As world leaders gather in New York for the U.N. General Assembly, former President Donald Trump’s remarks have sparked significant discussions about the role and efficacy of the United Nations in resolving international conflicts. This week, I had the opportunity to engage with notable figures such as former British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Spain’s Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, alongside Trump’s appointee for undersecretary of state for economic growth, Jacob Helberg.
A focal point of the conversations was Trump’s nearly hour-long address at the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday morning. In the aftermath, while some media outlets attempted to fact-check specific claims made in the speech, it is essential to focus on the broader implications of his message rather than getting lost in the minutiae of debate. One of the most striking assertions was Trump’s critique of the U.N. for failing to live up to its founding mission of resolving global conflicts. While his delivery may have been blunt, the underlying truth of his statement cannot be ignored.
In an era where global leaders would be crafting new institutions to address modern challenges, the current structure of the U.N. appears outdated. The U.N. Security Council (UNSC), the primary entity responsible for maintaining global peace and security, is a relic from the mid-20th century. Originally envisioned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a coalition of the four wartime allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China—its architecture was designed in a time that is vastly different from today. France later joined this group to form the five permanent members with veto power.
The intention was to foster collaboration among nations that had just allied to defeat fascism. However, the reality has been starkly different. The Cold War saw these powers become adversaries, with Moscow often thwarting Washington’s initiatives. Consequently, the UNSC has only effectively fulfilled its core mission on a couple of notable occasions since its inception.
One such moment came in 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea. Moscow’s boycott of the UNSC allowed for the passage of a resolution that authorized military intervention to defend South Korea. The second significant instance was in 1990, when the United Nations acted to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, a move facilitated by the geopolitical shifts occurring as the Soviet Union began to collapse.
Yet, these instances are overshadowed by a long list of conflicts that the UNSC has been unable to address. A glaring example of its ineffectiveness occurred in February 2022 when Russia chaired a UNSC meeting on Ukraine even as it launched a full-scale invasion of the country. In the context of a new Cold War, it seems unlikely that the UNSC will find common ground to tackle pressing global issues in the near future.
Historically, the U.N.’s specialized agencies have provided essential support even amid UNSC gridlock, but this function is increasingly compromised. Great powers are wielding their influence over these bodies, undermining their original missions. For instance, China has been accused of obstructing investigations into the origins of COVID-19 through its influence in the World Health Organization. Furthermore, the U.N. Human Rights Council has often been criticized for including nations that actively violate human rights, preventing the council from fulfilling its purpose. This dysfunctionality led the Trump administration to withdraw from key U.N. bodies earlier this year, citing their ineffectiveness.
The peaceful conclusion of the Cold War left the U.N. intact but did not create a necessary overhaul of its structure. As we navigate the complexities of 2025, we find ourselves constrained by an international order that has not adapted to contemporary realities.
Even during its most successful moments, the UNSC’s effectiveness has been closely tied to American power. The U.S. military played a crucial role in restoring the sovereignty of both South Korea and Kuwait. With the U.N. struggling to address global security crises, the need for U.S. leadership has become even more pronounced.
Trump made a compelling argument in his speech regarding his administration’s effectiveness in dealing with pressing international challenges compared to the U.N. His reference to Operation Midnight Hammer, a military strike aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions without waiting for UNSC approval, underscores the urgency of decisive action in the face of threats.
Another major unresolved conflict today is the war in Ukraine, where Trump made headlines by suggesting that NATO should take aerial action against Russian jets violating its airspace. He also hinted that Ukraine could potentially reclaim all its lost territory. This negotiating tactic fits Trump’s style—by making an aggressive demand, he may be seeking to create leverage for more realistic outcomes.
In light of recent developments, it is clear that the international community must apply more pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to encourage meaningful negotiations. Trump has shown a willingness to provide arms to Ukraine, funded by European allies, and has discussed imposing tariffs on nations purchasing Russian energy. However, more robust actions, such as implementing severe sanctions and seizing Russian assets, are necessary to compel a resolution.
As we reflect on Trump’s statements at the U.N., the question remains: Will this mark a shift in America’s approach to the ongoing war in Ukraine? It is imperative that the West, under U.S. leadership, takes substantive steps to apply the pressure needed to bring Putin to the negotiating table and halt the violence in Ukraine.
One thing is clear: if Washington does not take decisive action, the United Nations is unlikely to intervene effectively in the face of escalating global conflicts. The world watches and waits for a resolution, hoping for a commitment to peace and stability that the U.N. has struggled to deliver.
