Bill Quietly Introduced to Withdraw US from the UN


Washington, DC — (RT) A Republican-proposed House Resolution has quietly slipped past the public radar – proposing that the United States withdraw its membership from the United Nations, just as another bill was being concocted to cut US funding to the body.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), entitled American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, seeks a complete US withdrawal from the UN, that the international body remove its headquarters from New York and that all participation be ceased with the World Health Organization as well.

Rogers and other prominent Republicans have repeatedly voiced the idea that US taxpayer money should not go to an organization that does not promote US interests – especially one that does not stick up for Israel together with the US. The new document is merely the latest manifestation of sentiment that has been brewing for some time.

The bill was quietly introduced on January 3 and was passed on to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. If approved, the bill would take two years to take effect. It would also repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, signed in the aftermath of WWII.

“The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations…The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out,” according to the text of HR 193.

The bill would also prohibit “the authorization of funds for the US assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN,” which would also include any military or peacekeeping expenditures, the use of the US military by the UN, and the loss of “diplomatic immunity for UN officers or employees” on US soil.

Rogers had tried to pass the same bill in 2015, albeit unsuccessfully.

“Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?” Rogers asked at the time in defense of his idea.

“The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.”

Another supporter of HR 193, Rand Paul (R-KY) also put it like this in January 2015: “I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States… There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it,” added the Kentucky senator.

Later, in June 2015, Rogers had introduced his document – then named HR 1205, but essentially the same USExit idea he’s proposing now.

“The UN continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars.” Rogers went on to name treaties and actions he believes “attack our rights as US citizens.” These included gun provisions, the imposition of international regulations on American fossil fuels – but more importantly, the UN attack on Israel, by voting to grant Palestine the non-member state ‘permanent observer’ status.

“Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel is not a friend to the United States.”

That same logic was used this January when House Republicans prepared a legislation that would decrease – even potentially eliminate – US funding to the UN. According to calculations by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the US provides over 22 percent of all UN funding.

The bill to cut the funding was introduced shortly after the UNSC voted 14-0 to condemn the continued construction of illegal Israeli settlements – the resolution Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considered a backstab from the US, which declined to veto it, as per former President Barack Obama’s suddenly critical attitude to Israel at the end of his presidency.

Still, the resolution vote came the same year the Obama administration awarded Israel with its largest military aid package ever, signing a memorandum of understanding in September that would give it $38 billion over 10 years.

However, with Donald Trump now in power, many Republicans seem to be attacking the idea of participating in the UN or cutting funding with renewed fervor.

Each year, the US gives approximately $8 billion in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the international peace agency and its affiliated organizations. About $3 billion of that sum goes the UN’s regular peacekeeping budgets.


  1. I agree with this idea, but look what happened when the US via Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations…The United States did not join, thus rendering the LON ineffective in keeping World peace. Just 20 years later World War II started; Is the same going to happen today? Should we take the chance especially when more and more nations are acquiring nuclear weapons?

    • Huh ? Who ? “more and more nations are acquiring nuclear weapons” The only people I can think of off the top of my head are the North Koreans. They had a treaty with the USA that had terms including them not making nuclear weapons….which the USA broke in 2003.
      Posing “The Axis of Evil” was an act of insanity. Those were the nations that were active under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. That would be the one agreed upon by 170 nations that Obama had to rescind in favour of his own. That was done by sanctions – which meant that there were no funds available for them to fund an independent IAEA ; the authorized international inspection agency.

    • It could just be the same political leverage we have used in the past. I’m no fan of the
      UN but…
      Israeli comments war crimes.
      The UN threaten Israel.
      The US uses it’s veto power for Israel.
      UN gets mad.
      US threatens to pull out.
      UN gets un-mad.
      Rinse and repeat every couple years.

    • I agree opit. We pay “billions” to Israel every year, and for what? So they can continue to build houses that encroach on the West Bank and Palestine sovereignty? They continue to occupy land belonging to Palestine; kill thousands of Palestinians with their overwhelming military might; and, thumb their noses at the World!

