 |
| President Donald Trump points toward U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, after speaking to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22.Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP |
Title: Trump administration opposes all options for new UN chief — and wants new candidatesAuthor: Daniella Cheslow
Publication: POLITICO
Date: October 9, 2026
Click here for the article
Summary: The Trump administration opposes all seven current candidates to succeed U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, according to two people familiar with internal conversations, because it considers them insufficiently aligned with President Donald Trump’s worldview and desired reforms. Former Costa Rican Vice President Rebeca Grynspan is consistently polling ahead in the field, which consists mostly of career diplomats. Guterres’s second and final term ends this year, and the United States, like the other permanent members of the Security Council, can veto any candidate.
Quotes:
“The entire slate is lacking the reformers the U.S. would want. And some seem like even more business-as-usual types,” said an administration official.
“Good luck getting any Republican to support funding the U.N. regular budget,” said a congressional aide about the prospect of Grynspan being selected.
“Good luck getting any Republican to support funding the U.N. regular budget,” said a congressional aide about the prospect of Grynspan being selected.
Surely Washington could encourage another country to nominate a candidate it considers suitable? If all seven contenders are unacceptable, the constructive response is to help produce someone better.
ReplyDeleteThe demand for serious reform is reasonable. The UN needs more than another round of administrative adjustments. Some organisations should close, others merge, overlapping mandates be eliminated, and unnecessary management layers removed. Programmes should justify their continued existence through independently verified results.
Many recognise that reform is needed. Earlier American proposals deserve examination on their merits: rejecting sensible changes simply because Washington advocates them would be foolish. There would likely be agreement on a leaner, more effective and accountable UN.
The next Secretary-General must have the courage to confront both the bureaucracy and the governments that protect their favoured organisations, posts and programmes.
Washington should help build support for such a candidate.
The trouble with USA suggestions is that all US attempts are transactional and not strategic. ThecUS wants to make the UN so irrelevant it can never be bothered
DeleteAs far as I have managed to establish, the explicit changes suggested by the U.S. centre fall into three main areas:
Delete1. Budgetary and Personnel Reductions
The U.S. has suggested significant overhead reductions. Trimming staff benefits, cutting high school and college subsidies for staff stationed abroad. Overhauling the UN pension plan. Replacing human interpreters with AI.
2. Operational Restructuring and Vetting
The U.S. has advocated for a "back-to-basics" approach to the UN's founding missions, pushing to scale down overlapping, outdated, or endless UN peacekeeping operations. The U.S. also wants more rigorous background checks for UN staff and consultants.
3. Diplomatic and Agency Withdrawals
Rather than attempting to reform certain branches internally, the U.S. has enacted mass exits from over 30 UN-affiliated bodies—deeming them "ineffectual talk shops".
These suggested changes may not all be totally unreasonable. Many would probably garner broad support and would reduce costs and overlapping mandates.