A Troubled Marriage Between the U.S. and the U.N.
Manhattan’s Turtle Bay waterfront, roughly 42nd–48th Street on the East River, was once a dirty and industrial area crowded with slaughterhouses, stockyards, and coal yards. Locals even called the block “Blood Alley.” Everything changed in December 1946, when philanthropist John D. Rockefeller Jr. purchased six blocks of that waterfront and donated them to the newly formed United Nations. He believed anchoring the U.N. in New York—his hometown—could help avert future wars and bring value to the city. An iconic 39-story modernist Secretariat tower soon rose. By 1952, the former industrial land had become a symbol of global cooperation and was praised as an architectural and diplomatic landmark.
The U.N.’s arrival turned New York into an international crossroads, and this transformation also brought economic benefits to the city. A 2016 city study estimated that the U.N. community generated $3.69 billion for New York’s economy. Adjusted for inflation, that figure now exceeds $5 billion. As the U.N. General Assembly convenes each fall, foreign dignitaries flood Midtown Manhattan. Hotels fill, restaurants boom, and local businesses, from coffee shops to car services, surge. While some residents complain about motorcades, road closures, and traffic jams, many, myself included, prefer to walk, navigating the chaos of U.N. week on foot.
In February, New York City Mayor Eric Adams called the U.N. “a powerful, symbolic reminder” of the city’s global stature. He unveiled a $500 million redevelopment plan for the U.N. Plaza, which is projected to generate 1,800 jobs and billions of dollars in new economic activity. Governor Kathy Hochul praised the effort: “This investment not only creates good-paying jobs but also reinforces our status as the global center of commerce and diplomacy. When we build, we create opportunity—and there’s no better place for it than Manhattan.”
What do everyday New Yorkers think of the U.N?
Many locals acknowledge its upsides—boosts to local business, tourism, and New York’s status as a global capital—but also complain about the annual wave of security barricades, road closures, and traffic congestion, especially during the U.N. General Assembly week. But for others, the busy international scene is part of what makes the city great. The neighborhood is filled with voices in many languages. Living near the U.N. means seeing flags from around the world and feeling connected to the world. Even celebrities are drawn to First Avenue, often visiting as goodwill ambassadors or supporters of international causes. The U.N.’s presence adds a layer of global energy to the neighborhood that few other cities can claim.
Beyond its local footprint, the U.N. is a vital tool of American diplomacy
“The United Nations serves as a platform where the United States can reach 193 countries at the same time,” says Evelyn Leopold, a veteran U.N. correspondent, lifelong New Yorker, and chair of the Dag Hammarskjöld Fund for Journalists. “As a permanent member of the Security Council, the U.S. can advance resolutions or use its veto to block action. The U.N. also provides a vast network of committees and initiatives where the United States can lead or collaborate with nations it rarely engages elsewhere.”
Heads of state and government, foreign ministers, and diplomats visit the U.N. headquarters all year round for Security Council meetings and summits. Many negotiations begin in New York, and key treaties are signed here. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres calls the organization “the crossroads of the world.” Former U.S. presidents have echoed this sentiment. In 2013 President Obama told the General Assembly, “For decades, the United Nations has made a difference—from helping to eradicate disease to educating children to brokering peace.” But beyond high-level diplomacy, the U.N. has also been a stage for some of the most dramatic and controversial speeches in diplomatic history. In 2009, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi spoke for almost 100 minutes, far exceeding the allotted time, called the Security Council a “terror council,” and tore the U.N. Charter in protest. Cuba’s Fidel Castro remained at the rostrum for more than four hours in 1960. The U.S. led a mass walkout of the U.N. General Assembly when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the podium in 2011, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez called President Bush a “devil” in 2006.
Shifts in American support
During the Cold War, Americans broadly supported the U.N., but by the 2000s, partisan divides began to show. According to Pew Research, 64% of Americans viewed the U.N. favorably in 2016, a rise from a decade earlier. In 1990, about 70% of Democrats and Republicans held positive views. But Republican support plummeted after the 2003 Iraq War and has remained lower. By 2024, just 52% of Americans viewed the U.N. favorably, down from 57% the year before.