  2. The majority of countries in the world are not exactly friendly to the U.S. Does anybody really think that the U.S. needs to be aligned with dictators, despots, and any manner of regime? For that matter; does anyone think the U.S. wouldn’t assist Europe in a major conflict? Right now Turkey(NATO member) is aligning with Russia(non-NATO) fighting ISIS(or whatever it’s called today) in Syria. The U.S. is supplying aid to Syrian rebels on several sides that Turkey/Russia are bombing. The U.N. has been a tool used the people(international bankers) wanting a “1 World Government”. The U.S. is strong militarily, but hasn’t kept up the pace. Having the U.N. make decisions for the U.S. wasn’t the best idea regardless of whatever actor they put-up to tell the world otherwise.

      • Why do you think “the majority of countries in the world” are not friendly to the U.S.? Could it have anything to do with our behavior around the world? Obama was elected on the promise that he would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan; he increased Bush’s record of bombing two countries to bombing seven countries. We have about 800 military bases around the world—10x as many as the rest of the world combined. Maybe it’s time we stopped blaming everyone else, like the UN, and take a good hard look at ourselves.

        • I think rather Obama retargeted major deployment from Iraq back to Afghanistan – the old kill people in a barren sandbox rigamarole. Between harassing poppy farmers who were not part of the Bush cartel while guarding those fields, production went up ; while India, for instance, suffered reduced availability of cheap painkillers. The military and press routinely minimize civilian deaths when people are bombed in their homes ‘to protect American freedoms’ far from the USA. The usual geographically challenged meme is for the Department of War….and colonial exploitation.

  3. US out of UN? Definitely. They chastize Israel, but ignore the fascist brutality, treachery, terrorism, perversion, and murder preached, and practiced, by islam. Useless meddling hypocrites.

  4. Its a footrace. If segments of the US begin to petition the UN for investigations into treatment in violation of conventions and treaties the US has signed, it could prove very embarrassing.

    The US also will no longer have political cover for regime change, ability to lead the charge on sanctions or calling for investigations of other countries’ conduct. Aside from Israel, the UN is a US puppet. And frankly, the DoJ has never wavered on the illegal status of the OT and settlements going back to Pres Johnson.

    We are no more than a few years from a real confrontation re aid to Israel in this country, something that hasn’t been aggressively addressed by a Pres since Bush senior.

  5. U.S. taxpayers are not footing the bill for our participation in the UN. Taxes DO NOT FUND Federal spending! The U.S. has a sovereign currency; it can make whatever money it likes. This Congressman is using an old dodge to sell this attitude to the American people. P.S. We have not paid our dues to the UN for decades.

  6. Mr President PLEASE don’t authorize the US to withdraw from UN. Reduce the input of US money,Yes< currently @22%. Remove the UN from US soil,Yes. Zimbabwe seems like a nice place for a UN Headquarters. But PLEASE Don't remove US from the UN. If you do then we lose our position on the Security council and our VETO power. The other members of the council are no friends of the US and if we lose our place we will NOT be in a position to protect ourselves or Israel from UN edicts. Please do not go off half-cocked. No veto no protection short of Armed. Keep America in the UN just reduce funding(2%) and remove UN from US soil.

  7. So what’s the alternative? Returning to the unmitigated Great Power politics of the 19th Century that gave us WW1, or turning the UN into the original League of Nations with no enforcement powers at all, which led to WW2? Or, America could turn her back on the world. Goodbye “indispensable nation”!

    • I wouldn’t mind turning our back on the world for a while if it meant we poured money into solving internal problems. Instead, we’re half-assing it by being spread all over the globe and the other half letting our domestic problems fester

      • (Cynical lol) Given both climate change and the onset of the depletion era – you might turn your back on the world whether you want to or not! The future’s in establishing very strong, small, self-sufficient and autonomous communities.

        I agree that you have done a complete job of squandering your non-renewable resources (see: Kunstler’s “The Long Emergency”..

        • I’ll give you one out of two. The narrative that scientists can project meaningful temperature change one hundred years from now when they cannot do so more than a week ( but climate science is not meteorology ) is so full of holes that desperate assertions are to replace data to substantiate wild claims. But I cannot disprove something that has not happened and will not happen for decades any more than it can be proven.

        • I actually want that. I want small communities that are self-sufficient because that serves the people better than a large geographic and culturally diverse union.

          This is actually what is projected for the ultra-wealthy: small enclaves of independent and separate communities.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here