Strong Nations, Not the United Nations, Ensure Peace and Prosperity

Not just whistling Dixie

Back in the day, about the only time you would come across a robustly and publicly displayed America First message would be when traveling rural, mostly southern highways, when suddenly from the trees would pop out a brightly lettered John Birch Society call to action: “Get US Out of the United Nations!”

If only we had listened. Back then such a proposition was considered to be as far out of the mainstream as the back roads along which the pop-ups appeared, but in recent years the idea has become serious currency, especially in the America First movement. As well it should. Grassroots conservatives across America understand in their guts and hearts the dangers the United Nations and its affiliate organizations pose to the United States and to liberty.

The problem is, even though the imperatives of nationalism travel these days along slick silicon interstates rather than homesteading along abandoned rustic roads, our political leaders, including more than a few conservatives, continue to blink and miss them. It is as if they are driving blindfolded, or have fallen asleep, on their way to one global political crisis after another.

That they need to wake up—it’s always dangerous to drive with your eyes closed—was underscored just this past week when the Trump administration had to undertake a full court press to derail a UN globalist carbon tax that would have devastated the country’s shipping industry and imposed severe costs upon American consumers, all without any input from U.S. citizens.

The Wall Street Journal called it the ultimate taxation without representation, a levy imposed without any democratic accountability. It is just the latest but quintessential example of how the UN frustrates and defeats national sovereignty; how it commits our nation to a redistribution of wealth away from its own people; how it ties the hand of future voters and their elected representatives; how it confiscates our hard-earned dollars at will.

It is the latest demonstration of why the United States needs to get out of the UN immediately, and to run in the opposite direction as fast as it can.

The Shipping News

Let’s get to all that by first examining the specifics of the now-postponed (for one year) carbon tax on shipping vessels.

For the past several years and possibly longer, the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) has worked diligently to erect a so-called “Net-Zero Framework” that would effectively impose a global tax on fossil-fuel emissions from ocean shipping—the first ever across an entire sector—complete with remedial payments into a central fund.

Its architects have celebrated it as a necessary piece of climate housekeeping and, as late as last week, expected the IMO’s governing body to enact it. The ostensible idea was to decarbonize the shipping industry by requiring all oceangoing ships exceeding 5,000 gross tonnage to track their emissions using a Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), which measures the amount of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions per unit of used energy.

Ah, the old Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), that will get you every time. Specifically, starting in 2028, large international vessels would have had to use a fuel mix containing much less carbon or get tagged for $100 per ton or $380 per ton of CO2 emissions. The gross-tonnage threshold would have covered vessels responsible for roughly 85 percent of the international shipping industry’s CO2 emissions. Ships meeting a direct-compliance target would have escaped the levy altogether; those falling between a base and direct-compliance target would have been charged $100 per ton, while non-compliant vessels faced a $380-per-ton penalty.

Bottom line, the IMO expected to collect $10-$12 billion per year for a Net-Zero Fund for various green energy investments.

Now this is where it all gets kind of wacky, or murky, or shady—one of those ‘y’ words. Proponents of the IMO strategy will tell you otherwise, that the fund use is highly regulated and use of the funds strictly delineated, but in fact the use of the central fund was loosely defined, meaning bureaucrats could, in the IMO’s own words, invest in new low-emission ships, upgrade port infrastructure, support island states threatened by rising sea levels, or support—wait for it— “just transition initiatives in developing countries.”

Wealth redistribution that they could use for just about anything, if I may translate the last permitted use. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it on X, it would have been a slush fund for “progressive climate pet projects.”

As might be expected, the scheme did not get past one Donald J. Trump, who wrote on social media:

He also put the administration to work, and they delivered with forthright threats against UN-member countries that might feel inclined to support such tomfoolery, including, among other things, blocking vessels registered in those countries from U.S. ports; imposing visa restrictions; imposing additional port fees on ships owned, operated, or flagged by countries supporting the tax; and evaluating sanctions on officials sponsoring activist-driven climate policies that would burden American consumers; oh, and don’t forget higher tariffs.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued a joint statement unequivocally demanding a back-down:

Rubio, Duffy, and Wright cited estimates forecasting global shipping costs to rise by 10 percent or more because of the carbon tax.

“The NZF (Net Zero Fund) proposal poses significant risks to the global economy and subjects not just Americans, but all IMO member states to an unsanctioned global tax regime that levies punitive and regressive financial penalties, which could be avoided,” the secretaries continued. “The United States will be moving to levy remedies against nations that sponsor this European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations. … Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.”

Neo-colonial was a nice touch, by the way, though I prefer regulatory imperialism, not to split hairs.

Member states did blink after the administration’s missive. The IMO punted—delaying action for a year after a motion to adjourn carried on a tight vote, with 57 countries supporting the delay, 49 opposed, and 21 abstaining.

