At the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly last month, President Trump was blunt. In a speech devoid of  diplomatic niceties, he accused the world’s foremost international body of abandoning its founding purpose — to maintain peace, protect human rights, and hold aggressors accountable.

“Not only is the U.N. not solving the problems it should; too often it’s actually creating new problems for us to solve,” he said. “What is the purpose of the United Nations? The U.N. has such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential for the most part.”

His critique, along with the observation that the U.N. played no meaningful role in this month’s Gaza ceasefire and return of the living hostages, forces an uncomfortable question: Has the United Nations failed in its mission?

A senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Orde Kittrie, tells the New York Sun that the U.N.’s early record featured “several peacekeeping missions which helped end brutal civil wars, including in Liberia and Sierra Leone,” but that he believes the institution has drifted from its core purpose. 

“The U.N.’s biggest failures include the capture of its human rights arms by China and others of the world’s most grave abusers of human rights,” said Mr. Kittrie, who previously served as an attorney and policy official at the State Department. “The U.N. General Assembly has, since 2015, passed a total of 173 resolutions condemning Israel and only 78 resolutions condemning other countries, including none on China.”

A Legacy of Stalemates

Founded in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War, the United Nations was meant to ensure that humanity would never again descend into global conflict. But in the decades since, the Security Council, the organization’s most powerful decision-making body, has been crippled by the very structure that was supposed to guarantee stability.

Each of the five permanent members — the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom — wields veto power, making consensus on most issues a near impossibility. The Council on Foreign Relations has warned that this paralysis risks turning the institution into “a second League of Nations,” echoing the fate of its failed predecessor.

This dysfunction has never been more visible than on the issue of Ukraine. In February 2022, the same month Russian forces launched a full-scale invasion, Moscow chaired a Security Council meeting on the very conflict it had ignited. The symbolism was stark — and for many, it epitomized the absurdity of the system.

Similar failures have played out across the globe. The U.N. response to the conflict in Yemen, which began more than a decade ago, has ranged from mishandled ceasefires to ineffective aid delivery. The organization is widely accused of supporting terrorist groups and inflaming the protracted war in Gaza. The Security Council is deadlocked on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear ambitions to North Korea’s missile tests.

Critics say many of its missions have become pricey endeavors in stagnation, tainted by accusations of large-scale sexual abuse by peacekeepers upon the vulnerable populations they are paid to protect. 

Mr. Kittrie argues that “several U.N. entities regularly invent facts and mischaracterize international law in the service of manufacturing anti-Israel propaganda.” 

He points to bodies such as the “Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory,” the “Division for Palestinian Rights,” and others. He says these units “violate U.N. rules requiring strict impartiality and objectivity” and have become “profoundly prejudicial, regularly hiring personnel who are obviously biased against Israel.”

A global risk and financial analyst, Dennis Santiago, presents a more mixed picture of the U.N., suggesting its legacy includes both triumphs and stagnation. 

“The shining stars of the United Nations are its contributions to nuclear non-proliferation and world health,” he tells the Sun. “The number of lives saved by these two initiatives has made every dollar invested in the organization worthwhile. We would’ve had far more destructive wars in our history and far fewer humans alive if the United Nations had not been there since 1945.”

The U.N.’s greatest failure, Mr. Santiago says, “has been the transition of colonialism from a nation-state international structure to a General Assembly surrogate system” in which a few powerful nations have been able to maintain their dominance.

Former colonies, he says, “remain second-class nations, welcomed into the arms of the U.N., but still second-class citizens condemned to struggle in the Third World by the whimsy of dictators, cartels, terrorists, and cultural prejudice.”

Humanitarian Ideals, Political Realities

The United Nations was built not only to prevent war but to promote human dignity. Its agencies, from the World Health Organization to the Human Rights Council, were meant to transcend politics. Yet, over time, these bodies have often become extensions of it.

Embedded in collective memory is the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic by the U.N.’s special agency, the World Health Organization. Political pressure from China stifled transparency about the virus’s origins, raising doubts about the organization’s independence and credibility.

In the pandemic’s early weeks, as reports of a mysterious pneumonia spread through Wuhan, the WHO echoed Beijing’s reassurances rather than pressing for unrestricted access to the outbreak’s source. 

Investigations later revealed that Chinese authorities delayed the release of genetic data and controlled communication with international scientists. Despite mounting concerns, the agency publicly praised China’s response as “transparent” and “decisive.”

By the time international experts were permitted into the country, crucial evidence had been scrubbed and potential whistleblowers silenced. The episode left lasting damage to the WHO’s reputation, and underscored a broader problem within the United Nations system: Its agencies remain politically constrained by the very governments they are meant to hold accountable.

Similarly, the Human Rights Council continues to seat governments accused of systemic abuses, including Cuba, China, and Venezuela — undermining the very principles it was created to defend.

For the Trump administration, the problem is not simply inefficiency; it is accountability. They argue that American taxpayers underwrite an institution that rewards inaction and allows authoritarian governments to influence global policy without consequence.

The United States remains the most significant financial contributor to the United Nations, providing roughly 22 percent of the organization’s core budget — about $820 million in 2025 — along with just over 25 percent of its peacekeeping funds. 

When voluntary contributions to programs such as the World Food Program, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization are included, U.S. support totals between $13 and $18 billion annually, depending on congressional appropriations and program needs.

This outsized role gives Washington significant influence within the system but also fuels debates over accountability and whether the investment delivers commensurate results. 

“The U.S. government needs to demand major reform at the U.N. by leveraging its contributions of over 25 percent of the U.N.’s annual budget,” said Mr. Kittrie. 

Can It Still Lead?

While criticism of the United Nations from world leaders is not new, the pace of change is glacial. Bureaucratic inertia and political self-interest have made meaningful restructuring almost impossible, critics say.

Mr. Santiago says that despite the U.N.’s many flaws, he sees the Security Council as “the central element giving the United Nations stature and relevance in today’s world.” 

“It prevents international democracy from descending into global anarchy,” he said. “It’s not pretty, but it’s all we’ve got.”

But Mr. Trump’s speech laid the issue bare: The world’s leading peacekeeping body cannot fulfill its purpose without confronting its own structural decay. For decades, nations have looked to the United Nations for leadership, yet as conflicts multiply and institutions falter, faith in its effectiveness is fading.

Such criticisms cut to the heart of the U.N.’s credibility crisis, where questions of fairness and moral authority collide. Few issues illustrate the imbalance more starkly than the organization’s long-standing approach to Israel and the Palestinians.

So, 80 years after its creation, the question endures: has the United Nations failed the mission it was built to fulfill? The answer depends on how you see the mission.

“The United Nations is not a world government,” says Mr. Santiago. “It is a moral compass for the human race. Multilateralism does not create a clear and compelling North Star.”