On January 14, the bill - $1.39 billion for Contributions to International Organizations (CIO)
- $1.23 billion for Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA)
- $335.4 million for Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)
- $339 million for International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
U.S. Dues Are Back
The Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account is how the U.S. pays its assessed dues to the UN regular budget, UN specialized agencies and dozens of other global bodies, including NATO, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). This year’s $1.389 billion is about 10 percent lower than recent levels but sufficient to meet most U.S. treaty obligations. The main exceptions are agencies the Administration has already withdrawn from, such as UNESCO and WHO. One important new twist – the bill allows the Secretary of State to shift up to $466.5 million from a “National Security Investment Programs” account into UN dues and peacekeeping if it helps advance reforms in the national interest. Congress also dropped a proposal that would have defunded the entire UN Secretariat over conditions tied to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the main aid agency in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan that provides health and education services to roughly six million Palestine refugees. An existing U.S. funding ban on UNRWA remains in place through March 25, 2027. To keep tabs on how the money is used, the Department of State must brief lawmakers within 30 days on spending plans, unpaid dues, the national security impact of nonpayment and any plans to withdraw from UN bodies. Many of these oversight steps align with the UN80 reform efforts already underway at the UN. Of note, Congress does not publish a line-by-line breakdown of how much each organization receives.Peacekeeping, Protected
Peacekeeping is where the U.S. helps fund missions that prevent conflicts from spiraling out of control. For FY26, the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account is funded at $1.23 billion – nearly the same as last year and enough to meet U.S. obligations under the legal 25 percent cap. Even better, $615 million of that funding can be used over two years, giving Congress more flexibility to spend the money and not have it rescinded. Bottom line – U.S. influence in peacekeeping is protected and the risk of losing voting rights due to unpaid dues can be avoided.Stability, Region by Region
Related to peacekeeping, the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account supports regional security missions and logistical assistance in places essential to American security. For FY26, it receives $335.4 million. That’s less than the FY24 and FY25 enacted totals but significantly more than the President’s FY26 request. One notable shift is that Congress did not lock this money to Somalia as it has in the past. Instead, it gave the Administration flexibility to use the funds for the UN-authorized Gang Suppression Force in Haiti, as well Same bucket. More options.Voluntary, But Vital
The International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account is how the U.S. supports agencies like UNICEF, the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), with whom the U.S. has just partnered for major humanitarian aid reform. Both the House and the Administration tried to eliminate this account entirely. Congress said no, restoring it at $339 million. That’s still about 22 percent lower than recent levels but it keeps the U.S. engaged across key UN agencies. Lawmakers directed the Department of State to fund agencies “consistent with prior years” and made one point clear – UNICEF should continue receiving support at past levels. The bill also sets aside $32.5 million for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), with a legal escape clause, and requires the Department of State to show Congress how it plans to spend the money. The goal is transparency without micromanagement.Where Cuts Hit Hardest
The Administration reshaped humanitarian funding into a new International Humanitarian Assistance account and reduced overall funding. Congress agreed. For FY26:- $5.4 billion for International Humanitarian Assistance
- $100 million for the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance fund
Some Strings Attached
The bill also comes with a long list of conditions on UN funding:- Ties some bilateral aid decisions to how countries vote at the UN, including support for Taiwan’s observer status
- Withholds 10 percent of UN funding until certain requirements around transparency, accountability, and other standards are met
- Prohibits funding for the UN Human Rights Council unless certain conditions are met
- Pushes the UN to stop buying from Russian vendors
- Requires justification for funding organizations that deny U.S. auditors access
An Arrears Reality Check
There’s one important reality to keep in mind: the U.S. still has major outstanding financial obligations to the UN. While many other Member States have already paid their 2025 dues, the U.S. has not yet provided any funding to cover its share of the UN regular budget and has paid only about 30 percent of its peacekeeping assessments. Those arrears affect UN operations and, over time, significantly limit U.S. influence inside the system. Passage of the FY26 bill would be a meaningful step toward addressing those shortfalls, upholding U.S. treaty commitments and advancing U.S. interests.Key Takeaways
In a fraught political environment, the bill is good news. The UN was not defunded. Peacekeeping was backed. Core U.S. commitments remained and Congress, in a resoundingly bipartisan fashion, voted for paying our fair share. At the same time, humanitarian aid is leaner, voluntary funding is tighter and oversight rules are stronger than ever. So yes – there’s work to do. More advocacy. More education. More reform. But the U.S. is showing up. And in a world where global problems don’t respect borders, that still matters. A lot.In a fraught political environment, the bill is good news. The UN was not defunded. Peacekeeping was backed. Core U.S. commitments remained and Congress, in a resoundingly bipartisan fashion, voted for paying our fair share.[post_title] => Unpacking the FY26 SFOPS/NSRP Bill: What’s In, What’s Out and What’s at Stake [post_excerpt] => Passed with strong bipartisan support, the FY26 SFOPS bill restores U.S. funding for the UN and peacekeeping while reshaping humanitarian aid and strengthening oversight of international spending. Read our analysis. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => unpacking-the-fy26-sfops-nsrp-bill-whats-in-whats-out-and-whats-at-stake [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-01-16 20:11:20 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-01-16 20:11:20 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=16566 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 16519 [post_author] => 5 [post_date] => 2026-01-13 15:36:59 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-01-13 15:36:59 [post_content] => While Operation Absolute Resolve put Venezuela in the global spotlight, it also ignited a broader debate among diplomats and legal experts about the United Nations Charter – its origins, its limits and what happens when those limits are tested. To understand what’s at stake, it helps to see the Charter for what it was designed to be: a kind of international constitution that helps nations work well together.
