After months of uncertainty about the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz made the case for “America First” diplomacy during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 15. Should Waltz’s nomination move forward, he will arrive at a United Nations filled with mistrust and anxiety about the future—in part triggered by Washington’s demands for belt-tightening and reform.
Waltz hit some familiar notes from the relatively cordial hearing in January for U.S. President Donald Trump’s initial choice for U.N. ambassador, Rep. Elise Stefanik, whose nomination Trump later withdrew in an act of political calculus. But Waltz’s hearing accelerated toward raucous questioning from Democrats about the former national security advisor’s role in the controversy over a Signal chat leak in March and his dismissal from the position in May.
However, if Waltz is confirmed, such Washington partisan politics will be of little concern to his counterparts at the U.N. headquarters in New York. Waltz, a former U.S. Army Special Forces officer who received four Bronze Stars before being elected to the House of Representatives in 2018, will likely face an uphill battle persuading some diplomats and U.N. officials to accept a narrower role on the world stage for the United Nations.
To be sure, many diplomats will welcome the arrival of the new U.S. ambassador after so long without one. One high-level diplomat said that the interim ambassador, career diplomat Dorothy Shea, was nice but clearly not empowered to act on her own. “She’s professional, of course, but for everything that you ask, she says I need to go to Washington,” the diplomat said, noting that a permanent representative who has the ear of the president may be able to “transmit both ways.”
U.N. diplomats are now debating the meaning of Waltz’s pledge last week to “make the U.N. great again.” Furthermore, the Senate hearing threw the great-power relationship between the United States and China into sharp relief, while putting somewhat less emphasis on Russia’s war in Ukraine. Senators from both parties left the impression that they viewed Russia as a disruptive force, while they saw China as a forger of global governance.
That jibes with the prevailing mood at the U.N., where diplomats say that since Trump took office in January, Russia seems less isolated than during U.S. President Joe Biden’s term. For example, on the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February, the United States introduced a last-minute rival resolution to the one supported by Ukraine. The U.S. resolution did not mention Russian aggression, and Moscow did not veto it—as it had done for the Security Council resolutions on the war brought by the Biden administration.
There is currently much at stake for the U.N.: The Trump administration’s budget for 2026 proposes eliminating most mandatory U.S. funding and voluntary contributions to U.N. core operations. At the Senate hearing, Waltz affirmed that the budget allows funding for peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and vital humanitarian assistance, though he stressed that each dollar would be scrutinized.
“The U.S. must ensure that every foreign aid dollar and every contribution to an international organization, particularly the U.N., draws a straight and direct line to a compelling U.S. national interest, one that puts America first, not last,” Waltz told the committee, echoing the Trump campaign’s rhetoric.
This à la carte approach to U.N. funding may confound diplomats and staff, as the U.N. system already faces severe budget shortfalls. Next year’s budget calls for a 20 percent reduction in staffing of the U.N. Secretariat. At a recent press briefing, Guy Ryder, the U.N. undersecretary-general for policy, told journalists that these staff cuts would not be distributed evenly, leaving staff to guess which departments might be most affected.
Waltz’s criticism of the “waste, fraud, and abuse” and description of the U.N. as a “bloated bureaucracy” during his confirmation hearing are unlikely to assuage staff concerns. While he acknowledged the importance of humanitarian agencies such as the World Food Programme, for example, Waltz was dismissive of various U.N. agencies’ emphasis on climate change.
In March, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres announced an effort to look for ways to reform and streamline the United Nations in the future, known as the UN80 Initiative. The name is a nod to the 80th anniversary of the organization’s founding, but there is divergence among U.N. member states over how the plan should shape the U.N. system’s priorities, which broadly fall within three main pillars: peace and security, human rights, and development.
Some diplomats from developing countries say that programs aimed at improving their living standards should be privileged over the other two pillars. “We believe that the core interests of the developing countries should be accorded priority, centered on accelerating the achievement of the SDGs,” Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.N., Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, told Foreign Policy, referring to the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals. Ahmad holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month.
Waltz’s assessment during his confirmation hearing that “after 80 years, it’s drifted from its core mission of peacemaking,” seems to indicate which pillar takes precedence for the Trump administration.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, cautioned that if the United States steps back from funding international bodies, they may become “increasingly dependent on China,” allowing Beijing to “[write] the rules” on critical issues such as technology, artificial intelligence, health, and human rights. Indeed, U.N. diplomats say that since Trump’s election last November, China has enthusiastically courted member states and sought to insert its nationals into high-level and mid-level U.N. positions.
Last Thursday, Guterres tapped a Chinese national to replace a Ghanaian as special envoy for the Horn of Africa, which must have raised eyebrows at the U.S. State Department. The region, located along strategic shipping lanes, is a locus for great-power competition. Djibouti hosts the only permanent Chinese military base in Africa and the primary U.S. base on the continent, along with foreign military bases for France, Italy, Japan, and other countries. The U.N. secretary-general has a degree of independence in appointing special envoys, but a fully staffed U.S. mission to the U.N. may have pushed back on this decision.
Israel’s war in Gaza presents another flash point for Waltz at the U.N. During his confirmation hearing, Republican Sen. Steve Daines mentioned the reappointment of Francesca Albanese as the U.N.’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. The Trump administration sanctioned Albanese on July 9, a much-criticized decision that the U.N. has called on the administration to reverse.
Daines asked Waltz how he planned to counter what Daines described as the “antisemitic influence of U.N. officials like Ms. Albanese.” Waltz expressed his support for the decision to sanction her and pledged to challenge “pervasive antisemitism” at the U.N.
The most indelible mark that the Trump administration may leave on the United Nations could be steering the decision over who will fill Guterres’s shoes. The secretary-general’s term concludes at the end of 2026, and the General Assembly will appoint his successor upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The successful candidate will need at least nine Security Council votes without a veto from any of the five permanent members, effectively ensuring a compromise candidate who won’t be vetoed by China, Russia, or the United States.
Reading between the lines, Waltz’s confirmation hearing signaled that the Trump administration is open to negotiating U.S. funding for U.N. agencies that it views as contributing to shared security goals. But it will push back forcefully on those deemed inefficient, ideologically driven, or counter to U.S. interests—even if that means ripping up the international playbook largely composed by the United States after World War II. It’s hard to say when Washington and Turtle Bay have seemed more out of step.