context of strained relations remains significant. Over recent years, Washington has withdrawn from dozens of U.N.-affiliated agencies and agreements, signaling a shift toward a more unilateral foreign policy approach. Critics argue that such moves weaken multilateral cooperation at a time when global challenges—from armed conflicts to climate change—require coordinated international responses.
Central to the current debate is Trump’s “Board of Peace,” launched last month after being proposed late last year as part of a broader strategy aimed at ending Israel’s war in Gaza. The initiative was recognized in a resolution by the United Nations Security Council through 2027, but its mandate was narrowly defined to focus on Gaza and the temporary governance of the Palestinian territory following Israel’s prolonged military campaign.
However, Trump has since indicated that the board’s scope could extend beyond Gaza to address other global conflicts. That expansion has raised concerns among diplomats and analysts who fear it may overlap with or undermine established U.N. mechanisms designed to manage international peace and security.
Several countries—including influential nations from the Global South and key U.S. allies in Europe—have reportedly been hesitant to participate in the initiative. Experts argue that the board risks duplicating the role of the United Nations or creating parallel structures that could erode its authority. Some have gone further, suggesting that a U.S.-led supervisory body overseeing a foreign territory resembles outdated colonial frameworks, particularly in light of the absence of direct Palestinian representation in the board’s structure.
Notably, no representative from the United Nations attended Thursday’s “Board of Peace” meeting, highlighting the uneasy relationship between the initiative and the broader U.N. system. Analysts warn that such developments could complicate diplomatic efforts in Gaza and beyond, especially if member states perceive the board as sidestepping established multilateral processes.
The partial payment of $160 million, while welcomed by U.N. officials, represents only a fraction of the total arrears owed. With billions still outstanding, the financial shortfall continues to strain the organization’s ability to fund peacekeeping missions, humanitarian operations, and core administrative functions.
As geopolitical tensions persist and debates over global governance intensify, the relationship between Washington and the United Nations appears poised to remain both consequential and contentious. Whether the recent payment signals a broader recalibration of U.S. engagement—or simply a limited gesture amid ongoing disagreements—remains to be seen.
Original article
Comments