The UN's Next Secretary-General Could Revitalize the Organization, But Trump's Veto Power Threatens This Possibility
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/steve-bloomfield. "In a world of wars and climate crisis, a new leader could save the UN. But would Trump allow it? | Steve Bloomfield | The Guardian." September 20, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The UN desperately needs a strong, effective new leader to help it survive multiple global crises and its own financial troubles. But there's a catch: Trump has to approve whoever gets the job, and since he's been actively hostile to the UN, he's unlikely to approve someone who could actually revive the organization's effectiveness.
Conclusion
The UN remains the world's best hope for restoring international order amid crises, and a capable new secretary-general could help rebuild it—but this outcome depends on securing Trump's approval, which he is unlikely to give in good faith given his hostility toward the organization.
Premises
- The world faces unprecedented simultaneous crises (wars in Ukraine and Gaza, climate change, unregulated AI) that require strong multilateral leadership to address
- Despite severe setbacks including US withdrawal from 31 UN organizations, USAID's closure, and financial crisis, the UN still performs vital functions: peacekeeping missions, climate coordination, and humanitarian aid access negotiation
- The next secretary-general will face uniquely consequential challenges requiring both charisma and competence to navigate
- Any candidate must secure approval from all five permanent Security Council members, giving Trump effective veto power over who leads the UN
- Trump has demonstrated active hostility toward UN institutions and has created alternative structures (like the Board of Peace) that could supplant UN functions
- Candidates have been forced to run cautious, non-committal campaigns because ambitious platforms would disqualify them from winning approval
- The new secretary-general will serve up to 10 years, with 8 potentially outside Trump's presidency, meaning long-term impact is possible if a strong leader can first get approved
Assumptions
- The UN's traditional multilateral approach is still the best mechanism for addressing global crises, despite its structural weaknesses
- A more charismatic and competent secretary-general could meaningfully change the UN's trajectory despite systemic financial and political constraints
- Trump's approval or rejection of candidates reflects genuine strategic calculation rather than arbitrary preference
- The current pool of candidates (Rodrigues-Birkett, Grynspan) represents inadequate choices, implied by experts' lukewarm assessments
- International rules-based order and multilateralism are inherently valuable and worth preserving
- A UN without strong leadership would be meaningfully worse off than one with strong leadership, even given external constraints