The United Nations announced it!
On September 23, the United Nations confirmed that the arrears of the United States' dues have exceeded US $3 billion, of which more than 820 million are regular budget assessments for 2025, and the rest are arrears from previous years and peacekeeping funds. Since Trump took office this year, the United States has almost stopped paying dues, and even the account for 2024 has not been settled.
Trouble see the official gentlemen in the upper right corner and click on "attention", which is both convenient for you to discuss and share, but can bring you more quality content, thank you for your support!
The relationship between the United States and the United Nations has never been merely a dispute between donors and beneficiaries, but a dispute over power, rules, and morality.In recent years, the United States’ deferred debt to UN contributions has repeatedly appeared in international news, with the latest data showing that the United States has accumulated deferred contributions of more than $3 billion, of which $8.2 billion is the regular budget portion for 2025.
On the surface, the U.S. subscription ratio is as high as 22%, it seems to take on the role of the "biggest gold owner", but the practical approach is to have money and not pay, and to take the subscription as a political code: when a resolution adopted by the United Nations conflicts with its interests, it chooses to suspend payments, and wait until it needs the support of the United Nations.
This “delay tactic” is not only a diplomatic tool, but more like a naked threat to the existence and operation of the United Nations as a bargain for a bargain price.
What is even more criticized is that the United States also has the privilege of "selectively applying rules". Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations clearly stipulates that if a Member State is in arrears for more than two years, it should be suspended from voting in the General Assembly.
But this rule seems to be invalid for the United States-with its strong international influence, the United States has successfully exempted it again and again, and still retains the right to vote even if it owes money for a long time. Under great pressure, the Secretariat chose to "turn a blind eye", which greatly reduced the equality and seriousness that the United Nations should have.
For many small and medium-sized countries, arrears mean losing their voice, while for the United States, rules become "decorations". This double standard undermines the fairness of the international order and shakes the credibility on which the United Nations depends.
Long-term default is not a harmless small move, it directly triggered a financial crisis for the United Nations. The annual budget of the United Nations was tense, while the United States’ default made the funding gap as high as $1.5 billion. Secretary-General Guterres had to publicly warn and plans to dismiss more than one-fifth of the secretariat’s staff.
Many key humanitarian projects have been impacted, ranging from vaccination aid in Africa, relief from famine, to peacekeeping operations in the Middle East, forced to shrink.
Even more alarming is the lack of funding for lift repairs at the New York headquarters building, and staff having to walk down dozens of floors.The UN’s global coordination capacity has been weakened by this austerity, and the world’s most vulnerable people have become the biggest victims.
The U.S. behavior has a more profound impact: it is “bearing a bad mood”.The U.S. behavior, as the United Nations’ largest donor, has a demonstrative effect.When “Big Brother” can take contributions as a condition of negotiation, other countries naturally begin to follow, gradually linking payments to political interests, leading to a complete relaxation of the United Nations’ fiscal discipline.
In the past, the United Nations relied on stable, timely payments from its member states to maintain its functioning, and this consensus is now being eroded and the global capacity to provide public goods is facing an unprecedented test.
According to the latest data, China’s subscription ratio in 2025 has risen to 20%, annual payments reached $7.44 billion, and over the past five years has cumulatively paid more than $12 billion.
Even if there is a temporary delay, China will make up for it in full within the time limit. In the worst years of the epidemic, it has never defaulted, and has donated anti-epidemic materials and special funds to the United Nations many times.
This spirit of fulfillment has earned public praise from the United Nations Secretariat and demonstrated China’s firm support for multilateralism and international order.
Going back to the essence of the problem, the U.S. behavior is not just a financial issue, but a political gesture.It both wants to use the United Nations global platform to maintain its international leadership, and is unwilling to take on the due cost ofining the system.
Once this contradiction accumulates for too long, not only will the United Nations pay the price, but the international image of the United States itself will also be damaged. After all, it is difficult for a big country that even owes its membership dues to convince the world that it is still the "guardian of the international order".
