U.S. Funding For the UN

Overview

Since its inception in 1945, the U.S. has been the UN’s largest financial contributor. As a permanent member of the Security Council and host of UN headquarters in New York City, the U.S. holds significant clout at the UN, and its leadership in providing financial support to the organization is a reflection of that influential role.

Why should the U.S. pay its UN dues in full?

Strong and consistent U.S. engagement with the UN is critical to advancing our nation’s foreign policy, national security, economic, and humanitarian priorities on a number of fronts.

From peacekeeping missions that promote stability in various parts of the world, to its work on issues as varied as nonproliferation, counterterrorism, human rights, and development, the UN is a force-multiplier for the U.S., addressing global challenges that—due to their complexity and cost—the U.S. can’t possibly be expected to confront alone.

The UN is a bargain for American taxpayers

While the UN’s work covers a broad array of issues and impacts U.S. interests in virtually every corner of the globe, the total amount of U.S. contributions to the UN consumes a very small portion of our nation’s annual budget. Overall, only 1.4% of the federal budget is devoted to foreign aid (including contributions to the UN). Our peacekeeping and regular budget dues account for just 0.2% of the annual U.S. federal budget.

UN Peacekeeping missions are in the interest of U.S. national security and also extremely cost effective

While the U.S. is the largest single contributor to the UN’s regular and peacekeeping budgets (responsible for paying 22% and 28% of these budgets respectively), other UN member states pay the vast majority of costs associated with the activities funded by these assessments. Moreover, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the U.S. has final say over the size of the peacekeeping budget—by far the largest of all of the UN system’s assessed budgets—since no peacekeeping mission can be authorized, expanded, or withdrawn from the field without U.S. consent. Peacekeeping missions are also extremely cost-effective, having been found by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to be 8 times cheaper than deploying U.S. forces. Overall, UN peacekeeping activities represent less than 0.5% of all annual global military expenditures, and are equivalent to just 1% of the U.S. defense budget.

Funding cuts to the UN would compromise American leadership

When the U.S. fails to pay its peacekeeping and regular budget dues, it jeopardizes UN programs that are manifestly in our national interests and negatively impacts our ability to advance our agenda at the UN. In order to continue reaping the benefits of engagement with the UN, and to be able to influence the organization’s overall direction, it is critical that we make our dues payments on-time and in-full. Moreover, a bipartisan poll conducted in June of 2019 found that more than 7 in 10 voters agree the U.S. should pay its dues to the UN and UN Peacekeeping in full.

What is the UN’s funding structure?

Funding from Member States for the UN system comes from two main sources: assessed and voluntary contributions.

Assessed contributions are payments that all UN Member States are required to make. These assessments
provide a reliable source of funding to core functions of the UN Secretariat via the UN
regular and peacekeeping budgets. In addition, the UN’s specialized agencies have their own
assessed budgets.
Voluntary contributions are not obligatory, but instead left to the discretion of individual Member States.
These contributions are vital to the work of the UN’s humanitarian and development agencies—including
the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Food Programme (WFP), UN Development Programme (UNDP),
UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and UN Population Fund (UNFPA), among others—which do not have
assessed budgets.

How is the UN Funded in the U.S.?

Each year, Congress must pass legislation to fund the activities and obligations of the U.S. government, including our dues to the UN.

Assessments for the UN Regular Budget and Specialized Agencies

The UN regular budget covers the UN’s core bodies and activities, including special political missions. The current assessment structure sets maximum (22 percent) and minimum (.001 percent) rates for Member States, with a country’s rate based on its ability to pay. That is determined by a complex formula which takes into account a Member State’s gross national income (GNI), GNI per capita, and several other economic indicators. Assessment rates are renegotiated and approved by the General Assembly every three years. Given the U.S.’s high level of economic development and per capita income relative to other countries, it pays the maximum rate. Over time, the U.S. has negotiated several reductions in its share, most notably an agreement in 2000 to establish the current maximum and minimum assessment structure, essentially capping U.S. contributions at 22 percent. Prior to this agreement, the U.S. was assessed 25 percent of the regular budget. The U.S. regular budget contribution is included under the State Department’s “Contributions to International Organizations” (CIO) account. In addition to the regular budget, CIO covers U.S. assessments for more than 40 other international organizations, including NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the World Health Organization (WHO)

Assessments for the UN Peacekeeping Budget

Like the regular budget, peacekeeping assessments are based on a Member State’s ability to pay, with one major difference: the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council—the U.S., U.K., China, France, and Russia—shoulder a higher proportion of peacekeeping costs relative to what they pay for the regular budget. Since the P5 hold veto power over Security Council decisions, in effect no UN peacekeeping mission can be deployed without their support. The P5’s higher financial responsibility is therefore meant to reflect its unique role in authorizing peacekeeping missions and crafting their mandates. Similar to the regular budget, peacekeeping rates are revised every three years, and new assessment rates for 2019-2021 were approved in December 2018. Over the past two decades, the U.S. rate has decreased from a high of 31.7 percent in 1994 to the 27.9 percent rate in effect today. At the same time, other countries have seen their assessment rates increase. U.S. contributions to the UN peacekeeping budget are included under the State Department’s “Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities” (CIPA) account. In addition, Congress includes U.S. assessments for the UN Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS)—an entity that provides logistical support and equipment to the African Union led peacekeeping force in Somalia—under the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) account. Since the mid-1990s, federal law has capped U.S. contributions to peacekeeping at 25 percent. As a result, Congress must revisit the issue every year during the appropriations process. While on numerous occasions Congress has decided to waive the cap, there have been several instances where the cap has remained in place, and the U.S. has accrued arrears. Building up arrears risks undermining missions that are squarely in our national interests; alienating countries that contribute troops to UN peacekeeping operations, including U.S. allies; and ceding our ability to shape UN peacekeeping activities to reflect our nation’s priorities and values to adversaries like Russia and China. As such, Congress must address these underpayments by lifting the cap and appropriating sufficient funds to pay our back dues.

Recent funding levels for the UN

Learn More

How the U.S. Funds the UN

UN Scales of Assessment

UN Funding: Voluntary vs. Assessed