Trump’s ‘MUNGA’ Plan Aims to Rein In the UN and Put U.S. Interests First

What Happened

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz has introduced the Trump administration’s new approach to global diplomacy, called Make the UN Great Again or MUNGA. The goal is to reform the United Nations by eliminating what he described as initiatives bloated with woke insanity. It also aims to trim waste and reassert American leadership.

Waltz made it clear that there would be no withdrawal from the UN. He said the new priority would be taking control of how the U.S. engages. Under the MUNGA framework, American funding and support will be tied directly to performance. Programs that fail to deliver will face cuts. Agencies that align with U.S. priorities and show results will get backing.

The plan also includes a push to scale back bloated peacekeeping operations. It calls for a review of development programs for inefficiency. It also challenges what the administration sees as one-sided agendas. Waltz said too much of the UN’s work drifts from its original purpose. MUNGA is meant to get it back on track.

Why It Matters

The United States contributes more money to the UN than any other country. It supplies 22 percent of the UN's regular budget. It also supplies 28.43 percent of the UN's peacekeeping budgets. For years, critics have argued that investments have not yielded significant influence or meaningful change. MUNGA aims to change that by eliminating blank checks and ending passive support. It also rejects deference to international bureaucracies that do not serve U.S. interests.

This approach could alter how the UN operates on a day-to-day basis. If American funding comes with strings attached, UN programs will need to show they are effective, transparent, and aligned with U.S. interests. That could mean a greater focus on core issues such as security and humanitarian aid. It could also mean less time spent on symbolic or politically divisive causes.

It also puts pressure on other countries that rely on U.S. contributions to maintain their programs. Allies and rivals alike will have to navigate a system where American leverage is more direct. Diplomacy under this model is measured in outcomes, not just cooperation.

Clearly, Waltz and U.S. officials still believe that the UN can be useful. They say it can only be useful if it is forced to change. Waltz is advocating for a more strategic approach to engagement. American values should not only be present but also prioritized. Multilateralism should serve as a means to an end rather than the end itself.

How It Affects You

This is your money on the line. Under this strategy, the billions the U.S. sends to the UN will be spent with tighter controls and higher expectations. This could reduce waste and redirect funding to areas that have a more visible or measurable impact on global stability, disaster response, or disease control.

For those working in international development, diplomacy, or nonprofit sectors, this changes things. Organizations may need to demonstrate clearer metrics and show stronger alignment with U.S. policy. They may also need to operate with more transparency if they want to keep their programs funded through UN channels.

It also changes how global crises may be handled. If the UN becomes more responsive to U.S. oversight, it could accelerate decision-making in some areas. It may slow it down in others, especially where consensus is difficult to reach or where missions conflict with U.S. priorities.

The MUNGA plan is not about isolation but recalibrating the terms of engagement. Rather than treating multilateral diplomacy as a shared burden, the administration is trying to turn it into a strategic tool. This approach will shape how the U.S. interacts with the world. It also shapes how much return Americans receive for their investments.