On April 29, lawmakers convened a hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs (HCFA) Subcommittee on Oversight and Intelligence focused on “U.S. Accountability at the United Nations: Challenges and Opportunities for Reform.”
Led by HCFA Chairman Brian Mast, Subcommittee Chair Cory Mills and Ranking Member Jared Moskowitz, the session underscored a now all-too-familiar debate: while there is broad agreement that the United Nations faces real challenges and requires reform, there is far less consensus on what effective reform looks like, nor how the United States should pursue it.
Chairman Mast was particularly critical of the UN, based in part on a number of factual inaccuracies*, and noted that he was “100% fine with the U.S. stepping away from the UN in totality.” Subcommittee Chairman Mills also leveled critiques, describing Iran’s recent appointment to a leadership role in a nuclear nonproliferation forum as “hypocrisy,” while raising concerns around bias in the institution. His argument reflected a wider view among some Members that U.S. funding should be more tightly aligned with American interests and that reform efforts should be more assertive.
Yet even as frustration ran high, the hearing repeatedly returned to a more complex question — whether reducing U.S. engagement would address those concerns or risk compounding them.
That challenge was most clearly articulated in the testimony of Better World Campaign President Peter Yeo.
Addressing Iran
Iran’s role inside the UN dominated much of the discussion, with lawmakers from both parties questioning the country’s ability to hold positions tied to human rights or nonproliferation.
Yeo did not dismiss the concern. Rather, he offered additional context.
“Iran was selected by non-aligned countries, not by the United Nations. No senior UN official had anything to do with that,” he said, adding that lawmakers might “direct [their] anger towards their embassies.”
The distinction did not resolve the controversy, but underscored that many of the UN’s most contentious outcomes are the product of geopolitics rather than the organization itself.
Accountability
Chairman Mills also pointed to allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the Oct. 7 attacks, calling it an “outrage,” while Rep. Moskowitz warned of antisemitism throughout the system.
Again, Yeo was quick to emphasize accountability gaps, where they exist, urging sustained engagement by the U.S. to address changes. Reform, in his view, is not incompatible with criticism; it depends on it being channeled into leverage rather than withdrawal.
Information about the internal UNRWA investigation in relation to events on Oct. 7 are available here.
China, Influence and the Risks of Walking Away
If Iran served as the hearing’s flashpoint, China emerged as a central strategic concern.
Rep. Moskowitz cautioned that U.S. disengagement would not diminish the UN so much as reshape it, noting that “when the United States pulls back… we leave a void that China fills.” He pointed to a growing Chinese presence within the system, including staffing pipelines that can expand influence over time.
Rep. Jackson echoed that concern, describing funding cuts as “strategic retreats with global consequences” and warning that “the gap just doesn’t disappear.”
Funding cuts are “strategic retreats with global consequences.”
Yeo approached the issue from a different angle, stressing not only a leadership gap, but one of credibility.
“When we owe $2 billion in our UN regular budget… other countries begin to question whether we will uphold our commitments,” he said, describing the current level of arrears as “unprecedented.”
“When we owe $2 billion in our UN regular budget… other countries begin to question whether we will uphold our commitments.”
The implication was not that funding alone determines influence, but that credibility underpins it. Without it, even well-intentioned reform efforts become more difficult to advance.
High Stakes
Several members brought the discussion back to tangible outcomes.
Rep. Dean described seeing the impact of reduced funding on UN-supported programs firsthand, holding up an emergency birth kit costing $7.88 that can help prevent maternal deaths in crisis settings.
Others noted that while some parts of the UN system warrant scrutiny, others are universally embraced as effective. The institution, as multiple members acknowledged, is not monolithic — it encompasses both bodies in need of improvement and programs that deliver essential services at scale. Indeed, Rep. Schneider hailed the International Atomic Energy Agency as a “rockstar.”
That complexity complicated calls for sweeping approaches, reinforcing the need for more targeted strategies.
Reform, Leverage and Engagement
Even among many critics, there was limited support for full disengagement. The debate centered instead on how best to use U.S. leverage to drive change, and whether current polices would be counter-productive to actual reform goals.
Rep. Jacobs questioned whether nonpayment would be a useful motivator or would actually make reform less likely to succeed. She also expressed concern that the Administration’s recent expansion of the global gag rule would both make the Administration’s goal of burden-sharing harder to achieve and require the UN to build duplicative oversight and compliance architecture, which would run counter to the cost-saving and efficiency goals we want the UN to adopt.
Yeo’s position was consistent: reform is most achievable through sustained engagement.
“U.S. success in advancing further UN reform… is dependent upon restarting the flow of U.S. funding,” he said, emphasizing that partners must trust that “when they agree to reforms, the U.S. will uphold its end of the bargain.”
“U.S. success in advancing further UN reform… is dependent upon restarting the flow of U.S. funding.”
Pressure, in this framing, remains an important tool — but one that is most effective when paired with presence and follow-through.
Striking the Right Balance
By the close of the hearing, there was agreement that the UN is imperfect and in need of reform. Where members differed was in how to address it. Some emphasized conditional funding and sharper oversight. Others highlighted the risks of disengagement and the importance of maintaining influence within the system.
The fact is, the United Nations reflects the realities of the international system — complex, political and often imperfect. The question for the United States, then, is how best to navigate those realities while preserving the ability to shape outcomes.