Democrats remain largely positive, citing the U.N.’s work on vaccines, refugees, and human rights. Many conservatives remain skeptical, seeing the U.N. as a bureaucratic “club” for elites. However, global views are more favorable. A median of 58% of respondents in 35 countries view the U.N. positively. In the Global South, people especially appreciate the U.N.’s role in development and peacekeeping. To locals here, surveys show that New Yorkers still have more positive than negative feelings about their famous neighbor, the U.N. The U.S.-U.N. relationship has grown tense under President Donald Trump. A native New Yorker, Trump often expressed disdain for the U.N., once tweeting in 2012 about the “cheap 12-inch sq. marble tiles” in the General Assembly Hall and offering to replace them. In his 2018 U.N. speech, he declared, “America is governed by Americans,” emphasizing sovereignty over multilateralism. In February, Trump signed an executive order to review all U.S. funding to the U.N. and withdrew from key agencies focused on human rights, women’s health, climate change, and global aid. Though the U.S. remains the U.N.’s largest financial backer—providing nearly 25% of its core budget and billions more in humanitarian aid—Trump’s first term marked a sharp turn away from multilateralism. Adding to the strain, Elon Musk—the world’s richest man, who left his advisory role in the Trump administration after a public rift with the president—endorsed a March 2025 social media post calling for the U.S. to withdraw from NATO and the U.N., replying simply: ‘I agree, reflecting growing skepticism among some influential Americans.
“Our turbulent world needs American leadership now more than ever,” said Elizabeth Cousens, President and CEO of the United Nations Foundation, following the recent U.S. announcements. “Actions that weaken U.S. influence on the global stage or diminish our voice in leading international institutions risk undoing decades of progress and ceding strategic ground to global competitors.” Some even wonder whether New York will remain the U.N.’s permanent home or if U.S. disengagement will prompt a shift. But even as Washington’s frustration with multilateralism grows, foreign policy experts warn that the U.S. may still find the U.N. indispensable.
“Since January, we have been painfully aware of just how dependent the U.N. is on the U.S. for funding,” Richard Gowan, U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, told Envoy. “But the Trump administration will likely find that the U.S. also relies on the U.N.’s humanitarian agencies to manage crises it can’t control—and that the Security Council, for all its flaws, can be useful in navigating conflict. They may not like the U.N. or what it stands for, but they may also discover that in a volatile world, it’s better to have the U.N. around to help put out fires.”
A Crossroads at 80
The United Nations turns 80 this year, and it faces one of the biggest tests in its history. It confronts a world it can no longer easily unite, with old mandates and new realities colliding. To mark the anniversary, Secretary-General António Guterres launched the “UN80 Initiative,” prioritizing reform to ensure it remains effective, cost-efficient, and responsive to the people it serves. It builds on ongoing efforts, including the Pact for the Future and U.N. 2.0, which aim to update the organization’s structures, priorities, and operations for the 21st century.
Despite these plans for the future, the U.N. faces serious challenges. The world is more divided than ever, with wars, climate change, and growing tensions between major powers. On top of that, the U.N. is in a financial crisis. Shifting alliances and budget disputes put some of its core missions—peacekeeping, refugee aid, and multilateral diplomacy—at serious risk. In this shifting landscape, the political winds in the United States add further uncertainty. With Trump 2.0, the U.S. may increasingly question the U.N.’s relevance—but walking away would create a vacuum no single power could fill. “Active U.S. investment in international institutions, like the U.N., is in the interest of every American because it gives American values and influence unparalleled reach and is a surefire way to strengthen relationships with friends and allies worldwide, on climate, health, and many other issues,” Elizabeth Cousens said. “At a moment in human history when we face both challenges and tremendous possibility on a global, even planetary, scale, the U.S. cannot afford to step back from the global game. Indeed, Americans have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, from strong U.S. leadership in international institutions, now and into the future.”
This concern isn’t limited to outside critics—it’s shared by seasoned diplomats who have worked at the heart of the U.S.-U.N. relationship. In a Foreign Policy op-ed, Chris Lu, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for Management and Reform, and Jana Nelson, former Senior Advisor at the U.S. Mission to the U.N., warned that retreating from multilateral institutions would come at a steep cost. ‘’If the United States steps back, its influence will fade,’’ they wrote, ‘’it will lose voting power, forfeit seats at key tables, and leave space for China to shape the agenda.’’
As the U.N. looks toward its next chapter, one thing is clear: the world still needs a place where nations can talk, argue, and try imperfectly to solve their shared problems. And for now, that place is still on the East River. The U.S. may grumble about the U.N., but it cannot easily replace it. New York City is not just home to the United Nations — it thrives because of it. Here, diplomacy is not just symbolic; it fuels the city’s economy, shapes its global identity, and reinforces its influence on the world stage.
About The Author