National Security at a Global Scale
Adopted in 1945, the UN Charter is the founding document of the United Nations, and its roots are deeply American. President Franklin D. Roosevelt helped shape its principles through the 1941 Atlantic Charter with Winston Churchill, envisioning a postwar world built on collective security rather than perpetual war. When the Charter was presented in San Francisco, the U.S. Senate ratified it by an overwhelming 89-2 vote. This was not idealistic globalism, but calculated national security strategy – designed to create rules strong enough to restrain aggression before U.S. troops were pulled into another catastrophic conflict.The UN Charter was national security strategy designed to restrain aggression before U.S. troops were pulled into another catastrophic conflict.Legally, the Charter is a treaty incorporated into U.S. law through Senate ratification and the President’s signature. Functionally, it sets out shared rules for how states interact, defines strict limits on the use of military force and creates institutions (the Security Council, the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice) to manage disputes.
The Rule Everyone’s Talking About
Lately, when people talk about “violating the Charter,” they’re often referring to Article 2(4), which states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In plain terms: respect borders. Not every border incident qualifies as a violation. Accidental or isolated infractions, or limited law enforcement actions that breach sovereignty, may cross physical – but not legal – thresholds. Article 2(4) is typically triggered when military force becomes serious: bombing another state’s infrastructure, engaging another state’s armed forces or occupying another territory.When Force Is Allowed
When that line is crossed, the Charter permits military action in a couple circumstances.Article 51
First: self-defense, preserved in Article 51. When sovereignty is violated by an armed attack, a state may respond, but the response must be necessary and proportionate. Collective self-defense – when other nations join in – requires a request from the attacked state so as not to violate sovereignty themselves. In recent years, Article 51 has become increasingly central and controversial. Some states argue self-defense is lawful only after an actual attack occurs. Others, led largely by the U.S. and its allies, argue that force may also be justified in cases of imminent threat and against non-state actors operating with a state’s protection. Since 2021, Article 51 has been invoked at least 78 times. The Security Council plays a critical role here, as Article 51 requires states to report self-defense actions. These reports help other governments assess legality and shape international law through precedent.Chapter VII
Second: Security Council authorization under Chapter VII. When the Council determines that a situation threatens international peace – not just one country’s security – it can authorize measures that may include military force as a last resort, usually beginning with political and economic tools. Any action must still be necessary, proportionate and aimed at restoring peace and security. Historically, the Council was cautious about explicitly invoking Chapter VII. Its intent was often inferred from language and context. The first explicit Chapter VII action appeared in 1968 during debates over Southern Rhodesia, reflecting political divisions over sanctions and force. In recent decades, practice has become more mixed. Some resolutions rely on Chapter VII without naming it. Others cite it directly to avoid ambiguity. At times, the language is used mainly for political signaling, while some Chapter VII resolutions include non-mandatory terms like “urges” or “calls upon.” The result is ongoing debate over which decisions are legally binding and how far Chapter VII authority extends.What Happens When a Violation Occurs?
