The United Nations is bracing for one of the most significant shake-ups in its modern history, as it prepares to slash a quarter of its global peacekeeping force in response to sharp funding cuts from the United States. The move, announced this week by senior U.N. officials, will see the withdrawal of approximately 13,000 to 14,000 military and police personnel from some of the world’s most volatile conflict zones, along with a sizable reduction in civilian staff and support operations.
This dramatic reduction, which will unfold over the coming months, comes after the U.S.—long the largest financial contributor to U.N. peacekeeping—announced it would cut its peacekeeping payments by nearly half for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. According to The Economic Times, the U.S. was expected to contribute $1.3 billion of the $5.4 billion overall budget but will now pay only about $682 million. That figure includes $85 million earmarked for a new international anti-gang mission in Haiti, a mission not included in the original budget.
The impact of these cuts will be felt across nine of the U.N.’s 11 active peacekeeping missions, including those in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Kosovo. The U.N. support office in Somalia will also be affected, as will humanitarian operations that rely on peacekeeper protection. As reported by the Associated Press, the U.N. plans to reduce the peacekeeping force’s budget by approximately 15% for the year 2025, and more than 60 U.N. offices, agencies, and operations are facing 20% job cuts as part of broader reforms and cost-saving measures.
Behind the numbers lies a deeper shift in U.S. foreign policy. Since returning to the White House in January 2025, President Donald Trump has doubled down on his “America First” vision, ordering a sweeping review of the U.N. and other multilateral institutions. The U.S. has already severed ties with UNESCO, the World Health Organization, and the U.N.’s top human rights body, and now insists on reassessing the effectiveness of every U.N. agency and program before making further contributions. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Mike Waltz, made the administration’s position clear in a recent television interview: “We have to cut out all of this other nonsense.” Waltz added that the U.S. is focused on getting “the U.N. back to basics of promoting peace, enforcing peace, preventing wars.”
For U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the scale of the cuts presents a daunting challenge. Guterres has repeatedly argued that U.N. peacekeeping is not only effective but also represents “a tiny fraction of global military spending—around one half of one percent.” In his view, peacekeeping remains one of the most cost-effective tools to build international peace and security. Yet with the U.S. and China together accounting for roughly half of the U.N.’s peacekeeping budget, a shortfall from either country has immediate and far-reaching consequences. According to The Economic Times, China is expected to pay its full $1.2 billion contribution by the end of 2025, but the peacekeeping budget was already facing $2 billion in unpaid contributions as of July.
The decision to cut 25% of the peacekeeping force was finalized after a high-level meeting on October 7, 2025, between Guterres and representatives of major donor countries, including Waltz. The U.N. had anticipated possible funding shortfalls and developed contingency plans for its missions, but the scale and speed of the U.S. cuts have forced a rapid and sweeping response. As a result, thousands of peacekeepers and their equipment will soon be repatriated, leaving a gap in security and humanitarian protection in some of the world’s most fragile regions.
Human rights organizations and international crisis experts have sounded the alarm about the possible fallout. Louis Charbonneau of Human Rights Watch told AFP, “The announcement potentially means a significant reduction in protection for things like humanitarian convoys and the civilians who rely on aid. We hope the U.N. will prioritize lifesaving humanitarian and human rights activities.” Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group echoed these concerns, noting, “In somewhere like South Sudan, where peacekeepers offer many civilians a little protection and there was nearly a new war this year, cutting back peacekeepers sends a very bad signal.”
The U.N. blue helmets have long been a symbol of international resolve to prevent conflict and protect civilians. Since the end of the Cold War, peacekeeping operations have expanded dramatically—from just 11,000 peacekeepers in the early 1990s to a peak of 130,000 in 16 missions by 2014. Today, around 52,000 men and women serve in 11 conflict areas across Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Each of the U.N.’s 193 member countries is legally obliged to pay its share toward peacekeeping, but the reality is that a handful of major donors shoulder much of the financial burden.
The U.S. administration argues that the time has come for a fundamental rethinking of the U.N.’s role and spending. Waltz and other officials contend that many U.N. agencies and programs are bloated and redundant, and that the U.S. should not continue to bankroll operations that do not directly serve American interests or global stability. As part of this new approach, U.S. funding will prioritize missions in countries where Washington has a special interest, such as Lebanon and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The repercussions of these decisions are likely to reverberate far beyond the U.N.’s New York headquarters. In countries like South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Congo—where peacekeepers often provide the only buffer against renewed violence—the withdrawal of thousands of troops could create power vacuums and leave civilians exposed to new dangers. Humanitarian agencies warn that reduced protection for aid convoys and displaced populations could make it harder to deliver food, medical care, and other essential services to those most in need.
At the same time, the U.N. faces mounting internal pressures. More than 60 offices, agencies, and operations are slated for 20% job cuts, as Guterres seeks to streamline the organization and respond to the realities of reduced funding. The peacekeeping budget itself will shrink by about 15% this year, forcing mission leaders to make tough choices about where to focus their limited resources.
Looking ahead, much remains uncertain. China’s full contribution is expected by year’s end, but the broader question of how the U.N. will adapt to a new era of constrained resources and shifting political priorities remains unanswered. For now, the world’s peacekeepers—those distinctive blue helmets on the front lines of global conflict—face an uncertain future, as the international community grapples with how best to maintain peace and protect the vulnerable in an age of austerity and political change.
The coming months will test the U.N.’s ability to deliver on its mandate with fewer boots on the ground and less money in the bank, even as the need for peace and security remains as urgent as ever.