NEW YORK –  United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres says the UN is heading toward an “imminent financial collapse” unless countries pay what they owe and agree to update budget rules that no longer work.

In a January 28 letter to United Nations ambassadors, he said the situation is getting worse fast, putting programs at risk and threatening the United Nations basic ability to operate.

“The crisis is deepening, threatening programme delivery and risking financial collapse. And the situation will deteriorate further in the near future,” Guterres wrote. He warned that if payments don’t arrive on time, and if major fixes aren’t made, the United Nations could burn through its remaining cash by mid-2026. That could trigger deep cuts and disrupt key operations, including functions tied to the New York headquarters.

The warning lands during one of the United Nations toughest liquidity crunches in years. Late payments, rigid funding rules, and shifting politics among major donors have all tightened the squeeze.

What’s Driving It: Unpaid Dues at an All-Time High

By the end of 2025, unpaid assessments reached a record $1.568 billion, more than twice the prior year, based on Guterres’ letter and UN financial updates. The United Nations collected only about 76.7% of assessed contributions for the year. Even with aggressive cost controls, that gap left the organization short on cash.

One rule makes the problem worse. The UN must return “unspent” balances to member states at year’s end, even when some of that money was never paid in the first place. Guterres described this as a “Kafkaesque cycle.” He pointed to a recent example where the United Nations issued $227 million in credits tied to funds it never actually received. That practice drains cash that’s already scarce and keeps the liquidity crisis going.

The United Nations 2026 regular budget, set at about $3.45 billion, has been cut by roughly 7% in response to the crunch. Guterres said the cuts won’t be enough if member states don’t pay in full and on time, because the UN still may not have the cash needed to carry out the plan.

US Pullbacks and a Wider Shift Among Donors

The shortfall has grown sharper as the United States, the UN’s biggest donor, reduces support. The US covers about 22% of the regular budget and also contributes heavily to peacekeeping and voluntary programs.

Under President Donald Trump’s administration, the US has reduced voluntary funding to several UN agencies and has withheld or delayed some required payments. In early 2026, the US also said it would leave dozens of UN-linked bodies and other international groups it views as misaligned with US interests, including organizations focused on climate, health, and human rights. Those moves cut funding directly and signal a broader move away from multilateral commitments.

The US also holds the largest share of arrears, about $1.5 billion in regular budget assessments alone, including unpaid 2025 dues and older amounts. There are also gaps in peacekeeping funding, since US payments are capped at 25% even when its assessed share is higher. Combined with reduced voluntary support for agencies such as the World Food Programme, UNICEF, and WHO, the result is a deeper cash shortage for the United Nations.

Other large contributors have also fallen behind, though not at the same scale. Still, the US role draws the most attention, since it comes alongside sharp criticism from Washington about the United Nations performance and calls for reform.

Countries With Large Outstanding Balances

Guterres did not name countries in his letter. Still, United Nations financial data and reporting point to these major debtors by late 2025 or early 2026 (amounts are approximate and may include older arrears):

• United States: about $1.5 billion (by far the largest, including regular budget and peacekeeping gaps)
• China: about $192 million to $597 million (reports vary, delays appear across some assessments)
• Russia: about $72 million
• Venezuela: about $38 million (triggering loss of voting rights under Article 19)
• Mexico: about $20 million to $38 million
• Argentina: about $16 million
• Saudi Arabia: about $42 million (based on earlier figures)

Other arrears have been tied to countries such as Iran, Libya, Brazil, and several smaller states. By late 2025, only about 145 to 148 of the UN’s 193 member states had fully paid their 2025 dues. Some faced Article 19 pressure that can suspend voting rights, including Afghanistan, Bolivia, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Venezuela.

Rising Doubts About the United Nations’s Value

The UN’s money troubles are also feeding a bigger debate about trust, purpose, and performance. In many countries, public confidence in large institutions has weakened, and the United Nations often gets pulled into those same doubts.

A 2025 Pew Research Center survey reported broad frustration with how democracy works in many places. Many respondents said political leaders feel corrupt and out of touch, and those views can carry over to global bodies. In the United States, surveys often show corruption in government ranks among top concerns for more than 65% of Americans, tied to distrust of systems seen as bureaucratic or influenced by special interests.