The UN has no global police force, so Charter violations are addressed through diplomacy, sanctions, international courts and political pressure – both through UN bodies and individual states. The process usually begins with non-military tools authorized under Article 41, including economic sanctions, asset freezes, travel bans, arms embargoes and diplomatic restrictions. The Council can also establish monitoring committees, expert panels and, in rare cases, international tribunals, such as those created after the wars in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. If non-military measures fail, Chapter VII allows for collective military action, though this is used sparingly. Even then, enforcement depends less on a standing UN force, which the UN lacks –peacekeepers are contributed voluntarily by Member States – and more on the willingness of countries to act. States implement sanctions through their own laws, while UN committees monitor compliance and report back to the Council. The system works best when major powers are aligned. When permanent members disagree or use their veto power, enforcement can stall. In the end, the Charter provides the legal tools. Political will determines how far they go.Humanitarian Intervention
The moral case for using force to stop atrocities is powerful. The legal case gets a bit more contested. After Rwanda and Kosovo, the UN embraced the Responsibility to Protect framework, or R2P – but it also reaffirmed one core rule: only the Security Council can authorize the use of force. A handful of countries still argue for a narrow right to intervene when catastrophe looms. Most remain wary, concerned that “humanitarian” can too easily become a cover for politics. R2P fits squarely within the Charter’s collective security system. It says states must protect their own people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. If they fail, the international community should try diplomacy and humanitarian pressure first. If that isn’t enough, Chapter VII gives the Security Council the authority to act – including, if necessary, with force.Why Justification Matters
One of the Charter’s most important effects is that it forces governments to explain themselves. Even when states use force, they almost always justify their actions in Charter terms – self-defense, consent or collective security. Those explanations may be contested, but the act of justifying matters. It reinforces the idea that rules exist, legitimacy flows through them and precedent shapes future behavior.Any Gray Areas?
Like all fields of law, yes. Modern conflicts complicate the picture. Large-scale terrorist attacks by non-state actors may qualify as armed attacks, allowing self-defense if there’s evidence another state provided material or tacit support. But legal experts warn that lowering the threshold too far risks turning the Charter into a permissive system rather than a restraining one. Then there’s “violation by proxy,” a concept the International Court of Justice addressed in its landmark 1986 Nicaragua v. United States decision. The Court made clear that a state can violate the Charter’s prohibition on force even without sending its own troops across a border. Providing critical support to armed groups – including arming, training or directing insurgents – can amount to an unlawful “armed attack.” In other words: you don’t need boots on the ground to cross the line.Why the Charter Still Matters
Like all living constitutions, the UN Charter faces the challenges of its time and must continue to adapt. But the bottom line remains the same: the Charter matters. Because at its core, it's designed to raise the political cost of aggression, narrow the legal justifications for force and preserve collective security as the default.The Charter raises the political cost of aggression, narrows the legal justifications for force and preserves collective security as the default.[post_title] => Understanding the UN Charter: Article 2 and the Rules that Shape Global Security [post_excerpt] => With the United Nations Charter making news, we break down the significance of Article 2 and why it remains a cornerstone of U.S. national security, global stability and the rules-based international order. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => what-is-the-united-nations-chapter-and-article-2 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-01-13 17:26:37 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-01-13 17:26:37 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=16519 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [3] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 16529 [post_author] => 5 [post_date] => 2026-01-12 19:37:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2026-01-12 19:37:28 [post_content] =>
Peter Yeo, President of the Better World Campaign, released the following statement on the bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the FY26 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations bill:
Congress provided nearly full funding for the United Nations regular budget and UN peacekeeping in this bill, allowing President Trump’s Administration to fund those parts of the UN that continue to enjoy its support after last week's UN related Executive Order. We commend House and Senate Appropriations leadership from both parties for working together to protect America’s seat at the table and ensure continued support for the international institutions that help prevent conflict, respond to humanitarian crises and advance U.S. interests around the world. This bipartisan bill sends a clear message that U.S. leadership at the UN and strategic investments in global engagement remain essential to America’s national security, economic strength and global influence."This bipartisan bill sends a clear message that U.S. leadership at the UN and strategic investments in global engagement remain essential to America’s global influence."The FY26 SFOPS bill provides $50 billion for U.S. international engagement, including $9.4 billion for global health. These investments ensure the United States can meet its treaty obligations, remain fully engaged in the UN system and continue shaping global standards on security, development and humanitarian response. While no compromise is perfect, this deal preserves critical funding, reinforces the partnership between the Executive Branch and Congress on foreign assistance and helps ensure the U.S. meets its legal obligation under the UN Charter. At a time when strategic competitors are eager to weaken international institutions and expand their own influence, Congress has chosen to reaffirm America’s leadership role. We urge swift passage of this bipartisan compromise ahead of the January 30 funding deadline. The United States is stronger, safer and more influential when it leads, including at the United Nations.