Unfortunately, the pattern of the entire scheme was a familiar one. A global body constructs an elaborate revenue scheme in the name of climate, development, or justice; costs flow to wealthier developed nations; power accretes to the bureaucracy; and the world’s largest payer—the United States—is asked, yet again, to fund its own sacrifice to the globalist gods. It should be pointed out, too, that estimates performed in 2024 show that the emissions reductions that would have been achieved by 2030 were well short of the IMO’s target of 20 percent; the most reliable estimate was 8 percent. This after massive revenue extraction from American consumers.

And that tells us all we need to know about the motive for the tax. But don’t take my word for it. A 2024 analysis of low-carbon fuels by World Economic Forum strategic partner Deloitte Global explained it all: “Reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 requires a fundamental transformation of society, from its current fossil fuel-centric model to an efficient, highly renewable and electrified energy system.”

This is exactly how globalism works in the modern world. It identifies an existential world-wide crisis; concocts an elaborate supranational mechanism to exploit it; and then treats democratic resistance as a moral failure. The effect—intended—is to make national sovereignty look small-minded and backward, even selfish, while elevating rule by acronymic bodies you never voted for and cannot abolish.

Even worse, the shipping tax isn’t a one-off; it’s the role model. Cue the aviation industry next.

Forever yours, my lovely forever wars

What all this points out is that UN action, by default, is an intrusion on sovereignty. It does not represent agreements negotiated between nations by the people’s elected representatives but rather ideological edicts dreamed up by unelected bureaucrats, rubber-stamped by ambassadors of the global elite.

The intent is to bind nations to a global chassis in which decision-making migrates away from voters and toward international bodies, “experts,” and permanent institutions. The only sovereignty is the sovereignty of those permanent institutions. These insentient and corporatized bureaucracies do not just tax but, through redistribution, come to own and control the wealth of the world. The compilation of their visions into holy screeds of international “frameworks” and “treaties” is the only vote-counting that matters.

There is another vital consequence of this, one so often overlooked: The era of the United Nations is also the era of Forever Wars, and that is no coincidence. According to Uppsala/PRIO data, the number of active state-based conflicts reached 59 in 2023 involving 34 countries and 61 in 2024—the highest since records began in 1946—underscoring how the post-1945 UN era features more simultaneous conflicts than earlier decades. UCDP is a highly credible program of Uppsala University in Sweden that tracks organized violence, while the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) is an independent research organization that compiles reports on such things as global conflict trends.

The history of the UN, which was created to keep the international peace, is a history of violent bloodshed and unleashed military industrial complexes, not to mention brutal civil wars. The hegemony of the international power structure might have reduced interstate conflicts, at least until recently, but globalization and the destabilization of the nation-state promoted intrastate warfare mercilessly.

In the end, there’s a simple test for any institution that claims to keep the peace: Does it keep the peace?

The United Nations has spent eight decades proving that it can’t, and it admits it. Just recently, the United Nations chief sharply criticized the powerful but deeply divided UN security council for its failure to end wars in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and more: “Peace demands action,” secretary-general Antonio Guterres told the 15-member council charged with ensuring international peace and security. “And peace demands leadership. Instead, we’re seeing deepening geopolitical divisions and mistrust.”

Far from taking action, UN groupies sing karaoke against a backdrop of international ballads of justice while warmongers paralyze any and all international tribunals for peace. Meanwhile, wars multiply, and American taxpayers pick up the bar tab. The truth is, the best deterrence to war is the existence of strong sovereign nations with their own national interests to protect and that are not cowed by fear of ridicule or admonishment by others. On the other hand, the international bureaucratization of governance breaks down the checks and balances that strong sovereign nations provide against the consolidation of international power.

More recently, there is another reason globalism does not deter but fuel war—it has now concentrated power in a globalist class that seeks hegemony over the world but does not have it. They are other globalist power cliques who seek the same domination, namely Russia and China and their allies, and they are the competition against Brussels and Davos.

That contest explains the Russia-Ukraine war as much as anything, along with the Biden regime’s weak submission to globalist dictats and provocations. While individual nations are no longer allowed under international “frameworks” to march to the beats of their own drummers, either for defense or for war, they are expected to engage on the front lines immediately when the globalist regime comes calling.

Give me liberty—or give me the United Nations

All of which brings us to a much larger question: What, precisely, is the purpose of the United Nations?

It is one that is continually asked but never really satisfactorily answered because the correct answer—the protection of the ruling class—is not allowed. President Trump, in his speech to the General Assembly in September, put the issue in explicitly blunt terms that the institution deserved:

Trump’s speech was a defense of sovereignty and borders, a rejection of the “green energy scam,” and a reminder that deterrence—power responsibly wielded by accountable governments—stops violence in ways that war-crime tribunals and security council vetoes never can. In his speech Trump laid out for the assembled puppecrats what a truly sovereign nation—what a strong leader committed to sustaining that sovereignty—can accomplish.

