UN Accused of Stalling Reforms Amid Midterm Election Strategy to Flip House for Democrats

The United Nations is facing mounting pressure to reduce its budget amid a decline in external contributions and increasing scrutiny over duplicated programs and overlapping mandates. Publicly, the organization’s UN80 Task Force has launched an initiative focused on streamlining operations and slashing costs. However, behind the scenes, a U.N. diplomatic source claims these efforts are a calculated maneuver to protect the organization’s structure at least until the United States’ 2026 midterm elections.

According to this source, a so-called “zero-growth budget” for 2026 has already been prepared. The ongoing discussions about making the U.N. leaner, the source alleges, are designed to create the impression of meaningful reform—primarily to persuade former President Trump and his allies not to push for more severe financial cuts. “The notion is to keep a mammoth organization untouched,” the source stated, suggesting that U.N. strategists are betting on a political shift in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 elections, which could lead to a less hostile funding environment for the U.N.

The U.N. Foundation was identified by the source as an architect of this plan. However, the Foundation firmly denies any involvement. “We have never proposed linking U.N. budget deliberations to U.S. mid-term elections,” a spokesperson told reporters. They emphasized the Foundation’s independence from the U.N. itself and insisted it does not participate in the Assembly’s budgeting process. The spokesperson acknowledged, however, the need for efficiencies to strengthen the U.N.’s work.

Internal documents reviewed by journalists reveal a mix of genuine and skeptical responses within the U.N. regarding the latest round of reforms. One April 2025 memo from U.N. Resident Coordinators in Africa admits previous attempts at change have met limited success. According to the document:

• Reforms have not fully incentivized collaboration between various U.N. entities.
• Many divisions prioritize their own obligations over broader organizational coherence.
• Coordination is often considered additional work, not a core responsibility.
• Competition for funding exacerbates these problems.

The memo puts forward two possible options for reorganizing—but stresses that meaningful structural reform would require a phased approach spanning five to ten years. Without changes at the U.N. headquarters level, it warns, even modest plans are unlikely to succeed.

A separate communication from the Secretary-General’s office on April 25 directs all Secretariat entities to conduct a “functional review for cost reductions and efficiencies.” This includes identifying which functions or departments might be relocated, with strict deadlines set for reporting these changes in time for the 2026 budget review cycle. Yet, doubts remain among U.N. insiders about how much authority the Secretary-General truly has over largely autonomous bodies within the organization. “This document does not represent any value legally, because none of their boards have committed nor listened or reviewed the order,” the diplomatic source noted.

At a May briefing, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres conceded that the 2026 budget proposal was submitted months ago and cannot be modified at this stage. Revised reforms, he announced, would instead be presented for the 2027 budget cycle. “This whole attempt is a lie to appease the Americans so they don’t go harsh enough and cut anything right now,” the source argued, pointing to what they see as a pattern: rhetoric about reform without real structural change.

In a letter dated May 13, Guterres called on U.N. staff for “bold, transformative thinking” to address the urgent liquidity crisis and hinted that workforce reductions may be unavoidable. At the same time, he urged staff not to be distracted by leaks and rumors, warning that not all positions would be spared.

One veteran U.N. official summed up the situation: “I have seen the U.N. attempt to change itself at least five times… Each time, the organization only grew larger.” This sentiment, shared by other insiders, reflects frustration with what they perceive as an institution increasingly resistant to meaningful reform.

With major contributors falling behind on their payments, the Economist reported in May that the U.N. could run out of funds for salaries and suppliers before the next General Assembly session in September. Whether the current reform proposals will be enough to secure the organization’s future remains uncertain—and skepticism abounds both inside and outside the U.N.