The United States exerts pressure on United Nations agencies (U.N. ) to reduce their emphasis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). This action puts U.S. funding for U.N. organizations that prioritise these practices at risk.
What It Means
In order to fulfill his campaign promise, Trump has signed an executive directive entitled “Ending Radical Government DEI Programmes and Preferencing.” This executive order seeks to eradicate DEI policies within federal agencies. These include those relating to gender issues, transgender concerns, and queer identities.
Several government bodies supported this directive. After the order was issued, the U.S. Army changed its policies to prohibit transgenders from enrolling in the military and stop gender-transition procedures.
Now, these changes in domestic policies are affecting the U.S.’s stance on international organizations. This includes the U.N. In a similar way to what was done during the previous administration when the U.S. abandoned the Human Rights Council and stopped funding the Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (RWA), the current government is reviewing its financial commitments towards the U.N.
A reduction in U.S. funding would have important consequences, as the U.S. is responsible for approximately 22% (of the U.N.’s core budget) and 27% (of its peacekeeping budget). According to experts, a reduced U.S. role in international affairs could create opportunities for nations like China to increase their influence. China is currently the U.N.’s second biggest contributor. It could be a beneficiary of any cuts to US funding. This could have a significant impact on the global economy and future international relations.
You Should Know
Trump’s administration is focusing on DEI internationally. Reuters states that U.S. delegations at executive board meetings held by UNICEF and U.N. Women have expressed strong opposition against the promotion of DEI (or “gender philosophy”).
US officials tried to change documents in UNICEF so that they no longer mentioned DEI, or programs related to it. They pushed for language which would promote and emphasize biological reality. Reuters reported that these efforts were unsuccessful.
Jonathan Shrier, U.S. representative to the U.N. Economic and Social Council’s Economic and Social Council stated, on February 7, that “the U.S. cannot agree to Country Program Documents that contain terms and concept that are in conflict with U.S. Policies as outlined by President Trump’s Executive Orders. Especially when those concepts threaten the very mission the organization.”
Shrier went on to say that DEI programmes “violate both the spirit and text of our law by replacing merit, hard work and equality with an unjust and dangerous hierarchy of preferential treatment.” This view underscores the concerns of the administration regarding perceived impacts of DEI initiatives.
According to Reuters, before a meeting of the executive board for the U.N. World Food Program, Gender Protection and Inclusion Services advised their colleagues to avoid using “specific nomenclature,” but instead use “descriptive terminology” to describe diversity. This advice was issued “in view of recent White House communications.”
The memo specifically stated, “Please avoid controversial language including LGBTQI+ and SOGIESC terminology … let’s avoid combining diversity, equity, inclusion and/or accessibility in one statement or sentence.” It is clear that the memo was written to ensure internal communications were aligned with U.S. government preferences.
See what people are saying
Bureau of International Organization Affairs Posting on X, “The U.S. values UNICEF’s important work in protecting children throughout the world. However, we cannot support UNICEF’s promotion divisive ideas like DEI or gender ideology. The Executive Orders of POTUS directly clash with the U.S. official policy.
Another post stated that UN Women should give up radical causes, such as DEI and critical race theory and gender ideologies, because they are harmful, demeaning and unfair to girls and women. The U.S. encourages UN Women “to recognize biological realities and to focus on efforts that ensure equality for women and girls.”
Senator Rand Paul Kentucky’s X wrote: “Today we delved into the reckless, wasteful expenditures of our federal governments.” It is not right for America to be a sugar daddy of all the countries in the world. This includes those who are against the beliefs and values of our country.
Germany at the United Nations Post on X says: “At the end of an important meeting of #UNICEF’s Executive Board, it felt like a good time to confirm that UNICEF is able to make a real difference in hundreds of millions children around the world. We are proud to partner with this noble cause.” In this statement, UNICEF highlights its international commitment and support to the children of the world.
The Next Step
US is expected to continue its pressure to the U.N. regarding its approach and language in relation to DEI. This stance could create a vacuum that allows other countries to gain more influence in the U.N. Soft power and influence on the international stage are key concepts in this situation. It is still unclear whether or not the U.S. follows through on its threats to withhold funding from U.N. and how this might impact international peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, as well as diplomatic initiatives.