“America is blessed with the strongest economy, the strongest borders, the strongest military, the strongest friendships, and the strongest spirit of any nation on the face of the earth,” Trump said. “This is indeed the Golden Age of America.”

Four months in a row, the president said, the number of illegal aliens admitted and entering the U.S. had been zero.

“In a period of just seven months, I have ended seven ‘un-endable’ wars,” he said. “No president or prime minister, and for that matter, no other country, has ever done anything close to that. It’s too bad that I had to do these things instead of the United Nations doing them—and sadly, in all cases, the United Nations did not even try to help.”

Trump—and all of us—know exactly what the UN thinks its purpose is: to fund an assault on our countries and our way of life. And so he drilled down finally to the real evil:

“The entire globalist concept of asking successful, industrialized nations to inflict pain on themselves and radically disrupt their entire societies must be rejected completely and totally, and it must be immediate.”

Sadly, the accounts payable for all this keeps rising. Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center ran the numbers. In 2025 the United States accounted for about 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget—roughly $820 million of a $3.5 billion net total—and more than 26.2 percent of the so-calledpeacekeeping budget. China was the next-largest contributor to the regular budget, Japan a distant third.

One hundred seventy-five member states each pay under 1 percent of the regular budget. So when American taxpayers express skepticism about underwriting institutions that scold our allies, cuddle our adversaries, and demand that we fund our own demise, that skepticism is not isolationism, it is a desire for survival.

It is a demand for liberty.

The need for a united nation—no ‘s’

Trump has indeed signaled his withdrawal from important parts of the globalist infrastructure in his nine months back in office.

The president has signed an executive order to initiate U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the WHO, and in February 2025 he issued an order directing the government to reevaluate its commitment to three major U.N. bodies: the UN Human Rights Council (from which the U.S. will withdraw), UNESCO (which will be reviewed), and UNRWA (to which U.S. funds will be cut).

America First congressional leaders have also honed in on the UN and its affiliated organizations. This past year, for example, Wisconsin’s own U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, now a candidate for governor, has been one of the clearest voices pushing hard against U.N. overreach, especially through the World Health Organization. His “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act” would force any WHO agreement to win a Senate supermajority approval, putting treaty power where it belongs.

Tiffany has also pushed to revisit our World Trade Organization membership.

“The WTO has repeatedly overlooked China’s unfair trade practices and human rights abuses, undermined American farmers and manufacturers, and eroded our national sovereignty,” Tiffany said. “American trade policies should be made by American officials who are elected by American voters and accountable to American workers, not dictated by unelected international bureaucrats in Geneva. It’s time to pursue a better approach to trade—one that puts American industry, jobs, and economic independence first.”

Amen, brother.

Behind all the numbers is a political truth: the people of the United States are fed up with funding a system that undermines American sovereignty while failing to achieve its advertised goals, even though our leaders appear not so courageous.

Of course all of America First knows what the next step needs to be, and that is complete withdrawal from the UN, precisely because cutting off its limbs—IMO, WTO, WHO—will never slay the beast if its heart is left to beat another day. In January, U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act of 2025, in essence a bill seeking a divorce decree based on irreconcilable differences.

“No more blank checks for the United Nations,” Lee said. “Americans’ hard-earned dollars have been funneled into initiatives that fly in the face of our values, enabling tyrants, betraying allies, and spreading bigotry,” Lee said.

Elon Musk, appointed by President Donald Trump to downsize the US government, has also publicly supported US withdrawal.

So where does that leave us? Well, with a straightforward policy program.

First, end the insanity. Withdraw from the United Nations and its affiliate dependent agencies, as Lee’s DEFUND bill would do. Second, build real alliances with other sovereign nations through concrete agreements designed and approved by elected officials. The difference between a treaty ratified by the Senate and a “framework” imposed by a U.N. body is the difference between democracy and authoritarianism. Tiffany’s WHO approach gets this exactly right.

Third, defend borders, and build energy security and industry at home. We must reject an environmentalism that transfers power from voters to bureaucrats, and from free economies to commanded ones.

Trump’s U.N. speech asked one of the right questions: What is the purpose of the United Nations? We all knew what the honest answer was. But the shipping-tax fight brings to light an even more important question for all Americans to consider:

What is the purpose of a sovereign United States?

We all know the answer to that, too. It is to protect our liberty and values and culture, and, by being strong, to keep the peace. Sovereign strength deters, and only sovereign strength delivers longevity.

The unity of nations was always a misnomer, double-speak for the unified power of an elite. What we need is the unity of a nation, not in policy but in purpose. The map to get there is out there on a rural road somewhere, faded but visible yet on an aging but still-standing sign calling us to action: Get the U.S. out of the United Nations!

We can still make that sign proud.