In a significant and contentious maneuver emblematic of a deeper reconfiguration of American global strategy, the White House Office of Management and Budget, under the Trump administration, has proposed a complete elimination of U.S. contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations. This proposal, disclosed through internal planning documents obtained by Reuters journalists, represents a major departure from longstanding U.S. international commitments, specifically targeting funding mechanisms that have historically undergirded the operational viability of U.N. missions around the world.
The United States is currently the single largest financial contributor to both the U.N.’s regular budget and its peacekeeping operations, shouldering 22% of the organization’s $3.7 billion core operating costs and an even larger 27% share of the $5.6 billion earmarked for peacekeeping missions. These contributions are not discretionary, but legally mandated by treaty obligations and the international consensus that established the postwar global order. The proposed budgetary revisions fall under the scope of the so-called “Passback” process—an internal fiscal feedback mechanism in which the OMB responds to funding requests made by executive agencies, in this case the U.S. Department of State, for the upcoming fiscal year beginning October 1.
The Passback in question recommends not only zeroing out funding for the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA), but also envisions halving the entire State Department’s budget, effectively slashing American diplomatic and aid efforts on a scale even more aggressive than proposals made during Donald Trump’s first term, when a one-third reduction was initially floated. Congress, which constitutionally holds the power of the purse, rebuffed those earlier attempts, and may do so again. Nevertheless, this new iteration is more comprehensive, targeting not just reductions, but an outright structural exit from multilateral obligations the U.S. has long been instrumental in shaping.
The rationale behind the proposed defunding lies in the administration’s harsh assessment of recent peacekeeping failures. Specifically cited in the leaked OMB document are the missions in Mali (MINUSMA), Lebanon (UNIFIL), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), which are characterized as emblematic of systemic inefficacy. These critiques dovetail with longstanding criticisms from Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly argued that U.S. contributions to international organizations are both financially disproportionate and strategically unrewarding.
In place of these established multilateral frameworks, the OMB proposes the establishment of a $2.1 billion “America First Opportunities Fund” (A1OF). This fund would serve as a streamlined and nationally directed mechanism for selective foreign aid and development priorities, entirely determined by the strategic objectives of the U.S. executive branch. It would, the OMB states, provide an alternative source for covering any U.N. obligations that the administration might decide, at its discretion, to fulfill. This represents not only a financial restructuring, but an ideological redirection from collective internationalism to an assertive, unilateralist doctrine.
Such a shift is complicated by the fact that the United States is already in significant arrears to the United Nations. As of the current fiscal year, Washington owes nearly $1.5 billion to the U.N. regular budget and approximately $1.2 billion to peacekeeping operations. These debts put the U.S. at risk of losing its vote in the U.N. General Assembly, should they remain unpaid for a period exceeding two years, a rare and politically explosive scenario for a permanent member of the Security Council.
The implications of the OMB’s proposal, if enacted, would be global in scope. The peacekeeping missions under threat are not abstract bureaucratic exercises but active operations deployed in zones of chronic instability and fragile ceasefires: Mali, Lebanon, Congo, South Sudan, Western Sahara, Cyprus, Kosovo, the Golan Heights, and Abyei—an administratively contentious area claimed by both Sudan and South Sudan. The potential collapse or weakening of these missions, through abrupt withdrawal of U.S. financial support, could precipitate local escalations and broader regional disorder.
The United Nations, for its part, has responded with diplomatic restraint. Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric declined to issue substantive comment on what he described as an internal U.S. debate, based on leaked materials. Secretary-General António Guterres, meanwhile, has acknowledged the financial crisis gripping the organization, noting last month that reforms aimed at enhancing efficiency and cost-cutting are underway as the U.N. marks its 80th anniversary. However, even under optimal reform conditions, the loss of American funding would trigger structural disarray across multiple mission theatres.
Whether the proposed OMB blueprint becomes binding policy remains contingent on congressional action. Historically, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have resisted extreme retrenchments from the U.N. system, recognizing its value as a force multiplier for U.S. foreign policy, intelligence coordination, and post-conflict stabilization. The current proposal may thus serve more as a political statement of priorities than a definitive withdrawal—though in the volatile climate of American politics, particularly under the ideological current of “America First,” the line between rhetoric and policy continues to blur.
This reveals not only the content of these proposals, but the deeper ideological transformation they presuppose. The shift is not merely one of budgetary allocation, but a recalibration of America’s role in the world: from cornerstone of the liberal international order to skeptical sponsor of conditional bilateralism, from architect of multilateral security regimes to principal critic of their shortcomings. In this light, the proposed defunding of U.N. peacekeeping is not an isolated policy tweak but a deliberate act of disengagement with the very institutions that have, for decades, mediated the balance between sovereignty and cooperation in the postwar world.
Gros News 
Leave a comment