The sentiment towards the United Nations is predominantly negative, with substantial criticism regarding inefficiencies and over-reliance on U.S. funding. Many commenters express satisfaction with the U.S. reducing its financial contributions, viewing it as a long-overdue call for other nations to step up. The expectation that the U.S. should bear the primary financial responsibility is criticized, alongside broader inefficiencies in the UN's operations. There is also notable concern about the potential negative impacts on global peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. A blend of nationalism and skepticism prevails, coupled with demands for reform and alternative funding sources to sustain the UN's mission.

United Nations

United States

Other Member Nations

My issue with your line of thinking is that it's easy to advocate for yourself, and you are more than welcome to do so, but being a true humanitarian would have been to advocate for those who you serve. 

Hell, just advocating for your local colleagues, who were literally left to die without any recourse to support over the past 18 months in Gaza would have been sufficient, but you didn't. Even the lucky few who made it out were dismissed and not even the opportunity to work remotely was made available to them (which is morbidly hilarious when you see how many non-nationals at HQ are allowed to do so). Instead, you hid behind the principles, and valued your job security over the literal lives of your colleagues, who came from the same communities that you were meant to be serving.

So, any sympathy that I might have felt for you, has largely dissipated. Seeing people in comfortable, very lucrative, tax-free jobs complaining about job losses when we're seeing what we're seeing in Gaza, or even in industrialised countries which are knee-deep in a recession strikes me as being woefully out of touch.

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, and maybe with time I'll come to regret this post, but as someone from a minoritised background and who had always dreamed of working at a UN agency, the Gaza episode has massively changed my perception of the UN, and I fear that it might just be irredeemable in it's current form. 

It's shit for those who are going through it, but they'll be fine in the long run. Having the UN on your CV will always make you a highly desirable candidate after all.

omar01709

Honestly the UN could benefit (big time) from being slimmed down. The number of P5-D2 staff members… all the outdated internal procedures that are often not based on transparent workflows… many things are done a certain way “because this was always done this way”. Having also worked for various EU institutions for over 10 years, I used to be critical of them but having spent several years at the UN in Geneva, I can clearly see ways to streamline many of its operations… staff spend hours sending emails and asking approvals of every tiny thing by every person in the hierarchical chain… hiring practices is another problematic area. Job swap (where people can swap their jobs in completely different fields) within the same organization is questionable…

Finally, having many questionable HR practices (fixed term staff working without taking their annual leave and just losing it, non fixed term staff having a lot less annual leave per year, consultants being excluded expected to work like slaves, interns from privileged backgrounds getting to work for the UN for free)… 

Also, the pay is extremely generous for Geneva, so don’t  even start saying that their take home pay is anything but extremely adequate for Geneva. (I am currently a P level staff member in Geneva but my job will end this summer).

SkyGood6518

The UN would not have been in this situation if it didn’t spend decades mismanaging its resources, giving perks to people many of whom were hired because of nepotism. The money made these people feel entitled and arrogant, thinking that they knew better than the people whom they are supposed to be serving. Yes, I’m referring to the white UN staff who thought of Africans and Asians as inferior to them. 

I get it— you feel like a hero for doing the job you get paid for, but this whole white saviorism is what brought the UN to this shitshow in the first place. 

Ultimately, the UN is relying on donated resources. It cannot just continue to expand and operate like it was a business.

Also, this protest is so late. Why only now?

Edit: I am not saying that UN staff members cannot advocate for themselves. Sure, you can. You can earn thousands of dollars (tax-free) in exchange for doing nothing while creating toxic workplaces rampant of racism and sexism and still fight for your rights. No one is stopping you. What I just want to say is that poor decision making have consequences. This has been a long time coming.

Rabbitsfoot2025

Please let’s be honest to ourselves. The UN is flawed in so many ways. It results from the incompetence of staff, particularly those in senior and decision-making roles, nepotism, waste of resources, bureaucracy, status quo, and massive lack of foresight and accountability. The fact that some staff members see themselves as selfless heroes is a big part of the problem. Let’s give due credit to NGOs and implementers on the ground. 

I also lost my job, and it does affect my livelihood, relationships and mental health. I still don’t feel the same as you. The commenters’ perception of the UN and staff is fair. If anyone has failed us, it’s the UN system itself. Remember, the system is made of our own colleagues.

Mindless-Budget-9694

In fairness, everybody gets this. When the IT sector had large scale layoffs, public sentiment in the US was terrible. They were dragged for being overpaid, DEI hires. Like someone else said, look inwards and connect with other staff who understand what you are going through

lookmumninjas

My advice is to stop seeking public support on social media. Find it among your colleagues within the system. The court of public opinion is always short-sighted and unfair ... in any industry. The idea that we are well-paid is not irrelevant, but it overshadows the finer nuance of precarious employment, displacement, lack of enforceable employment rights, etc. People really only see the surface level or the bottom line of money, not all the detail in-between. It will be hard to sway public opinion without getting into the fine details of all the different contract types, benefits, pay grids, danger pay, reassignment rules, etc. and by that point they will probably have lost interest or still only see the privilege and the take home pay and come to the same conclusion. And for what? Some likes on a LinkedIn post and more negative comments? It won't change what is happening now, which is out of our control.

ZealousidealRush2899

I honestly think this HQ vs field fight is useless. There are very hard working people on both sides. Unfortunately, there are also very comfortable/slow people on both sides. Shall we privilege one location over the other? Not really. I guess work ethics does not depend from the location but the people. 

Negative comments make me sad as they do not see all the shades there are.

Ad_8219

I've been in both HQ and the field—always on short-term contracts, sometimes extended month by month. The impact was real. In HQ, I couldn’t travel out because I was constantly waiting for a new CDL. Out of 2.5 years, I spent 1.5 without valid docs to leave or re-enter....so I couldn't see my family or commit to anything in life.

I’ve seen super dedicated people in HQ doing their best to shield field colleagues from chaos, and equally committed staff in the field. But I’ve also seen people in high post-adjustment duty stations inventing niche roles just to stay and milk the system.

I’m pro-labour rights in the UN—been through a lot myself: relationship issues due to unstable work, mental health struggles, toxic management—you name it. But I’m also cynical about these protests. The first cuts always hit TA/UNOPS/consultants. When it started, barely anyone cared. Staff associations didn’t lift a finger unless it was about FTAs. Many who served for over 15 years will walk away with a solid pension lump sum. The rest of us? Let go with nothing. And now? No retroactive fix.

I've seen the "last in, first out" mindset pushed by people who’ve sat in the same agency for decades. Skill upgrades? Fair appraisals? Transparent recruitment? Rare. It’s all about networks, timing, and who’s pushing for you. Even the agencies recruitment freeze promotes ppl on specific contracts rather than having transparent hiring .... 

So yeah, I support fair hiring, proper reviews, and staff rights—but this demo feels late. It should’ve happened a year ago, not just when FTAs finally got hit. A lot of people were thrown under the bus way before this.

P.S what the UN pays is not outrageous money, compared to what you have to do and move and sacrifice in most cases....it's just few ppl been  too cushy and that happens everywhere even in the private sector.... At the end SG and delegates in NY are not even impacted now....

Straight-Presence258

Yes. I guess I’m a bit torn on it. My time in the UN, I definitely grew to dislike the huge bloat. I also worked one position at an HQ and was shocked by some of the higher ups, making huge tax free salaries and barely working, while in the field it felt like every day was a struggle to get even basic resources. It made me bitter and feel helpless to change anything, when there was such utter complacency by some.

I was never ‘permanent’ so I always had a lot of anxiety about my stability, which I think a lot of people don’t realise (that are not at the UN) when they make disparaging comments. I was never sure of being renewed, I had to move around a lot, which ultimately was the reason I left the UN during trump’s first term and the feeling that it would become even more unstable. 

I do think that some reorganisation is needed for many agencies, to look at their waste and bloat. I don’t think it’s right that it comes like this, a huge axe that leaves many people cut or suffering. I don’t think it’s right to celebrate people losing their jobs, which is sometimes the reaction I’ve seen on social media. It’s the same for government employees in the US who got cut, I have seen (and know) some people say they had it coming, they were too cushy, etc. It makes me sad for the future with a complete lack of empathy for anyone.

Keyspam102

werd_to_ya_mutha

Only a matter of time before Trump kicks the UN HQ out of NYC.  UN HQ will re-emerge, in smaller form, in Switzerland.

Lopsided-Reveal-2024

Good, they never did anything useful anyway.

Philaorfeta

Moving the discussion here:  
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UNpath/comments/1i80v95/megathread\_trumps\_policies\_and\_their\_effects\_on/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UNpath/comments/1i80v95/megathread_trumps_policies_and_their_effects_on/)

Litteul

UN agencies on the Refugee resettlement programme (US funding) had already frozen hiring since November, currently we have been notified this week to halt all activities and planned interventions. But this is related to funding and communications from the US state department not frozen gov hiring (we are not gov civil servants, UN staff are a separate category)

Impossible_Hornet777

Hi there - I am sharing an article from the newly US-appointed Ambassador to the UN in New York. I believe her position on the matter is quite clear, they will only fund UN agencies that fit with the "America First" policy i.e. UNICEF and WFP. (https://www.devex.com/news/trump-s-un-pick-pinpoints-agencies-to-support-and-to-walk-away-from-109125). So yes - there will be fewer positions available overall in specific agencies.

