U.S. Challenges UN Over DEI and Gender Policies Amid Funding Threats

The U.S. warns UN agencies, including UNICEF and UN Women, against DEI and gender ideology, threatening billions in funding cuts.

U.S. Pressures UN Agencies Over DEI and Gender Policies

The United States has taken a firm stance against the promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within United Nations agencies, warning organizations like UNICEF and UN Women to reconsider their policies or risk losing crucial funding. This move reflects a broader effort by the U.S. government to scale back DEI-related initiatives both domestically and internationally. The potential funding cuts have sent ripples of concern through the UN, which heavily relies on American financial contributions to sustain operations.

Washington’s Shifting Priorities

Since his return to office on January 20, President Donald Trump has prioritized eliminating DEI programs and what his administration refers to as “gender ideology” across federal institutions. Encouraging similar actions in the private sector, the administration has now extended this agenda to international organizations, placing the UN in its crosshairs.

The financial implications of this shift are significant. The U.S. is the largest contributor to the UN, providing 22% of its core budget and covering 27% of peacekeeping costs. With the UN already facing a $2.8 billion financial shortfall due to outstanding payments from Washington, concerns over further funding cuts loom large.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, a vocal critic of excessive government spending, reinforced these concerns with a social media post on X (formerly Twitter), stating, “America provides way too much funding to the UN and associated entities.” His remarks echo growing sentiments within the administration that global funding commitments should be reevaluated.

Direct Confrontation at UN Meetings

In recent weeks, the U.S. has made its position clear at executive board meetings of UNICEF and UN Women. Washington pushed back against references to DEI and gender ideology in official documents, asserting that such programs undermine traditional values and replace merit-based principles with preferential treatment.

During a landmark vote at UNICEF, the U.S. proposed amendments to remove DEI and gender-related initiatives, arguing for a focus on “biological reality” and equal opportunities. The proposal was ultimately rejected, prompting pushback from African nations within the 36-member executive board. Eritrea’s deputy UN Ambassador, Amanuel Giorgio, speaking on behalf of eight African nations, emphasized the importance of DEI in UNICEF’s programs, stating that such initiatives are essential to ensuring “no child is left behind.”

U.S. diplomat Jonathan Shrier reiterated the administration’s stance, stating, “Diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs violate the text and spirit of our laws by replacing hard work, merit, and equality with a divisive and dangerous preferential hierarchy.” He further declared that the U.S. government recognizes only two sexes—male and female—and opposes the inclusion of gender ideology in UN programs.

In response, UNICEF reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the rights of all children, stating that it values input from member nations but remains dedicated to its humanitarian mandate. Executive Director Catherine Russell, a former Biden administration aide, remains at the helm of UNICEF, overseeing U.S. contributions that exceeded $1.4 billion in 2023.

Internal Adjustments to Avoid Conflict

The U.S.’s hardline position has prompted UN agencies to tread carefully in their communications. Ahead of an upcoming executive board meeting for the World Food Programme (WFP), an internal advisory note, obtained by Reuters, urged staff to avoid using terms like LGBTQI+ and SOGIESC (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics) in official discussions. The memo advised using “descriptive language rather than specific nomenclature” to prevent potential backlash from Washington.

The WFP, led by American executive Cindy McCain, has not publicly commented on the memo. However, given that the U.S. contributed over $4.4 billion to the WFP in 2024 alone, the organization is under considerable pressure to align its messaging with U.S. policy preferences.

Broader Implications for UN Operations

UN Women has also come under scrutiny, with the U.S. urging the agency to distance itself from what it describes as “radical causes.” Washington insists that focusing on DEI and gender ideology is counterproductive and ultimately “demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls.” In response, UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous stated that the agency is open to reviewing its policies, though it remains committed to advancing gender equality.

Amid the growing tension, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric emphasized the importance of upholding the founding principles of the UN Charter, which include commitments to human rights and gender equality. However, with mounting financial pressure from its largest donor, the UN may be forced to strike a delicate balance between its core values and securing necessary funding.

Looking Ahead: What’s Next for the UN?

As the Trump administration intensifies its scrutiny of global institutions, the UN faces an uncertain future. With the U.S. already scaling back involvement in key agencies—such as halting contributions to the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA and withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council—further disengagement could have lasting repercussions on international humanitarian efforts.

For now, UN leaders must navigate the complex interplay between policy commitments and financial sustainability. Whether the UN will yield to U.S. pressure or find alternative funding sources remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear: the global balance of power is shifting, and the future of multilateral cooperation hangs in the balance.

The evolving relationship between the U.S. and the UN underscores the fragility of international cooperation. As Washington reassesses its global commitments, UN agencies must find ways to adapt while upholding their humanitarian mandates. Whether this marks a temporary shift or a long-term policy realignment, the future of global aid and diplomacy remains at a crossroads.

Source:  (Reuters)

(Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information and is subject to change. Readers are encouraged to refer to official sources for the latest updates.)

Also Read:  Texas Judge Orders New York Doctor to Pay $100K in Landmark Abortion Pill Case