The UN’s financial collapse: A symptom of deeper rot

The United Nations is preparing to slash 20% of its $3.7 billion budget and eliminate nearly 7,000 jobs. While headlines frame this as a looming disaster, for many observers, it’s not a crisis—it’s long overdue.

An internal memo seen by Reuters lays out the planned cuts, to take effect in January, as part of a broader reform dubbed “UN80.” But beneath the diplomatic phrasing lies a fundamental reality: the UN is bloated, politicized, and in urgent need of downsizing.

Much of the financial pressure stems from the United States, which funds roughly a quarter of the UN’s budget but now owes nearly $1.5 billion in arrears. Yet the focus on Washington’s financial shortfall obscures a deeper issue: the UN's own loss of credibility.

Partisan Posture, Collapsing Legitimacy

Time and again, the UN has demonstrated a clear political bias, particularly against Israel. Its agencies, originally designed to promote peace and neutrality, have become echo chambers for anti-Israeli rhetoric and action. The UN Human Rights Council has passed more resolutions against Israel than against any other nation—often ignoring far more egregious abuses elsewhere.

The revelations about UNRWA staff participating in the October 7 attacks, in which over 1,200 people were massacred in Israel, shattered any illusion of neutrality. These were not isolated actors. For years, UNRWA has tolerated radicalization in its schools, celebrated terrorism, and failed to enforce even minimal standards of impartiality.

Meanwhile, numerous senior UN officials openly express hostility toward Israel on social media and in official forums—rhetoric that directly contradicts the UN’s mandate to serve all member states with fairness and objectivity.

Financial Collapse as a Catalyst

If the current budget crisis forces a reckoning, then so be it. The UN’s vast bureaucracy has grown unchecked for decades, bloated by duplicative agencies, overlapping mandates, and entrenched political interests. The proposed merger of departments, staff relocations to lower-cost cities, and elimination of redundant functions are not unfortunate necessities—they are steps toward relevance, transparency, and restraint.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that “uncomfortable and difficult decisions lie ahead.” But those decisions are not only necessary—they are long overdue. An institution that fails to uphold its founding principles should not expect unlimited funding.

No Blank Checks for Bias

Washington is right to question where its money is going. So are other donors. Reforms that merely trim fat without addressing the core ideological corruption of key agencies will not restore credibility. The UN must prove it can be an honest broker—not a mouthpiece for politically motivated campaigns.

If these budget cuts signal the end of business as usual, then they should be welcomed. The UN was not created to entrench partisanship or enable extremism. Until it realigns with its foundational mission, reduced funding is not a punishment—it’s accountability.