On September 23, the United Nations confirmed that the arrears of the United States' dues have exceeded US $3 billion, of which more than 820 million are regular budget assessments for 2025, and the rest are arrears from previous years and peacekeeping funds. Since Trump took office this year, the United States has almost stopped paying dues, and even the account for 2024 has not been settled.
Trouble see the official gentlemen in the upper right corner and click on "attention", which is both convenient for you to discuss and share, but can bring you more quality content, thank you for your support!
The relationship between the United States and the United Nations has never been merely a dispute between donors and beneficiaries, but a dispute over power, rules, and morality.In recent years, the United States’ deferred debt to UN contributions has repeatedly appeared in international news, with the latest data showing that the United States has accumulated deferred contributions of more than $3 billion, of which $8.2 billion is the regular budget portion for 2025.
On the surface, the U.S. subscription ratio is as high as 22%, it seems to take on the role of the "biggest gold owner", but the practical approach is to have money and not pay, and to take the subscription as a political code: when a resolution adopted by the United Nations conflicts with its interests, it chooses to suspend payments, and wait until it needs the support of the United Nations.
This “delay tactic” is not only a diplomatic tool, but more like a naked threat to the existence and operation of the United Nations as a bargain for a bargain price.
What is even more criticized is that the United States also has the privilege of "selectively applying rules". Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations clearly stipulates that if a Member State is in arrears for more than two years, it should be suspended from voting in the General Assembly.
But this rule seems to be invalid for the United States-with its strong international influence, the United States has successfully exempted it again and again, and still retains the right to vote even if it owes money for a long time. Under great pressure, the Secretariat chose to "turn a blind eye", which greatly reduced the equality and seriousness that the United Nations should have.
For many small and medium-sized countries, arrears mean losing their voice, while for the United States, rules become "decorations". This double standard undermines the fairness of the international order and shakes the credibility on which the United Nations depends.
Long-term default is not a harmless small move, it directly triggered a financial crisis for the United Nations. The annual budget of the United Nations was tense, while the United States’ default made the funding gap as high as $1.5 billion. Secretary-General Guterres had to publicly warn and plans to dismiss more than one-fifth of the secretariat’s staff.
Many key humanitarian projects have been impacted, ranging from vaccination aid in Africa, relief from famine, to peacekeeping operations in the Middle East, forced to shrink.
Even more alarming is the lack of funding for lift repairs at the New York headquarters building, and staff having to walk down dozens of floors.The UN’s global coordination capacity has been weakened by this austerity, and the world’s most vulnerable people have become the biggest victims.
The U.S. behavior has a more profound impact: it is “bearing a bad mood”.The U.S. behavior, as the United Nations’ largest donor, has a demonstrative effect.When “Big Brother” can take contributions as a condition of negotiation, other countries naturally begin to follow, gradually linking payments to political interests, leading to a complete relaxation of the United Nations’ fiscal discipline.
In the past, the United Nations relied on stable, timely payments from its member states to maintain its functioning, and this consensus is now being eroded and the global capacity to provide public goods is facing an unprecedented test.
According to the latest data, China’s subscription ratio in 2025 has risen to 20%, annual payments reached $7.44 billion, and over the past five years has cumulatively paid more than $12 billion.
Even if there is a temporary delay, China will make up for it in full within the time limit. In the worst years of the epidemic, it has never defaulted, and has donated anti-epidemic materials and special funds to the United Nations many times.
This spirit of fulfillment has earned public praise from the United Nations Secretariat and demonstrated China’s firm support for multilateralism and international order.
Going back to the essence of the problem, the U.S. behavior is not just a financial issue, but a political gesture.It both wants to use the United Nations global platform to maintain its international leadership, and is unwilling to take on the due cost ofining the system.
Once this contradiction accumulates for too long, not only will the United Nations pay the price, but the international image of the United States itself will also be damaged. After all, it is difficult for a big country that even owes its membership dues to convince the world that it is still the "guardian of the international order".