In fiscal 2023, the US paid over $16 billion to international organizations, of which approximately three-quarters went to the UN and its affiliates. According to the UN Chief Executives Board, US contributions to the UN system in 2023 totaled nearly 28 percent of all contributions from government donors. The US was particularly generous to the UN’s humanitarian organizations, accounting for over 40 percent of all contributions to the World Food Program (WFP), the International Organization for Migration, and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 

The American taxpayer bears a disproportionate burden in funding the UN megalith, and a thoroughgoing review is long overdue.

On February 4, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for a review of all international organizations and multilateral treaties to which the United States belongs or provides funding to determine which are “contrary to the interests of the United States” and provide recommendations on whether the US should withdraw. But the review might not meet the President’s deadline—no surprise, as the job is gargantuan involving nearly 150 organizations and dozens of international agreements. Staff reductions in the National Security Council and the absence of a confirmed US Ambassador to the United Nations, who is instructed to help conduct the review, have no doubt slowed the process.

The last time the US government conducted a similar, albeit less comprehensive, exercise to what President Trump has ordered was under the Clinton administration, and policymakers and experts have long pressed for an updated scrub.

The President has already announced that the US would cease engagement with and funding of the Human Rights Council, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and the World Health Organization. These announcements echoed decisions from his first term. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2026 specifically included funding for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), International Maritime Organization (IMO), NATO, and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Presumably these organizations have been deemed important to US interests.

But what of the dozens of others? Undoubtedly, more than seven international organizations provide value to the US, with everything from the functions of international mail to emergency assistance. Disengagement across the board would harm US interests. Undoubtedly, the White House will ultimately finish the job, but in the meantime, UN bills are coming due, appropriations bills are being considered, and the time for decisions on funding the UN behemoth is now.

The AEI United Nations Organizations Assessment Project launched today begins the necessary work of accountability. The Project racks and stacks the UN and 39 of its agencies and affiliated organizations based on their contribution to US security, foreign policy, and economic interests. In addition to providing recommendations on US engagement and funding, each assessment offers basic facts about the organization, including US funding levels and the number of US nationals the organization employs, and summarizes the organization’s primary mission and activities, governance rules, and relevant details about its interactions with the US, China, and Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Blindly shoveling taxpayer dollars to international organizations before the Trump review is complete is fiscal malfeasance. Ideally, this project will help the Administration in its evaluation and aid Congress as it considers FY26 funding. Hyperlinked throughout, organizations are grouped into tiers:

• Tier 1 organizations contribute significantly to US interests, and the recommendation is typically continued engagement and funding.
• Tier 2 organizations may contribute to some US interests, but do not support major US policies or priorities, and the recommendation is typically continued engagement in some capacity, sometimes urging consolidation with other organizations, and reducing funding.
• Tier 3 organizations tend to have mandates at odds with US policy, be irrelevant or harmful to US interests, or have managerial or political liabilities that impede positive contributions to US interests. The recommendation is typically to withdraw or cease US funding, sometimes shifting discrete useful activities to other organizations.

Alignment of US policy with the recommendations would result in significant annual savings of between $3.5 billion and $6.5 billion compared to 2023, while still safeguarding major US interests.