Critics say theUnited Nations has grown too large, too political, and too slow to respond to war, climate pressure, and development needs. Some point to past scandals involving peacekeeping and claims of weak oversight in aid programs as signs of mismanagement.

There is no single global poll from 2025 to 2026 that measures how many people believe the United Nations “has lost its purpose and become corrupt.” Still, anecdotal reporting and regional polling suggest a growing minority, sometimes estimated at 40% to 60% in parts of the West, hold negative views, fueled by geopolitical conflict and fights over funding.

Guterres has said he hears those concerns and wants reforms that improve trust and efficiency. He also argues the United Nations remains a core forum for global cooperation.

Guterres urged countries to pay their assessments in full, on time, and to change rules that force the UN to return credits tied to unpaid money. Without action, he warned of a “race to bankruptcy” that could weaken peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, and sustainable development work.

As the UN reaches its 80th anniversary in 2026, the cash crisis is a major stress test. With reserves that could run dry by July, the next few months will decide whether the United Nations stabilizes its finances or faces major disruption and restructuring.

Related News:

UN Warns That US Cuts to HIV Aid Could Result In 4 Million Deaths

MIAMI, Florida –  President Donald Trump, joined by Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, filed a civil lawsuit Thursday in federal court in Miami against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

The complaint asks for at least $10 billion in damages and accuses the agencies of failing to protect confidential tax records that were exposed years ago. The case focuses on disclosures from 2019 and 2020.

The lawsuit says former IRS contractor Charles “Chaz” Littlejohn gained access to the plaintiffs’ tax returns and related files, then shared that information without permission.

Littlejohn pleaded guilty in 2023 to the unlawful disclosure of tax information and later received a prison sentence. News outlets, including The New York Times and ProPublica, published reports based on the leaked materials, describing Trump’s tax history and what he paid, or didn’t pay, in certain years before and during his first term.

Background of the Trump Tax Return Fight

Trump has pushed back for years against releasing his tax returns, breaking a long-running norm for presidential candidates and presidents. During the 2016 campaign and throughout his first term, he pointed to ongoing audits as his reason for keeping them private. The leaked documents, though, fueled public debate about his tax approach.

Reports said he paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and again in 2017, used large reported losses to reduce taxable income in other years, and paid no federal income tax in 10 of the 15 years before his first election.

Those reports sparked political backlash, congressional interest, and fresh scrutiny of possible conflicts connected to his business holdings. Trump and his supporters have repeatedly said the coverage was driven by politics, and they’ve described the outlets involved as biased.

The new lawsuit brings that argument back to the center. It claims the IRS and Treasury are responsible for the breach because they failed to follow required safeguards.

The complaint says the agencies ignored “mandatory precautions” that should have blocked improper access. It points to federal protections for taxpayer privacy and references Section 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows damage claims when officials recklessly or intentionally disregard rules tied to tax administration and privacy.

Claims of Negligence and Damage

The plaintiffs say the leak caused serious and lasting harm. They list reputational damage, financial losses, public embarrassment, and harm to business standing. They also argue tthat he released information casts them in a misleading light andhurtst how the public views them.

A key point in the filing is access. The complaint claims Littlejohn had what amounted to staff-level access to sensitive tax records, and it argues the government did not reduce that risk.

Legal analysts have noted that federal law can allow claims over wrongful tax data disclosures, but they also say proving $10 billion in damages will be difficult. In past cases, payouts for unauthorized disclosures have usually been far smaller, often in the thousands or low millions. The large number may be meant to send a message and apply pressure, not reflect a detailed accounting of losses.

The IRS and Treasury did not immediately comment on the lawsuit. The timing, early in Trump’s second term, is also drawing attention, as it arrives during renewed debate about how federal agencies operate and whether they treat certain public figures unfairly.

Political and Legal Backdrop

The lawsuit lands during a period of tension between the administration and parts of the federal workforce. Trump has often attacked what he calls the “deep state” and has promised changes at agencies such as the IRS. This case could become a high-profile test of whether government agencies can be held financially responsible for internal failures that expose private records.

Critics, though, have called the $10 billion demand over the top and politically motivated, since the leaks happened during Trump’s first administration,n and the person who took and shared the data has already been convicted and sentenced.

Others say the lawsuit could be aimed at discouraging future leaks and shifting attention away from what the returns showed, focusing instead on how they were obtained and released.

