Last week, US President Donald Trump’s inflammatory address at the United Nations General Assembly made headlines. In his remarks, he lambasted the organization as full of “empty letters and empty words.” This sentiment is echoed by many Americans, especially conservatives. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 63% of Americans say that the UN is doing a poor job. However, public opinion is divided along party lines. 73% of Republicans, compared to 48% of Democrats, believe the UN does a poor job.
These feelings reflect a tumultuous relationship between the US and the UN since its inception. Ronald Reagan pulled funding from the World Health Organization (WHO) following the emergence of the HIV/AIDs crisis. George W. Bush withheld funding to the UN Population Fund, citing alleged contributions to coercive abortions in China. And most recently, Trump withdrew the US from several UN organizations — WHO, the Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Conservatives most often cite inefficiency as the reason for this recurring pattern of distrust in the UN, but this begs the question: what is the purpose of the United Nations? I make the case that the UN’s purpose is different from what many people think, and that it is surprisingly effective at carrying it out.
In order to determine the functionality and subsequent effectiveness of the UN, it is first necessary to understand what its purpose is. Despite the president claiming that the UN is full of “empty words,” the UN was never intended to act as a unitary global government with the authority to unilaterally intervene and discipline its member-states. Rather, it was founded to serve as a multilateral forum where states could air grievances, negotiate differences, and coordinate action without resorting to warfare. The UN Charter emphasizes diplomacy, conflict prevention, and international cooperation — not unilateral enforcement. In that sense, speeches, resolutions, and debates are not signs of weakness or inefficiency, but fundamental components of its design. The UN acts as a political space for dialogue where none might otherwise exist.
However, the UN is not only a forum, but also an actor in itself. It may not stop wars well, but it excels at the actions it was intended for. In reality, thousands of UN personnel work every day to prevent famine, distribute vaccines, manage refugee flows, monitor elections, and coordinate disaster relief. Agencies like the World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) operate in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and with impressive scale. In 2023 alone, the World Food Programme assisted over 150 million people facing hunger and malnutrition. UNICEF has helped immunize nearly half of the world’s children, drastically reducing preventable childhood diseases. These are not abstract promises or “empty words,” but concrete, measurable outcomes that improve and save lives.
Additionally, peacekeeping is often characterized as ineffective, while its successes are overlooked. UN missions in Namibia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and East Timor helped end civil wars, disarmed combatants, oversaw democratic transitions, and prevented relapses into conflict. These operations were not perfect, nor did they always succeed, but they provided stabilization and legitimacy in places where unilateral intervention would have been far costlier or politically impossible. Even when critics dismiss peacekeeping as slow or reactive, they ignore the fact that the alternative in many of these countries would have been state collapse or regional war.
Just as important, the UN helps set global standards that shape state behavior even when enforcement mechanisms are weak. International agreements on nuclear nonproliferation, maritime law, human rights, and climate change have emerged and continue to do so through the UN system. The Paris Agreement, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons all serve as frameworks of international law that constrain states through consensus, reputation, and norm creation rather than force. The power of these agreements lies not in coercion, but in coordination — and the UN helps lower the cost associated with it.
Critics who measure the UN by its ability to prevent every conflict misunderstand both its design and its achievements. As Dr. Emily Ritter, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Vanderbilt Laboratory for Research on Conflict and Collective Action (ROCCA), said, “the UN has two functions: operations and as a political forum.” The UN was not created to eliminate war outright, but rather to be conducive to a world where peace can be maintained through inter-state collaboration and improved living conditions. When viewed through that lens, the UN’s record, while imperfect, is far from the failure opponents proclaim.
