The UN's Future Hangs on a Single Man's Will

The Weight of Leadership

When the 80th United Nations General Assembly convenes this week, it will be more than just another gathering of global leaders. It will be a moment of reckoning for the future of international order itself. For the first time in its history, the world's most prominent multilateral institution faces the possibility of no leader at all—because one man, Donald Trump, holds the power to stop it.

That isn't hyperbole. It's reality. As we stand at a crossroads between chaos and coherence, with wars raging across continents, climate disasters accelerating, and AI disrupting global norms, the United Nations finds itself in an unprecedented position: its survival depends not on the collective will of its member states but on the personal whims of one man who has shown little regard for institutions that don't serve his interests.

"The UN is not just an organization—it's the last great bastion of multilateralism, and if it fails, so do we,"

I have watched the UN evolve from a hopeful symbol of post-war cooperation to a tired institution under siege. But even in its darkest moments, there has always been something essential about its mission. The idea that we could stand together, across borders and ideologies, to address global challenges, is worth defending. Yet now, that idea stands on the edge of collapse—held hostage by a single man who would rather dismantle than rebuild.

Trump's War Against the UN

The trajectory of Donald Trump's relationship with the United Nations has been unmistakably destructive. When he took office in 2025, his first act was to announce the U.S. withdrawal from over thirty key UN bodies. From climate change agencies to human rights monitoring groups, these institutions were abandoned without a second thought.

His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, went even further, vowing to dismantle the International Criminal Court “brick by brick.” This isn't just political posturing—it's a calculated effort to erase the very framework that has governed international law for decades. And while the United States continues to contribute a large portion of the UN's budget, it's also failing to pay its dues—leaving the organization on the brink of financial collapse.

But perhaps most damaging is Trump's establishment of the Board of Peace—an initiative that openly challenges the legitimacy of the UN. With no formal connection to existing international law, this group operates as an unofficial shadow government, signaling a clear intent to replace multilateral diplomacy with bilateral or unilateral action. If successful, it would be a fatal blow to global governance.

The Candidates: A Lackluster Field

Amidst such turmoil, the field of candidates for the next secretary-general is disappointingly flat. The leading contenders—Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett from Guyana and Rebeca Grynspan from Costa Rica—are both competent diplomats, yet they offer no revolutionary vision for the UN's future. They are safe choices, not bold ones.

This lack of ambition is understandable. In a system where the Permanent Five hold veto power and where Trump's approval is a prerequisite, candidates who push for change risk being written off before the race even begins. So we get cautious platforms that avoid controversy, hoping to secure votes from the very people who might block them.

That's not to say the candidates are without merit—they're experienced, qualified, and committed to international cooperation. But in a time when we need new thinking, new leadership, and a reimagining of what diplomacy can achieve, they offer only incremental improvements to a broken system. And that's simply not enough.

The Political Game Changer

What makes this election truly dangerous is the unpredictable nature of Trump's behavior. In July, sources within European diplomatic circles reported that he had considered nominating FIFA President Gianni Infantino as his pick for UN Secretary-General—an idea so absurd that it barely deserves serious attention.

Yet, given Trump's track record of surprising the world—appointing his son-in-law and real estate investor to critical roles—it's not impossible. His influence on the outcome is already evident in how many candidates avoid making strong stances on issues like Gaza or Ukraine, knowing full well that any bold position might alienate him.

The risk isn't just in what Trump may do—but in what he might not do. Will he speak publicly about the upcoming election? Will he make his support or opposition known before the vote? Or will he let his silence become the ultimate weapon?

When the World Needs a Leader Most

The current secretary-general, António Guterres, has shown resilience in the face of adversity. But he is aging and increasingly constrained by his lack of resources. If the UN fails to elect a new leader soon, it risks operating without direction during one of the most critical moments in modern history.

Plans are already being made for scenarios where no decision is reached. Guterres might be asked to serve a second term, or senior UN officials could assume administrative control. These would be temporary fixes at best—risky, inefficient, and lacking any real authority. The world needs more than that.

In an age of increasing nationalism and growing skepticism toward internationalism, the new leader must do more than just manage crises—they must inspire confidence in the idea of shared governance. That is not a task for someone who views institutions like the UN as obstacles to be removed rather than tools for collective action.

Looking Forward: The Choice Is Ours

We are at a defining moment—not just for the United Nations, but for the very concept of international cooperation. Every day that passes without a new leader is a day lost in rebuilding trust, restoring order, and reaffirming our shared values.

If Trump allows a competent, visionary candidate to take the helm, it could be remembered as the turning point when the rules-based global order was given a second chance. But if he chooses to block progress, or worse, remains silent, we will have failed not only ourselves but future generations who deserve better than what we are offering today.

The stakes could not be higher. The question is no longer whether the UN can survive—but whether it can rise again, with leadership that matches the urgency of our times.