US funding cuts force UN peacekeeping cut

Summary

The administration's FY2026 budget request proposed eliminating funding for most UN bodies, including UN peacekeeping operations, for which Congress had appropriated $1.23 billion in FY2025. Congress rescinded $361.2 million in FY2024-FY2025 peacekeeping funds, and as of October 2025 US unpaid peacekeeping assessments stood at about $2.4 billion. Facing the shortfall, the UN announced in October 2025 it would cut its global peacekeeping force by roughly 25%.

What happened

Released around May 30, 2025, the administration's FY2026 budget request proposed eliminating funding for most UN bodies, including the UN regular budget and UN peacekeeping operations; Congress had appropriated $1.23 billion (pre-rescission) for US peacekeeping assessments in FY2025. In July 2025 Congress enacted a rescissions package (P.L. 119-28) that took $361.2 million in FY2024-FY2025 funds from the peacekeeping account. As of October 9, 2025, US unpaid assessments were about $2.4 billion for UN peacekeeping and $1.5 billion for the UN regular budget. Facing the resulting shortfall, the UN announced in October 2025 that it would cut its global peacekeeping force by approximately 25%.

Impact on the United States

CRS notes that some maintain US withholdings could give other countries, particularly China - which has the next-highest UN peacekeeping assessment after the US - an opportunity to step into the UN funding and leadership role traditionally held by the United States, and that withholdings can affect UN operations, including payments to peacekeeping troops. The UN Charter, a treaty the US ratified in 1945, requires each member to contribute to the organization's expenses. The resulting 25% force cut shrinks peacekeeping missions in fragile regions.

Global ripple effects

CRS notes that some maintain US withholdings open the way for other countries, particularly China, to take over the UN funding and leadership role traditionally held by the United States. The 25% cut to peacekeeping forces weakens missions in fragile regions, raising the risk that the US must later commit its own resources where peacekeepers withdraw.

Documented effects

1. May 2025FY2026 budget request proposed eliminating US funding for UN peacekeeping operations (FY2025 appropriation: $1.23B pre-rescission)[1]
2. Oct 2025US unpaid peacekeeping assessments reached ~$2.4B (plus ~$1.5B to the UN regular budget) as of Oct 9, 2025, after P.L. 119-28 rescinded $361.2M in FY2024-FY2025 peacekeeping funds[1]
3. Oct 2025UN announced in October 2025 it would cut its global peacekeeping force by roughly 25%[2]

Why this is rated significant

US arrears and a request to zero out peacekeeping funding preceded a 25% cut to the UN's global peacekeeping force; CRS notes some maintain US withholdings open the way for China to take a larger UN role. The harm is fiscal and institutional rather than directly lethal.

Corrections & updates [4]

Every change to a fact on this page after publication is logged here, newest first.

1. Sep 29, 2026CorrectedFigure

   Three figures were not supported by the cited Congressional Research Service product (IF10354, current version Dec. 19, 2025). It does not give a '$1.6B US share' of peacekeeping; it says the FY2026 request 'would eliminate funding to... UN peacekeeping operations' and that Congress appropriated $1.23 billion for peacekeeping assessments in FY2025. The enacted rescission (P.L. 119-28) took $361.2 million from the peacekeeping account (FY2024-FY2025 funds), not $393 million plus $400 million+. US unpaid peacekeeping assessments were $2.4 billion (plus $1.5 billion for the UN regular budget) as of Oct. 9, 2025, not $2.2 billion.[1]

2. Sep 29, 2026CorrectedUS impact

   The entry called China "the second-largest funder" and stated as fact that withholding dues cedes influence to China. CRS reports China has the next-highest UN peacekeeping assessment after the US (23.78%) and that some maintain US withholdings could let other countries, particularly China, step into the funding and leadership role traditionally held by the United States. The text now says exactly that, attributed to CRS.[1]

3. Sep 29, 2026CorrectedFigure

   The summary text said US peacekeeping arrears were about $2.2 billion; CRS puts US unpaid peacekeeping assessments at $2.4 billion as of Oct. 9, 2025.[1]

   + Show previous and current text- Hide previous and current text

   Previously

   The FY2026 budget moved to zero out most UN funding, including the US peacekeeping share, while arrears climbed to about $2.2 billion. Facing the shortfall, the UN announced a roughly 25% cut to its global peacekeeping force in October 2025.

   Now

   The FY2026 budget moved to zero out most UN funding, including the US peacekeeping share, while arrears climbed to about $2.4 billion. Facing the shortfall, the UN announced a roughly 25% cut to its global peacekeeping force in October 2025.

4. Sep 29, 2026ClarifiedSeverity rationale

   The severity rationale stated as fact that the cuts 'erode US leverage and destabilize regions'; it now describes the documented effects and attributes the influence concern to CRS. Severity unchanged.

   + Show previous and current text- Hide previous and current text

   Previously

   Erodes US multilateral leverage and destabilizes regions, but is fiscal rather than directly lethal.

   Now

   US arrears and a request to zero out peacekeeping funding preceded a 25% cut to the UN's global peacekeeping force; CRS notes some maintain US withholdings open the way for China to take a larger UN role. The harm is fiscal and institutional rather than directly lethal.

Sources [2]