It was December 4, 1945, and the United States Senate was all dressed up for history. With a vote of 65 to 7, they decided to swipe right on the United Nations, officially joining the newly formed organization. This was the moment when America not only secured its role as a global leader but also managed to say, “Hey, world, we’ve got your back… sometimes.” It was a bold move, like showing up to the neighborhood potluck with a seven-layer dip, but you’re not quite sure how much to share.
Let’s rewind to the aftermath of World War II. The world was like a high school gym after prom—broken, scattered, and someone had clearly left with the decorations. Leaders knew they needed a plan to keep humanity from spiraling into another global disaster. So, they came up with the United Nations, which was supposed to be the cosmic version of group therapy—less “Kumbaya” and more “Don’t nuke your neighbor.”
The U.N. was born out of high ideals. There were the wartime conversations between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, the Atlantic Charter, the Dumbarton Oaks proposals—yes, they really called it Dumbarton Oaks, and no, it’s not a folk band. By April 1945, the San Francisco Conference had nailed down the U.N. Charter. It was ambitious: stop wars, promote human rights, and make everyone play nice on the global stage. Optimistic, sure, but not as naïve as starting a group project in college and thinking everyone will pull their weight.
But this wasn’t a slam dunk. When the U.S. Senate approved the U.N. Participation Act, there were seven senators who stood firm against it, like those kids in class who refuse to do the group project at all. Their argument? Sovereignty. They worried the U.N. would make the U.S. feel like it was sharing a bank account with a reckless roommate. They feared international entanglements could be a slippery slope to losing independence, and frankly, they weren’t wrong to wonder if this whole thing might end with America footing most of the bill. Spoiler alert: it does.
Fast-forward to today—December 4, 2024. The United States still wears its founding-member badge proudly at the U.N., but let’s not pretend the relationship hasn’t been a rollercoaster. Over the years, the U.S. has been like that one cousin at family reunions—sometimes generous and warm, other times storming off because Aunt UNESCO looked at them funny. Case in point: Donald Trump. During his first term as president, the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO and cut funding to the U.N. Population Fund, moves that left allies scratching their heads and saying, “Wait, are they still coming to the potluck?”
Now Trump is back for round two, and international leaders are eyeing America like someone who just showed up to a formal dinner in a wrestling singlet. His past actions signaled a clear preference for go-it-alone policies, leaving the U.N. scrambling to fill financial and leadership gaps. But this time, there’s a twist. Trump’s nomination of Elise Stefanik as U.N. Ambassador suggests a potential shift, though how much of one remains to be seen. Think of it as appointing someone to DJ your wedding—are they spinning crowd-pleasers or avant-garde experimental tracks no one can dance to?
Let’s talk about the stakes here. The U.N. is dealing with a lot: climate change, pandemics, geopolitical unrest. It’s the equivalent of juggling flaming chainsaws while riding a unicycle, and everyone’s watching to see if the U.S. will lend a steadying hand or just critique the technique from the sidelines. And the world? The world is that friend who keeps inviting America to brunch despite repeated ghosting, because deep down, they still believe in the potential for a better tomorrow.
The truth is, America’s relationship with the U.N. has always been complicated. On one hand, the U.S. has been indispensable in peacekeeping missions, funding, and diplomatic initiatives. On the other hand, it’s been known to ghost meetings, demand refunds, and occasionally threaten to leave altogether, like someone trying to quit a gym membership.
So where does that leave us today? With the reelection of Trump, it feels like we’re back at the neighborhood potluck, only now the casserole has a question mark on the label. Will America lean into its role as a leader in global cooperation? Or will it decide the U.N. is just another Facebook group it’s tired of engaging with?
Here’s the thing about the United Nations: it’s not perfect. It’s slow, bureaucratic, and sometimes feels like trying to organize a flash mob where no one agrees on the song. But it’s also the best shot humanity has at keeping the peace. And as much as some may complain about sharing the proverbial casserole, everyone knows it’s better than letting the table collapse under the weight of unchecked chaos.
In the end, the United States’ commitment to the U.N. is a reflection of something deeper: a belief—or at least a hope—that we’re better together than apart. Because as messy and maddening as global cooperation can be, the alternative is worse. And on this day, nearly 80 years ago, the U.S. took a leap of faith into that messy, maddening world. Let’s hope, for all our sakes, it doesn’t stop leaping now.
