Of all the geopolitical stunts Donald Trump has pulled since returning to the White House, the United States' votes at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on March 4 stand out as some of the most revealing.
First, the US opposed a seemingly innocuous resolution establishing an "International Day of Peaceful Coexistence" and reaffirming the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Despite its symbolic nature, the US voted against the resolution, with representative Edward Heartney explaining that the US "rejects and denounces the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course".
"Simply put," he added, "globalist endeavours like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box". Despite US opposition, the resolution ultimately passed with 162 countries voting in favour, two abstaining, and only three -- the US, Israel, and Argentina -- voting against.
Later that day, the US doubled down by opposing UNGA resolutions calling for the establishment of an "International Day of Hope" and an "International Day for Judicial Well-Being". It was also the sole vote against a resolution reaffirming "the right of everyone to education", which highlighted "the importance of equal opportunities for young people, including young women", likely because it conflicted with a pillar of the Trump administration's domestic agenda: dismantling DEI programmes.
These moves may well foreshadow America's withdrawal from the UN. Mr Trump has already pulled the US out of the World Health Organization and, as he did during his first term, abandoned the Paris climate agreement. His administration has also withdrawn the US from several UN bodies.
These actions by the US -- along with its recent opposition to a resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- show that the Trump administration is fundamentally opposed to any multilateral framework that even suggests equality among countries.
Some analysts argue that a complete US withdrawal from the UN is unlikely, given the disproportionate influence America wields through its Security Council veto. But given Mr Trump's law-of-the-jungle approach to geopolitics -- even that advantage may no longer seem essential.
Should the US leave the UN, the financial consequences could be immediate and severe. Even if it stays, the Trump administration has made no secret of its intention to slash contributions. As the UN's largest financial backer, the US contributed a record US$18.1 billion in 2022.
Notably, more than 70% of US contributions went to just four UN entities: 40% to the World Food Programme, 12% to the High Commissioner for Refugees, 10% to Unicef, and another 10% to the Department of Peace Operations.
But the paradigm shift in US foreign policy does not necessarily signal the impending decline -- if not outright collapse -- of multilateralism and the UN system.
Paradoxically, however, Mr Trump's actions could also serve as a catalyst for greater international cooperation, impelling other countries to work together more closely. The reason is simple: no matter how vehemently the White House denies it, humanity's most pressing challenges are global in nature. They will not go away simply because Mr Trump refuses to acknowledge them.
After all, climate change, environmental degradation, extreme inequality, emerging health threats, the rise of disruptive new technologies, and the erosion of stable employment all transcend national borders. These forces are fuelling social and political polarisation around the world, underscoring the need for collective solutions.
Global solidarity is thus not just a moral imperative but an existential one. Encouragingly, many political leaders seem to understand this and remain committed to multilateralism despite the influence of what John Maynard Keynes once called "madmen in authority". In fact, the absence of the US -- which has all too often acted as a spoiler, even under previous administrations -- could pave the way for more ambitious and effective global agreements.
Ironically, the multilateral order that Mr Trump seeks to destroy has largely served the interests of global elites and powerful countries like the US, often at the expense of the vast majority of the world's population. In this sense, the current climate of uncertainty and upheaval could represent a unique opportunity to build a truly international movement for progressive change. ©Project Syndicate 1995–2025
Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is a member of the Club of Rome's Transformational Economics Commission and Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.