Donald Trump doesn’t much like the United Nations. That was obvious from his General Assembly speech this week.

He is not alone. Most diplomats who have worked with the UN have found it overly political, bureaucratic and inefficient.

But at the same time they acknowledge that dissolution of the United Nations would be a catastrophe.

American withdrawal would be the same because Washington supplies 22 percent of the UN budget as well as its New York home. The latter, at the moment appears possible. Or, if not withdrawal, rendering the UN irrelevant and ineffectual by not paying its dues and pulling out of its agencies which do not align with Trumpian policy.

Trump’s budgetary request for 2026 “pauses” almost all payments to the UN. So far, the US is $3.72 billion in arrears due to the general fund and another $1.3 billion behind in its contribution to the 110,000-strong peacekeeping force. On top of that, half of America’s international aid was distributed through UN agencies.

The Secretariat is facing a serious liquidity crisis and is forced to deal with it with hiring freezes and staff cuts. UN agencies’ budgets have shrunk by about a third. Food, medicines and assistance for hundreds of millions is being eliminated.

Ironically, the Trump Administration’s attitude to the UN is out of step with the American public. A 2025 Pew Research Survey showed that 57 percent of Americans had a favourable view of the UN. 41 percent had an unfavourable view. More importantly, 69 percent support American paying its dues to the international body in full and time.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to wage war. He has pulled out of the UN-sponsored Paris Climate Change Agreement, the World Health Organisation, UNESCO, the Human Rights Council and the UNRWA which supplies aid to Palestinians.

If Trump continues to “pause” contributions then relations between Washington and the UN will likely come to a head in 2027 when the US will be more than two years in arrears with its dues. If that, happens then the US—under UN rules—will lose its vote in the General Assembly which could prompt US withdrawal in a fit of Trumpian pique.

So what would the world be like without the UN? There are 47 organisations within what may be called the UN sphere of influence. They range from the IMF/World Bank to UNICEF and UNESCO.  Some are referred to as “Specialised Agencies” and the others as “UN Affiliates.”

The Specialised Agencies (IMF/World Bank, UNESCO, and etcetera) would likely continue to exist, at least in the short-to-medium term. These are legally independent international organizations, created by their own treaties.

They do not rely on the UN budget for survival and have their own governance structures, member states, and funding mechanisms. They may: rebrand or restructure without the UN connection. Continue operations under different international frameworks or form alliances or new compacts among like-minded states.

The affiliate organisations would face an iffy future. This is because they do not have their own treaties—they were created by the UN General Assembly. They include UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR and WFP. The affiliates would face serious uncertainty, but might survive in altered form. But they are unlikely to be as effective.

They rely on voluntary contributions, not the UN regular budget. If the UN disappeared they would lose legal legitimacy unless a new international framework took over. That would take time and in the interim there would be a serious and disruptive vacuum.

The UN is also responsible for the implementation and monitoring of a number of treaties negotiated under its umbrella. These include the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Paris Climate Change and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They would continue. The treaties are binding under international law. But there would be no central coordinating body to monitor their implementation and progress.

Finally there is the UN Secretariat itself. The Secretariat is directly responsible for the General Assembly and for the peacekeeping missions in 11 countries and peace missions around the world. The UN was involved in 11 peace missions in 2024. This would disappear. The UN building overlooking the Hudson River would probably be bought by the Trump Organisation. The General Assembly would go with it along with the annual gathering of the world’s heads of government.

The biggest loss would be intangible and difficult to calculate or represent in dollars and cents.  It is the global legitimacy, coordination and peace and security framework provided by the UN.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”