The US Wants to Reshape the UN's Social Agenda. It's Doing So Alone
Edith Lederer and Fréderike Geerdink
PassBlue
December 30, 2025
Summary:
The United States has voted against 38 resolutions in the UN General Assembly's human rights committee in 2025, rejecting texts on children's rights, nutrition, and policies involving youth that were previously adopted by consensus.
The Trump administration is calling for votes on resolutions traditionally approved without objection, seeking to renegotiate language on gender, climate change, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and the Sustainable Development Goals.
In the Third Committee, only 15 of 34 resolutions were adopted by consensus in 2025, compared to all 34 in 2024, due to US-forced votes.
The US has stripped gender-equality language from Security Council peacekeeping mandates and blocked humanitarian resolutions, though it remains largely isolated, typically voting alone or with only Israel, Argentina, and a few Pacific island nations.
The US mission stated its votes reject "performative exercise" rather than the merits of causes, while diplomats express concern that Washington is emboldening other countries to dissociate from consensus agreements despite rallying minimal support for its positions.
Quotes:
"Our disengagement from negotiation and decision to vote against such resolutions did not signal an argument over the merits of certain noble causes — but rather rejects the performative exercise that does not actually do anything to sustain progress on said cause." - US mission to the UN statement, December 19
"The positive thing is that even though votes were called, in most cases consensus translated into many yes votes." - Anonymous diplomat
"We must express our regrets that this resolution has departed from long established and previously agreed language. Language which in our view remains highly relevant to UNISFA's mandate and our collective objective to bring peace to the area." - Christina Markus Lassen, Denmark's permanent representative, November 14
"Despite lengthy negotiations, many other delegations made difficult concessions during negotiations in the hopes of contributing to consensus. If these two delegations insist on moving forward with their amendments, we unfortunately are forced to withdraw the tabled text from action later today." - Nicola Clase, Sweden's UN ambassador, December 10
"We regret that despite very minimal nonsubstantive changes made to the text, the resolution will nonetheless be put to a vote. This resolution has traditionally been adopted by consensus and enjoyed broad support." - Iraq representative, December 10
"They've been isolated in their campaigns on this. Countries that we wouldn't necessarily see as traditional champions of gender equality are taking diplomatic measures to prevent the US from being too forceful in the promotion of its position." - Cristal Downing, International Crisis Group
America First — or America Alone?
ReplyDeleteThere is a legitimate debate to be had about the United Nations’ expanding social and normative agenda. Much of it has drifted beyond the UN’s core purposes of peace, security, humanitarian relief, and development into what even sympathetic observers would concede is ideological signalling and bureaucratic self-justification. From that perspective, Washington is right to ask whether endless resolutions on gender sub-definitions, DEI formulations, or aspirational SDG rhetoric actually deliver results for children, women, the poor or merely sustain a global conference industry.
But a fair critique must distinguish substance from strategy. On that score, the current US approach looks less like principled reform and more like unilateral negation.
For decades, American influence at the UN rested not on moral purity but on coalition-building. Washington shaped outcomes by drafting language, trading concessions, and quietly leading blocs of like-minded states. Today, by contrast, the United States is forcing votes on texts it knows will pass overwhelmingly, stripping language after consensus has formed, and then presenting its isolation as proof of virtue. That may satisfy domestic political audiences, but it is not statecraft.
A superpower that repeatedly finds itself voting alongside only Israel, Argentina, and a handful of microstates is not leading by example; it is advertising its own diplomatic marginalisation. Even governments privately sceptical of the UN’s social agenda, like India, Indonesia, much of Africa, and parts of Eastern Europe, are not rallying to Washington’s banner; they are quietly working around it.
This is where America First risks becoming America Alone.
The irony is that by disengaging from negotiation while insisting on maximalist objections, the US is strengthening precisely the dynamics it claims to oppose. When Washington abandons the negotiating table, the language does not become more restrained; it becomes more activist, more rigid, and less accountable. The vacuum is filled by European delegations, UN secretariats, and advocacy coalitions with little electoral accountability.
There is an error in dismissing these resolutions as “performative” while simultaneously expending diplomatic capital to defeat them. If the texts truly have no operational consequence, why detonate consensus mechanisms that have historically allowed the US to shape peacekeeping mandates, humanitarian access, and sanctions regimes where real interests are at stake?
The critique of the UN should aim at discipline, not demolition. The United States should be arguing for fewer resolutions, clearer mandates, tighter budgets, and measurable outcomes, not voting “no” on children’s nutrition texts to make a point about gender terminology. It blurs priorities and alienates allies whose support Washington will need on China, Iran, Ukraine, and the future of peacekeeping.
The UN does need reform, and consensus politics can become a cover for lowest-common-denominator thinking. But reform is achieved by leading coalitions, not by testing how alone one can stand.
America’s strength has never been that it was always right. It was that, more often than not, others followed. If even quiet sympathisers are now diplomatically manoeuvring to contain the United States rather than align with it, that should prompt reflection. America First may work when it still understands the value of friends.
@ Thomas: very good analysis and comment
DeleteYes, Thomas Ekvall: "A superpower that repeatedly finds itself voting alongside only Israel, Argentina, and a handful of microstates is not leading by example; it is advertising its own diplomatic marginalisation". Reckeless coalition-busting rather than coalition-building seems to be the new strategy of the "Dear Leader". Tariffs on its closest European/NATO allies that don't toe the imperial wish to possess Greenland, is the latest example of America First = America Alone. The Dear Leader confuses fawning & fear by allies as "respect". When will self-respecting leaders start calling: The Emperor has No Clothes? But he does have the most powerful armour!
Delete