"At a time when strategic competitors are eager to weaken international institutions and expand their own influence, Congress has chosen to reaffirm America’s leadership role."[post_title] => Bipartisan FY26 SFOPS Bill Ensures Continued U.S. Leadership at the United Nations [post_excerpt] => With $50 billion for diplomacy, global health and peacekeeping, the FY26 SFOPS bill underscores bipartisan backing for U.S. global leadership and continued engagement abroad. [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => congress-preserves-u-s-engagement-at-the-un-in-bipartisan-fy26-funding-bill [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2026-01-12 19:41:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2026-01-12 19:41:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://betterworldcampaign.org/?p=16529 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) )
At a moment of historic humanitarian need, the U.S. is looking to OCHA’s globally recognized model to deliver aid with impact, integrity and speed.
Passed with strong bipartisan support, the FY26 SFOPS bill restores U.S. funding for the UN and peacekeeping while reshaping humanitarian aid and strengthening oversight of international spending. Read our analysis.
UN Explained
Understanding the UN Charter: Article 2 and the Rules that Shape Global Security
01/13/2026
With the United Nations Charter making news, we break down the significance of Article 2 and why it remains a cornerstone of U.S. national security, global stability and the rules-based international order.
With $50 billion for diplomacy, global health and peacekeeping, the FY26 SFOPS bill underscores bipartisan backing for U.S. global leadership and continued engagement abroad.
Blog, Humanitarian Affairs
How the UN Ensures Integrity and Transparency in Aid Distribution
01/20/2026
Blog, Budget
Unpacking the FY26 SFOPS/NSRP Bill: What’s In, What’s Out and What’s at Stake
01/16/2026
Blog, UN Explained
Understanding the UN Charter: Article 2 and the Rules that Shape Global Security
01/13/2026
Budget, Statement
Bipartisan FY26 SFOPS Bill Ensures Continued U.S. Leadership at the United Nations
01/12/2026
Blog, Budget
U.S. $2 Billion UN Aid Pledge Marks New Era in Humanitarian Funding, Sustained UN Engagement
12/29/2025
Blog, Peace and Security, UN Explained
Ghost Ships on the High Seas and the Essential Role of the International Maritime Organization
12/23/2025
Smart move by the U.S. House of Representatives tonight, passing a bipartisan bill that safeguards U.S. leadership at the UN by providing nearly full funding. Pleased to see that President Trump has committed to signing it into law upon Senate approval.
#USUN | FY26, Foreign Operations and Related Programs US Bill: "preserves critical funding, reinforces the partnership between the Executive Branch and Congress on foreign assistance and helps ensure the US meets its legal obligation under the #UN Charter" https://betterworldcampaign.org/budget/congress-preserves-u-s-engagement-at-the-un-in-bipartisan-fy26-funding-bill
Big news from Capitol Hill. The FY26 #SFOPS bill provides $50B for U.S. int’l engagement, including $9.4B for health. These investments support the #UN and shape global standards on security, development and humanitarian response. Great response from @PeterMYeo + more details
The just-released FY26 foreign affairs spending package has nearly full funding for the UN Regular Budget and UN peacekeeping. Extremely positive development. Allows the Trump Admin to fund those parts of the UN that it continues to support after last week's UN Executive Order.
Today, the Admin announced its intention to withdraw from 31 @UN agencies, entities and agreements.
While I don’t agree with all of their choices, I’m pleased the Pres. understands the UN’s potential and the value of US engagement in most of its work moving forward.
🧵 Today, the Administration announced its decision to withdraw from 31 @UN agencies, entities and agreements.
Reply on Twitter 2009073107026497863
Retweet on Twitter 2009073107026497863
2
Like on Twitter 2009073107026497863
0
X
2009073107026497863
The @UN will continue its work whether the US is there or not. This decision risks leaving the US out of important global policymaking decisions — a void that other countries will be eager to fill.
@UN Nevertheless, BWC is encouraged the Administration understands the value of US-UN collaboration to advance US interests around the globe.
Peacekeeping recap 2025: Protection of Civilians
For more than 25 years, this mandate has become central to the work of @UN peacekeeping, shaping how missions prevent & respond to violence.
Peacekeeping is a lifesaving tool & a smart investment. #InvestInPeace.
#YearInReview
Over the holidays, @StateDept announced it would be contributing $2 billion in humanitarian funding to the @UN.
I had the chance to speak with @CNN on the significance of this agreement for meeting the humanitarian challenges of 2026.
Full interview below:
