Is the United Nations still relevant?

The UN's relevance is hotly debated — I'll assess its current impact and challenges for you.

Is the United Nations still relevant? The answer in 2025-2026 is: Yes, but increasingly contested — indispensable for some functions, paralyzed for others.

The debate has intensified as the UN entered its 81st year.

> In January 2026, as the United Nations enters its 81st year, the organization feels more like a relic than a powerhouse

Experts say the institution is battling an existential crisis of funding, relevance and Security Council gridlock

> The split-screen moment highlights an existential question for the UN: does the world body, established after the calamity of two world wars, still matter?
> Those concerns have gained new relevance... as the organization struggles with deep financial problems, divisions among major powers and limited influence over conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East

Why many still say YES - relevant and irreplaceable

1. Universal legitimacy and humanitarian reach - no alternative exists:
> The UN still coordinates vital work—no other body has its universal legitimacy or reach. It feeds millions in crises, monitors ceasefires, and sets global standards

And:

> Is this the death knell? Not yet. The UN still coordinates vital work—no other body has its universal legitimacy or reach. It feeds millions in crises, monitors ceasefires, and sets global standards

Specific examples in 2025-2026:

2. Public support remains more positive than negative globally:
> Across 137 countries surveyed in 2025, median approval of the United Nations' job performance is 50%, compared with 26% median disapproval, for a net approval score of +24
> Gallup World Poll surveys conducted in 2025 across 137 countries show that globally, views of the organization are more positive than negative overall

Even where criticism is high, humanitarian work is recognised:
> Forty-five percent say the UN is doing a good job delivering humanitarian assistance to people affected by war, famine or natural disasters, the highest rating among the five areas measured

Why many say NO - increasingly irrelevant

1. Security Council paralysis by veto:

The UN's most powerful body, the Security Council, has often found itself paralyzed

> The Security Council, meant to be the guardian of peace, is paralyzed by vetoes. In 2024 and 2025 alone, vetoes blocked resolutions on Gaza ceasefires multiple times, often cast by the US to shield allies or by Russia and China to counter Western moves

The veto was a precondition for the UN's creation — permanent members "could not be expected... to assume the obligation to act... in consequence of a decision in which they had not concurred"

Use since 1945:
> From the UN's founding to the end of 2025, the veto was used 320 times, covering 264 draft resolutions or amendments

> Soviet Union / Russia 155 | United States 94 | United Kingdom 30 | China 21 | France 18

Consequences:

This contributes to perception of ineffectiveness:
> The 81st General Assembly of the UN will be best remembered for the theatrics that accompanied the annual leaders' summit. This is a troubling sign of its growing irrelevance

2. Funding crisis - largest contributor becomes largest defaulter:

> Secretary-General António Guterres has warned of a "race to bankruptcy," with a proposed 15% cut to the 2026 regular budget—dropping it to $3.238 billion—and nearly 20% of staff positions slashed

> The United States is the largest assessed contributor to the UN regular budget, at 22%, and to the peacekeeping budget, at 26.15%
> According to a report by the US Congressional Research Service, the second Trump administration has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, including more than 30 UN entities, and has "delayed, halted, or reversed" payments to the UN regular budget and peacekeeping operations

Result: Peacekeeping missions shrink. The UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) currently has about 8,100 troops, down significantly from nearly 10,500 in early 2025

3. Poor effectiveness ratings on core mandate - peace and security:

In the U.S., the most negative ratings are for:
> maintaining international peace and security, with 73% rating its performance as poor

And more broadly:
> Only 15% of SDGs are on track; most targets are behind schedule

Journalists note powers simply ignore the UN:
> Resolutions pass the General Assembly in droves—condemning occupations or calling for aid—but powerful nations simply ignore them when inconvenient

Can it be fixed? The reform paradox

Reform ideas exist:

France and Mexico proposed in 2015 that permanent members voluntarily commit not to use the veto in cases of mass atrocities. In September 2026, France announced that 128 countries had endorsed the declaration, with the United Kingdom becoming the second permanent member after France to join

But:
> Article 108 of the UN Charter states that amendments require a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of member states, including all permanent members

> any substantive change would require approval by the five countries that today enjoy the veto

And:
> making the veto legally binding would require the consent of the permanent members themselves. This creates a paradox, because they will probably never do so

Secretary-General Guterres himself has acknowledged that the Security Council faces "legitimacy and effectiveness problems" because its structure and composition "no longer correspond" to 21st-century realities

Bottom line

Analysts describe a "dual reality":

As the vocal.media assessment summarized:

> The question for 2026 isn't whether the UN can survive—it's whether the world still wants it to thrive