Understanding S669: DEFUND Act of 2025

The DEFUND Act of 2025 proposes to completely withdraw the United States from the United Nations. This means the U.S. would no longer be a member of the UN or any of its affiliated bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) or UNICEF. The bill would also stop all U.S. funding to these organizations, except for costs related to winding down current commitments. Furthermore, the bill requires that all U.S. military personnel and equipment be removed from any UN peacekeeping missions within a year of the bill becoming law. It also mandates that the UN and its agencies vacate any U.S. government properties, including their headquarters in New York City. Additionally, the bill would revoke diplomatic privileges for UN officials in the U.S., meaning they would lose certain legal protections. Finally, any future U.S. re-entry into the UN would require Senate approval, ensuring that any decision to rejoin would be carefully considered and debated.

If the DEFUND Act of 2025 becomes law, it would have significant implications for how the U.S. interacts with the rest of the world. Supporters argue that it would allow the U.S. to make decisions independently, without being influenced by international bodies. This could mean more control over domestic and foreign policies. On the other hand, critics worry about the potential loss of U.S. influence on global issues. Without a seat at the UN, the U.S. might have less say in international decisions that affect global security, health, and humanitarian efforts. This could also impact how the U.S. is perceived by other countries and its ability to lead on the world stage.

- Protecting Sovereignty: Supporters believe the bill would allow the U.S. to make decisions without being constrained by UN policies, enhancing national sovereignty. - Fiscal Responsibility: By cutting funding to the UN, the U.S. could save billions of dollars, redirecting those funds to domestic priorities. - Addressing Bias: Proponents argue that the UN has shown bias against U.S. allies and interests, and withdrawing would prevent the U.S. from supporting such actions. - Accountability: Supporters claim that the UN has misused funds and failed to reform, and that withdrawal is the only way to hold it accountable. - Constitutional Oversight: The bill reinforces the Senate's role in international agreements, ensuring any future UN involvement is carefully scrutinized.

- Loss of Influence: Critics argue that leaving the UN would reduce U.S. influence in international affairs, allowing rivals like China and Russia to fill the void. - Security Concerns: The U.S. would lose a key platform for coordinating international security efforts, potentially increasing long-term security risks. - Humanitarian Impact: Ending U.S. funding could disrupt vital UN programs that provide food, health, and refugee aid worldwide. - Legal Complications: The broad withdrawal from UN agreements could create legal uncertainties and diplomatic tensions. - Economic and Reputational Costs: The move could harm the U.S.'s global reputation and economic interests, particularly in New York City, where the UN headquarters is located.