The United Nations was founded to promote peace, security, and international cooperation, but critics argue that it has become an inefficient bureaucracy that often works against U.S. interests. In particular, UN agencies and organizations – in which each UN Member State can choose whether or not to participate – have sometimes taken positions in conflict with what some U.S. policy makers regard as important principles and priorities. The Trump Administration recently announced that the United States will no longer participate in the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC), will end all financial support for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and may withdraw from the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the U.N. and its affiliated organizations remain a vital forum for diplomacy and that the United States should lead efforts to reform them rather than abandon them.
Should the United States push for structural changes within the U.N. and its affiliated entities, or would withdrawal better serve American sovereignty and foreign policy goals? What are the legal and geopolitical implications of either path? Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on international law, foreign policy, and constitutional governance as we explore whether the United States should help reform or quit the United Nations.

Featuring:

Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East Timo
Peter Yeo, Senior Vice President, UN Foundation; President, Better World Campaign
Moderator: John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law