The recent United Nations General Assembly once again gave world leaders a stage to criticize President Donald Trump and American foreign policy.
Iran’s president attacked Trump while portraying his own country as a victim of terrorism. French President Emmanuel Macron warned of a “new age of barbarism.” Other American allies used the gathering to distance themselves from Trump’s approach to international affairs.
But the spectacle raises a more important question: What is the U.N. actually doing about the countries that pose the greatest threats to the international order it was created to protect?
Let’s start with Russia. Russia invaded Ukraine in direct violation of the U.N. Charter and has repeatedly used its permanent seat on the Security Council to frustrate international action against itself. Russia, including the Soviet Union, has used its Security Council veto more than any other permanent member.
China presents a different but equally serious challenge. Beijing has spent years expanding its economic and diplomatic influence throughout the developing world and international institutions. A recent report from the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party detailed China’s efforts to increase its influence within UN agencies and leadership positions and use international institutions to advance its strategic interests.
Yet Russia and China remain two of the five permanent members of the Security Council, each armed with a veto.
That doesn’t make the U.N. irrelevant. It does expose a serious contradiction at the heart of the institution.
And this is where Trump deserves some credit.
His broader argument that the United States should stop accepting international institutions and alliances in which America provides disproportionate resources while others provide rhetoric is neither new nor unreasonable.
The same applies to America’s traditional allies. Europe has substantially increased its support for Ukraine and deserves credit for doing so. But Europe still depends heavily on American weapons and other critical military capabilities to deter Russia on its own continent.
Canada offers another example. It has a proud history as a peacekeeping nation, yet today contributes fewer than 60 uniformed personnel to UN peacekeeping operations, ranking 69th among contributors.
Trump isn’t the first American president to complain about burden-sharing. What distinguishes him is his willingness to apply far more pressure to change it.
If that pressure produces European allies with stronger militaries, NATO members better prepared to deter Russia, and democratic nations more willing to confront Chinese influence, the alliance will be stronger for it.
Trump has taken the same aggressive approach toward China.
Tariffs have been one of his preferred tools, using access to the enormous American market as leverage while pushing the U.S. to reconsider its dependence on China for manufacturing, critical minerals, technology, and other strategically important supply chains.
More interesting, and less discussed, is how that thinking is influencing other areas of American policy. This includes antitrust, with U.S. intelligence and national security officials having reportedly argued for tech mergers that create stronger American competitors to China’s Huawei.
That matters. China does not neatly separate commercial competition, technology, and national security. The U.S. cannot afford to pretend they exist in separate worlds either.
The same thinking applies to Chinese influence closer to home.
At their peak, roughly 100 Confucius Institutes operated at American colleges and universities. Concerns about transparency, academic independence, and Chinese government influence eventually drew bipartisan attention.
Congress began restricting certain federal funding for universities hosting the institutes in 2018. The Trump administration increased the pressure and scrutiny, including designating the Confucius Institute U.S. Center as a foreign mission of China in 2020. Today, fewer than five remain.
Trump cannot claim sole credit for that outcome. But his administration was part of a broader shift in Washington toward treating Chinese influence as a national security issue rather than simply an academic or economic one.
Which brings us back to the U.N.
China understands that international institutions are another arena of strategic competition. Russia understands it too. Both have learned to operate within institutions largely created by the U.S. and its allies while simultaneously challenging the principles those institutions were built to defend.
The U.S. and its allies need to be equally serious about competing within them.
During his U.N. address, Trump declared, “While others have talked, I have acted; while others have spoken of peace, I have made peace.”
Presidential rhetoric aside, there is a point worth considering.
The U.S. contributes enormous financial, military, and diplomatic resources to maintaining an international order, from which much of the world benefits. It is reasonable to expect America’s allies to contribute more to defending it. It is equally reasonable to expect the UN to confront Russian aggression and Chinese authoritarian influence with something more substantial than speeches and resolutions.
The answer isn’t to abandon the U.N. — Russia and China would be happy to fill the vacuum. The answer is to make it work better.
That means stronger allies, greater burden-sharing, serious competition with China inside international institutions, and a U.N. willing to confront countries that violate the principles it was created to uphold.
Trump’s methods will continue to generate controversy. But when his administration pushes allies to do more and challenges Russian and Chinese efforts to exploit the international system, those efforts should be judged on their merits.
THEY THANKED ISRAEL IN PRIVATE. THEN THEY STAGED A UN WALKOUT
At the U.N., talk has never been in short supply.
What matters is who is willing to act.
Aaron J. Pluto is a seasoned international defense policy commentator with over 25 years of experience in military and intelligence roles. He is actively engaged in global defense strategy, geopolitical consulting, and emerging technologies. He is the founder of Pluto Strategies, headquartered in Austin, Texas.