The UN is broke, burnt out, and running on vibes
By Ellie Mueller
The United Nations has been paralysed by a slow-motion financial collapse that has left it unequipped to face the problems of the twenty-first century. It is not a case of unintentional mishandling; it is by design, writes Ellie Mueller.
Pieces like this one are free to read. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber so Cheek can continue paying writers for their insight and expertise.
The same query arises every few months, generally in response to another humanitarian crisis, bombing, or atrocity that catches our attention.
Why doesn’t the United Nations do something?
It’s a reasonable question. Vetoes, geopolitics, and diplomatic stalemate are not the only issues. There is something else at play: the United Nations (UN) is experiencing financial difficulties. Not in a symbolic sense. Literally.
The organisation established to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” is operating on fumes. Staff are being laid off. Humanitarian initiatives are being discounted completely. Peacekeeping deployments are declining. This is not a future risk. It is already happening.
The UN’s financial crisis is by design
The UN is entirely dependent on its member states for funding. Of that funding, some is mandatory. Like dues, assessed contributions are determined by a nation’s economic size and capability. Additional funding (which is typically allocated for emergency relief, climate solutions and humanitarian help) is optional and contingent on the political ideologies and foreign policy strategies of key powers. This is where the system begins to malfunction.
UN funding is increasingly being treated like a streaming subscription by wealthy states. Contributions are withheld, cut, or postponed as leverage in unrelated political conflict to fulfil the self-interests of wealthy states. As of 30 September 2025, 57 Member States still owe US$1.87 billion out of the US$3.5 billion in mandatory contributions. The United States alone owes US$1.5. billion.
The repercussions are instant. Patrols and civilian protection become difficult for peacekeeping forces to maintain in locations like South Sudan and Mali. The persistent underfunding of humanitarian appeals for Yemen, Sudan and Gaza forces NGOs and UN agencies to make difficult decisions about who receives aid and who doesn’t. The Secretary-General has issued repeated warnings that the UN’s fundamental functions are in danger of going into crisis while key contributors continue to withhold payments.
The escalating war in Iran exemplifies the UN’s weakened position. Without adequate funding from the member states, the UN will not be able to prevent the scourge of war; rather, it will just be observing the conflict from the sidelines. This is not unintentional mishandling; it is political design. Once seen as essential, multilateralism is now viewed as optional. Cooperation is becoming a favour that powerful states bestow when it suits them, rather than a shared responsibility.
The Security Council is not the only chokepoint
The Security Council veto is a common target of UN criticism. To this day, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China still have the power to obstruct any resolution. But concentrating only on vetoes obscures a deadlier, more subdued reality.
Without finances, the UN cannot act, even in cases where resolutions are passed. Logistics, transport, fuel, equipment, and manpower are all necessary for peacekeeping missions. It gradually and imperceptibly reduces capability until the UN is ostensibly present but essentially helpless – and the world hardly notices until the effects are too great.
Under untenable circumstances, organisations like UNICEF, the World Food Programme and UNHCR are doing miraculous work. However, due to structural failure, even the most capable institutions collapse without consistent political support and funding. Ultimately, good intentions do not feed people. Budgets do.
The UN is not broken; it is a mirror
The UN is frequently accused of being inept, however, incompetence is not the main problem. Dependent on the political will of strong governments, the organisation is operating exactly as it was intended to. Programs collapse when financing is cut. Resolutions are unsuccessful when vetoes are used. Global governance fails when multilateralism is not prioritised.
The unsettling reality is that the UN can only be as strong as the nations that are committed to supporting and funding it. We claim to desire international cooperation, humanitarian supervision, and common security. However, power politics and self-interest rule our system. The UN reflects that fact. It always has.
Why we should be concerned about this slow decline
Seldom does institutional deterioration appear striking. There is not a single explosion or defining collapse. However, its repercussions are far worse and more enduring. While media outlets continue to obsess over Security Council drama or battlefield developments, the slow-motion financial collapse is happening in the background. Refugees remain in camps. Children are starving. Unchecked violence occurs in conflict areas. Climate catastrophes remain unmitigated due to insufficient funds.
The UN cannot face the problems of the twenty-first century without significant reform - whether through modifications to the Security Council, a more dependable financing source, or a more comprehensive reconsideration of global government. And those problems are only growing in scope, speed, and interconnectedness.
The questions we continue to ignore
What will take its place if member states continue to view collaboration as optional and the UN is unable to act consistently? Because institutional restructuring is not enough to stop crises. Wars still rage. Citizens are harmed. Climate shocks quicken. The UN has never been perfect. However, if a workable substitute is neglected, the world will end up with something worse than a flawed system. It could leave us with nothing at all.
Instead of asking why the United Nations is not taking action, we must pose a more difficult question: ‘Why are we letting powerful states deprive the UN of the resources it requires to act?’
About the author
Ellie Mueller
Ellie is a graduate in International Relations with a strong focus on global governance, diplomacy, and youth engagement. She is a Global Shaper with the World Economic Forum and a member of the Westminster Bridge Network. Ellie has participated in programs with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), interned with the Australian Institute of International Affairs and served on the Youth Advisory Council with the US Consulate. She also completed an intensive exchange program at Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan, and was awarded a Global Citizenship Award from Deakin University in recognition of her commitment to international engagement and cross-cultural leadership.
Thank you for publishing my article. It’s quite scary to realise that the UN can only act when powerful states allow it, and funding cuts are quietly crippling its ability to respond to crises. If multilateralism continues to be treated as optional, what kind of world are we leaving for the next generation?
The UN is not broken; it is a mirror 😳 Mic drop