Participating as an advisor to the United Nations system during the Security Council session of January 7, 2026, convened to address U.S. aggression against Venezuela, Jeffrey D. Sachs delivered a forceful and unequivocal intervention.
He stated that since 1947 the United States has repeatedly resorted to the use of force, covert operations, and political manipulation to engineer regime change in other countries. Among the most recent cases, he recalled actions against Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Ukraine, and Venezuela (in 2002), all carried out without authorization from the UN Security Council.
The methods employed have included not only overt military action, but also covert intelligence operations, the fomenting of unrest, support for armed groups, manipulation of mass media and social networks, bribery of military and civilian officials, targeted assassinations, false-flag operations, economic warfare, and other similar practices.
Sachs further noted that during 2025 alone and the first days of 2026, the United States bombed seven countries—Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela—none of which were authorized by the UN Security Council or justified under the doctrine of self-defense. In addition, military action has been threatened against other UN member states, including Colombia, Denmark, Iran, and Mexico.
Regarding the current situation involving Venezuela, Sachs asserted that the Security Council should instruct the United States to immediately cease its use of force, lift its naval quarantine, and terminate all coercive military measures against Venezuela undertaken without UN authorization.
Among other legal grounds, the speaker invoked Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Withdrawal from UN Entities
On the same day, displaying his characteristic pragmatic cynicism and lack of conceptual grounding, President Donald Trump told The New York Times that the norms of the international order established after World War II represent unnecessary burdens for a superpower, and that the only limitation on its authority lies in its own morality rather than in any external mechanisms of oversight.
Consistent with this worldview, the White House issued a resolution that same day entitled “Withdrawal of the United States from international organizations, conventions, and treaties contrary to the interests of the United States.” Through this resolution, the United States formally announced its withdrawal from dozens of international bodies and forums in which it had previously participated, including a lengthy list of United Nations-related entities. The resolution further stipulates that withdrawal entails not only ending participation but also terminating financial contributions.
The withdrawal process began shortly after the start of the Trump administration. On February 4, 2025, Executive Order 14199 instructed the Secretary of State, in consultation with the U.S. Representative to the United Nations, to conduct a comprehensive review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the United States is a member and/or to which it provides funding or other forms of support, as well as all conventions and treaties to which it is a party, in order to determine which are deemed contrary to U.S. interests.
Without providing any substantive justification, the decision of January 7, 2026 directs U.S. government agencies to cease participation in and financial support for 35 non-UN organizations and 31 UN entities allegedly operating against the national interests, security, or sovereignty of the United States.
The list of UN entities from which the United States is withdrawing is as follows:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) International Trade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) United Nations Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) United Nations Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) United Nations Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) United Nations Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) United Nations Population Fund;
(xxvii) United Nations Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
(xxix) United Nations System Staff College;
(xxx) UN Water; and
(xxxi) United Nations University.
The list of non-UN entities from which the United States is withdrawing is as follows:
Carbon-Free Energy Compact; Colombo Plan Council; Commission for Environmental Cooperation; Education Cannot Wait; European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats; Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories; Freedom Online Coalition; Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund; Global Counterterrorism Forum; Global Forum on Cyber Expertise; Global Forum on Migration and Development; Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research; Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property; International Cotton Advisory Committee; International Development Law Organization; International Energy Forum; International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies; International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance; International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law; International Lead and Zinc Study Group; International Renewable Energy Agency; International Solar Alliance; International Tropical Timber Organization; International Union for Conservation of Nature; Pan American Institute of Geography and History; Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation; Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia; Regional Cooperation Council; Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century; Science and Technology Center in Ukraine; Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
A simple review of these entities reveals that the current U.S. administration considers forums addressing issues such as child protection, maternal and child health, the fight against sexual and gender-based violence, international law, water governance, ocean protection, regional economic affairs, peacebuilding, democracy, ethnic issues, the rights of people of African descent and Indigenous peoples, environmental protection, and international trade—among many others—to be contrary to its national interests.
Financial Cuts
This resolution must be viewed in conjunction with other measures that have directly or indirectly resulted in a significant reduction in financial contributions to the functioning of the United Nations.
Until recently, the United States was the largest financial contributor to the UN, providing slightly more than 20 percent of its total budget.
However, actions taken by the current administration—such as budget cuts promoted by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), coupled with the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), through which substantial resources were channeled to UN agencies—have led to a sharp decline in financial support. In practical terms, this has resulted in the suspension or termination of numerous projects across the UN system.
The Roots of the Present Situation
Although the violence of recent events, the rapid succession of measures adopted, and the explicit statements of senior U.S. officials—beginning with the president himself—mark a clear historical inflection point, it would be a mistake to assume that the relationship between the United States, international law, and particularly the United Nations has been fundamentally different in the past.
In essence, the attitude has remained largely consistent: international law is to be respected only insofar as its application does not conflict with the interests of the hegemonic power.
Despite the abundance of evidence, this reality has for decades received insufficient scrutiny, giving rise in practice to a form of tacit tolerance that has rarely been challenged, even at the rhetorical level.
A cornerstone of the post–World War II international order was the creation of the United Nations, whose headquarters is located in New York, United States. Yet from the outset, the relationship between the United States and the UN has been marked by ambivalence, if not outright contradiction.
Although the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council—where the most consequential decisions in international relations are made—and participates in the General Assembly, which adopts the organization’s principal legal norms, it has never accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
In other words, the United States sits—armed with veto power—on the UN’s primary governing body and participates in its legislative organ, yet rejects the authority of its judicial branch. Viewed historically, this reflects a consistent refusal by the United States, since the UN’s founding, to submit to international adjudication at the request of other states.
In recent administrations, the United States has also withdrawn from several UN agencies and specialized bodies, including the Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and the World Health Organization—a practice now significantly expanded by the resolution discussed above.
Human Rights
This same posture is clearly evident in the field of human rights.
For decades, the U.S. government published annual reports assessing the human rights situation in virtually every country, positioning itself as a global arbiter of compliance with human rights standards.
Yet the United States has historically exhibited—and continues to exhibit—a very low level of commitment to ratifying international and regional human rights instruments.
Despite its frequent invocation of human rights as a benchmark for judging other countries, the United States has never ratified the principal human rights treaty of the Americas: the American Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Pact of San José.
As a result, the United States is not subject to oversight by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—despite the fact that its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C.—nor to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
At the global level, the situation is scarcely different.
The United States is among the countries that have ratified the fewest international human rights treaties. A particularly striking example is the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by 196 states. The United States remains the only country in the world that has not ratified it, despite having signed the convention in 1990.
A similar pattern emerges within the framework of the International Labour Organization (ILO). Of the 192 ILO conventions currently in force, the United States has ratified only 14. Notably absent are Convention No. 87 on freedom of association, Convention No. 98 on collective bargaining, Convention No. 29 on forced labor, and Convention No. 100 on equal remuneration—all of which are classified as fundamental by the ILO.
However, USA is a permanent member of the ILO Governing Body, the main governing body of that organization.
What’s next?
Donald Trump’s second term in the White House deepens a long-standing trend that dates back decades: a dismissive attitude—now transformed into open contempt—toward international law as a system intended to regulate relations among states.
What distinguishes the present moment is that this shift is unfolding amid a clear decline of the United States as the world’s preeminent economic power, while an emerging power and its close allies repeatedly advocate for the consolidation of a new international order grounded in rules, norms, and consensus among states.
Humanity thus stands at a profound historical crossroads.
Unlike in the past, if tensions between major powers are not resolved through dialogue and negotiated agreements, they risk being settled through confrontation among nuclear-armed states situation in which there would be no victors, only large-scale destruction.
