Opinion: The UN Has Failed

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

On the eve of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the post-World War II global order is in disarray — and the United Nations is clearly no longer part of the solution. With former President Donald Trump now favored to return to the White House, the United States may finally be able to address a critical question: Will we continue clinging to a bloated, corrupt and impotent international institution?

Today is United Nations Day — a day meant to celebrate the founding of an organization dedicated to safeguarding peace and security. Instead, the world is reckoning with wars in Europe and the Middle East and growing instability in the Far East. The UN’s inability to adapt to the evolving threats of the 21st century — from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the growing influence of authoritarian regimes — has exposed its fundamental weakness.

It also demonstrates that Trump’s past critiques of the UN were not misplaced. Decades of missed opportunities, moral contradictions and structural dysfunction signify the need for significant reform — or full-on defunding. Such actions are not an outright rejection of multilateralism, but a recognition that the current system is broken — and we have seen this all play out before.

The current global turmoil, spiraling beyond the control of the very institution designed to manage it, echoes the League of Nations‘ catastrophic failure to confront fascist aggression in the 1930s. The League, established after World War I to maintain global peace, proved incapable of preventing aggression by expansionist powers like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Following its collapse, the world descended into a period of widespread conflict, culminating in World War II.

Like the League of Nations, the UN has proven to be helpless against modern-day expansionism. With China backing Russia militarily and economically, the idea that the UN serves as an impartial arbiter of peace is laughable. The League of Nations failed because it lacked enforcement power and moral clarity. The United Nations has failed for the same reasons, and we are on the precipice of a third World War.

At the center of the UN’s dysfunction is the Security Council, crippled by Russia and China’s vetoes, which have made meaningful action impossible and shielded violators from accountability. Russia, an expansionist aggressor, continues to occupy a permanent seat, even as they employ Iranian drones to devastate Ukrainian cities and North Korean troops prepare to join its offensive. These failures are not isolated incidents but part of a decades-long pattern. From the massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia to Somalia’s collapse, UN peacekeeping missions have repeatedly ended in catastrophe. The UN is paralytic — a relic incapable of enforcing peace or punishing those who threaten it.

Worse still, the UN’s actions increasingly contradict its stated values. Reports indicate that UN peacekeepers in Lebanon took bribes from Hezbollah, compromising their mission by allowing surveillance against Israel. Meanwhile, the organization has awarded Saudi Arabia — a regime notorious for the brutal oppression of women — the chairmanship of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in 2025. The irony is staggering, and the hypocrisy is undeniable. Far from being a beacon of global governance, the UN now enables the authoritarian regimes it was meant to oppose, eroding trust and betraying the principles it was established to protect.

A rejection of the UN is not isolationism but a necessary confrontation with reality that the international organization has become an obstacle to peace, not a guarantor of it. This is further evidenced by Secretary-General António Guterres’ participation in the BRICS summit — an organization openly challenging the Western-led world order. Leading members of BRICS, like Russia and China, are intent on rewriting the rules of global governance with the intent to dominate.

The 2024 election will determine whether the West continues its slow descent into irrelevance or embraces the painful but necessary changes required to restore global order. The world has split along ideological lines, and the threats posed by our enemies will not be countered by resolutions or hollow declarations. Diplomacy without power is worthless. To survive, the West must act decisively by abandoning outdated institutions which no longer represent their interests and build new alliances rooted in shared values, mutual investment and military strength.

This United Nations Day, we should not celebrate a broken institution. Instead, we must confront its failures and prepare for the future. A second Trump presidency will bring the necessary pressure to tear down the obsolete structures of the past and replace them with a stronger, clearer order — one that prioritizes accountability, strength, and action. Change is no longer optional; peace demands it.

Meaghan Mobbs, PhD, is the Director of the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women’s Forum.

Related Topics:#DailyCaller #UnitedNations MeaghanMobbs TheUNHasFailed

Up Next

Is the Influenza Threat Exaggerated?

Don't Miss

BC election officials still need to count 65k ballots in virtual tie between Conservatives, NDP

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

UNDRIP now guides all B.C. laws. BC Courts set off an avalanche of investment risk

Energy / 1 hour ago

Tanker ban politics leading to a reckoning for B.C.

Energy / 2 hours ago

Meet REEF — the massive new export engine Canadians have never heard of

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on December 10, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Daily Caller

Trump Orders Review Of Why U.S. Childhood Vaccination Schedule Has More Shots Than Peer Countries

Published on December 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump will direct his top health officials to conduct a systematic review of the childhood vaccinations schedule by reviewing those of other high-income countries and update domestic recommendations if the schedules abroad appear superior, according to a memorandum obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“In January 2025, the United States recommended vaccinating all children for 18 diseases, including COVID-19, making our country a high outlier in the number of vaccinations recommended for all children,” the memo will state. “Study is warranted to ensure that Americans are receiving the best, scientifically-supported medical advice in the world.”

Trump directs the secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) and the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to adopt best practices from other countries if deemed more medically sound. The memo cites the contrast between the U.S., which recommends vaccination for 18 diseases, and Denmark, which recommends vaccinations for 10 diseases; Japan, which recommends vaccinations for 14 diseases; and Germany, which recommends vaccinations for 15 diseases.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the U.S. childhood vaccination schedule.

The Trump Administration ended the blanket recommendation for all children to get annual COVID-19 vaccine boosters in perpetuity. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary and Chief Medical Officer Vinay Prasad announced in May that the agency would not approve new COVID booster shots for children and healthy non-elderly adults without clinical trials demonstrating the benefit. On Friday, Prasad told his staff at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research that a review by career staff traced the deaths of 10 children to the COVID vaccine, announced new changes to vaccine regulation, and asked for “introspection.”

Trump’s memo follows a two-day meeting of vaccine advisors to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in which the committee adopted changes to U.S. policy on Hepatitis B vaccination that bring the country’s policy in alignment with 24 peer nations.

Total vaccines in January 2025 before the change in COVID policy. Credit: ACIP

The meeting included a presentation by FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Director Tracy Beth Høeg showing the discordance between the childhood vaccination schedule in the U.S. and those of other developed nations.

“Why are we so different from other developed nations, and is it ethically and scientifically justified?” Høeg asked. “We owe our children science-based recommendations here in the United States.”