The Trump administration recently unveiled a controversial proposal to stop all US support for UN’s peacekeeping operations—a drastic step that could profoundly undermine global stability. The memo, leaked to the media, proposes sweeping cuts to the US state department budget and a complete withdrawal of American financial support, currently with $1.2 billion in dues, from the UN’s peacekeeping budget.
While the proposal still requires congressional approval, the implications are stark. Since its formal inception in 1948, UN peacekeeping missions have become one of the most vital and cost-effective tools to manage conflicts and promote stability around the world. It is not only about deploying soldiers to conflict zones; it represents a multi-dimensional approach to peacebuilding that addresses the political, economic and social dimensions of post-conflict recovery.
These operations are designed to support peace agreements, maintain ceasefires, disarm combatants and protect vulnerable populations. Over the past several decades, this model has proven particularly effective in countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire, all of which suffered from devastating civil wars in the early 2000s.
Over 68,000 personnel are currently deployed across 11 UN peace operations. Most peacekeepers come from developing countries like India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Rwanda and Nigeria. Wealthier nations, especially the US, provide the bulk of funding. The US alone contributes 27 percent of the $5.6 billion annual peacekeeping budget—an investment that has historically garnered bipartisan support in Washington.
Defunding peacekeeping could lead to the collapse or curtailment of critical missions in South Sudan, Lebanon and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Cuts at this time could initiate a domino effect, prompting other donor nations to withdraw support, jeopardising fragile peace in many regions.
The situation in Somalia offers a stark warning. The country remains embroiled in a deadly struggle with Al Shabab, a jihadist group affiliated with Al Qaeda. The African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) is a critical player in maintaining a fragile peace. However, a UN Security Council resolution proposing a hybrid funding model to support AUSSOM has faced US opposition.
The Trump administration’s scepticism stems from concerns such as Somalia’s governance and the cost implications for UN member states. But inaction carries a much higher price. Al Shabab has intensified attacks, including a March 2025 ambush targeting the Somali president’s convoy. According to General Michael Langley of US Africa Command, the group is expanding ties with the Iran-backed Houthis, threatening international shipping lanes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
This worry is not limited to East Africa. Peacekeeping failure in the DRC could open the door for M23 rebels, allegedly backed by Rwanda, to advance on the capital, Kinshasa—a potential regional catastrophe in a country rich in minerals critical to global supply chains.
In South Sudan, the absence of peacekeepers could result in widespread civilian massacres amid ethnic tensions. And in Lebanon, without the UN interim force monitoring the ceasefire, conflict between Israel and Hezbollah could reignite and escalate into a regional war.
While acknowledging past failures, such as the inability to prevent genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s, the track record of UN peacekeeping over the past 25 years underscores its immense value. Missions in Haiti, Timor-Leste and Kosovo helped stabilise countries on the brink of collapse. In Cyprus, a relatively small force has prevented two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, from reigniting a decades-old conflict.
The proposed cuts are strategically reckless. While the peacekeeping budget represents a small fraction of the US defence budget, its returns in terms of global stability and prevention of larger-scale conflicts are invaluable. The Trump administration’s parallel proposal to establish a $2.1-billion ‘America First Opportunities Fund’ as an alternative source of foreign assistance lacks the multilateral legitimacy, scope and infrastructure of UN peacekeeping. Selective bilateral aid cannot replace the systematic, rules-based engagement that UN missions offer.
By disengaging from multilateral peace operations, America is sending the wrong message to the world. Following the Second World War, the US helped build a system of international cooperation designed to prevent the very types of conflicts that devastated the 20th century. Walking away from that system now would not only betray that legacy but also invite greater instability, humanitarian disaster and even new wars.
The US Congress still has a chance to act. It can reject the cuts and reaffirm US commitment to global peace. In the end, the Trump administration must understand that slashing peacekeeping may save money in the short term, but the long-term costs—humanitarian crises, mass displacement, new insurgencies and possible military entanglements—will far outweigh the short-term benefits.
The US must choose between retreating from global responsibility and inviting chaos and continuing its tradition of leading the world. The former path will lead to more conflict, while the latter offers a chance to uphold a system that, while imperfect, has preserved peace and saved lives across the globe.
E D Mathew | Former UN spokesperson, participated in peacekeeping missions in Timor-Leste and Liberia
(Views are personal)