Quote from the article

"*United States Rep. Elise Stefanik voiced strong support for the World Food Programme and UNICEF, saying they are the kinds of United Nations agencies that advance U.S. national security interests and should continue to be backed by Americans.*

*“When it comes to those key questions: does it make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, I believe those are examples of programs that do,” she said. They maintain “bipartisan support,” deliver “significant results for millions around the globe,” and strengthen “our national security,” she added.*

*Stefanik — the New York Republican who is President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — made her remarks during her Senate confirmation hearing, just one day after the new U.S. president signed an executive order pausing U.S. foreign assistance, pending a 90-day review."*

Femmepale

In the short term no. The UN is not part of the United States government and therefore not subject to his hiring freeze. However, if he withholds funding or withdraws from the UN it might prove to be difficult to be hired by the UN.

sakima147

Honestly, nobody knows for sure what will happen and I would argue that's the scariest thing about the Trump admin for us.

If I'm being frank, I would expect yes, they will be at risk and I expect there will be a hard to quantify 'chilling' effect on hiring even if no official reduction in funding is announced.

The thing is, last time Trump was in office, a lot of Republicans talked smack about the UN and our mandate and the people we serve and our impact in public but behind closed doors, made it clear that they understood our role and wouldn't endanger that. There were adults in the room. That's true not only of the United States but a lot of governments who have taken to scapegoating UN and diplomatic efforts broadly.

I think the big blow for the UN was when they withdrew funding for UNRWA last time - which was a sobering wake up call that it could all fall apart. People started walking on eggshells. We started having to engage in the absolute wildest negotiations. (I remember UNFPA's entire governance process getting stopped up because the US was refusing to accept the inclusion of abortion in educational documentation. They also threatened Ecuador with sanctions for supporting a resolution promoting breastfeeding)

Given the already precarious nature of funding for a lot of UN entities, I expect many will be bracing for impact and that means likely reconsidering any staff expansions, limiting fights with the US, and preparing for a potential financial or rhetoric hit. Even if there is no actual reduction.

And if there is a reduction, well, that's even worse. Moreso than the impact on our staffing - we should be worried about what that means for our mandate delivery. The fact is - for almost all of us across the board, a significant reduction in US support - almost universally across agencies, funded through the Regular Budget or not - would mean functional, clear, and undeniable failures in mandate delivery - which for many of us, will mean lives lost or irreparably harmed.

PhiloPhocion

Trump doesn’t have the authority to directly freeze the UN, however if he stops or stalls US contributions to the regular budget, there very well likely will be continued hiring challenges.

Hump-Daddy

Trump is the President of the USA. He does not control the UN.

However, there is a liquidity crisis already (States not paying in full or on time relative to the budgets), so this crisis could worsen if he uses the UN as a political football.

cccccjdvidn

whereishe55

Lol ... Great news ... International Development jobs are for lazy people . .

Away_Accountant_4870

WFP international staff here! I don't understand why it's not being considered to lower international staff salaries... I know it's probably a very unpopular opinion, but I really think we're being paid way too much. Not national staff ofc. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but pretty confident that I cost at least 6 times the cost of a national staff of my duty station...

Working for WFP has become so unattractive to me bcs of extremely slow and frustrating hiring process with a constant fear at every contract renewal...
It's a humanitarian agency, I understand it needs to be attractive for smart brains.  But I feel like most people come to WFP because of altruism, not for the income. And WFP would be more attractive if it made the hiring process and job security easier. 

Maybe I'm missing something though? Is it impossible to review international staff salary?

ComprehensiveData571

This is Trump administration decisions, we're were waiting to china to take over.

phaco2

UN secretariat has hiring freeze till August!

Winter-Way3097

UNDP is also affected in some ways. Not in terms of major job cuts as far as I know. But there seems to be senior level hiring freeze in some cases, possible pay cuts, relocation and also, restrictions on air travel and convenings. 

Funny_Broccoli4480

Unpopular opinion but I hope the cuts are at managerial level, some country offices have too much bloat at that level. I once struggled to work with a country office that had more line managers than officers and implementers

sheeku

IAEA seems business as usual.
UNIDO doesn't have US as its member state so no impact 

Apprehensive-Fix5957

How much is their staff compliment if they're cutting 6000 jobs?

Chapungu

UNICEF, UNHCR and IOM are impacted. I’ve heard parts of the Secretariat are a bit better off as well.

Spiritual-Loan-347

The United Nations plans to cut 20% of jobs due to a funding shortfall caused by unpaid dues from member countries, including the US, leading to a potential reduction in critical operations.

United Nations Job Cuts Due to Funding Crisis

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want