The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida, a court that has handled several Trump-related matters in recent years. The litigation is expected to move slowly. The government may try to dismiss it, including arguments tied to sovereign immunity and other defenses.

What it Means for Taxpayer Privacy

Beyond the Trump name, the lawsuit puts a spotlight on a bigger issue: use, taxpayer privacy, and the security of IRS systems. Littlejohn’s case raised concerns about how contractors are monitored and how access is controlled. After the incident, the Treasury canceled contracts with Booz Allen Hamilton, the firm that employed Littlejohn, signaling an effort to reduce similar risks.

For everyday taxpayers, the episode is a reminder that the IRS holds extremely personal financial data. When that data leaks, it can weaken trust in the tax system, even as the agency handles millions of returns each year. Privacy advocates have long warned that breaches, especially high-profile ones, can make people less confident that their information is safe.

As the lawsuit gets underway, it reopens a story many assumed had ended. Whether the case leads to a major judgment, a settlement, or a dismissal, it keeps Trump’s tax returns and the government’s duty to protect private records in the public spotlight.

Trending News:

Trump Targets Minneapolis Mayor Say He’s Playing with Fire 

MINNESOTA – A major investigative report has surfaced new information about Alex Pretti’s final days. Sources cited in a CNN exclusive say Pretti had a previously unreported run-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents just a week before he was killed.

In that earlier incident, he reportedly left with a broken rib after a physical struggle with federal officers during protest activity in Minneapolis. The disclosure adds a new layer to what happened on Saturday, January 24, 2026, when Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse, was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents.

The shooting happened during the Trump administration’s broad immigration enforcement push, described by federal officials as the largest operation in U.S. history. The crackdown has led to thousands of arrests and sharp backlash, especially in sanctuary-leaning cities such as Minneapolis.

Alex Pretti’s death was the third shooting involving federal immigration agents in the city in under three weeks, following the January 7 death of Renee Nicole Good.

Alex Pretti’s Prior Encounter

People familiar with federal records and witness statements say the earlier clash took place during a protest tied to immigration raids. Witnesses and Alex Pretti reportedly described a scene in which five agents tackled him while he watched officers chase a family on foot.

During the restraint, one agent allegedly put a heavy weight on Alex Pretti’s back, which led to a fractured rib. He was released at the scene and was not charged, but he later told people close to him that he thought he might die during the encounter.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has tracked contacts with protesters through internal paperwork described as “intel collection non-arrests.” Pretti’s name appeared in those records, according to the report, which suggests agents could have recognized him when they crossed paths again on January 24. That matters because it means Pretti may not have been viewed as a stranger at the scene, but as someone already known to immigration enforcement.

The new reporting also pushes back on early descriptions of Alex Pretti as a random troublemaker or only a “First Amendment witness,” a phrase used by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. Instead, it paints a picture of repeated friction between Pretti and federal agents, with tensions that may have carried into the final encounter.

Shooting Video and Official Claims Collide

On the morning of January 24, near 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis’s Whittier neighborhood, Alex Pretti was filming federal agents on his cellphone as they tried to enter a local business (reported as a donut shop) during protests.

Bystander video reviewed and verified by outlets including The New York Times and BBC Verify shows Pretti holding his phone in one hand while lifting his other, empty hand. The footage also appears to show him trying to protect a woman after agents pushed her down and used pepper spray.

Videos from multiple angles show agents taking Alex Pretti to the ground before shots were fired. Pretti, who held a legal firearm permit, had a gun on him, and agents tried to remove it during the struggle. Witnesses who later submitted affidavits with the ACLU said they did not see Pretti point or display the weapon.

A preliminary internal Customs and Border Protection review, leaked to congressional sources and reported by NPR, says Pretti resisted arrest, but it does not describe him attacking agents or making a lethal threat. That stands in contrast to early statements from the Trump administration that labeled him a “would-be assassin” planning to kill agents.

Alex Pretti’s family has strongly rejected those claims. In a statement, they called the government’s version “sickening lies” and pointed to a video that appears to show him unarmed in the moments before agents tackled him.

Megyn Kelly Truthful on Pretti

The new details have intensified debate across political media. Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show, drew widespread criticism after discussing the case on Monday. “I know I’m supposed to feel sorry for Alex Pretti, but I don’t,” Kelly said.

She argued that Pretti chose to “inject himself” into law enforcement activity, and she framed the outcome as “FAFO” (f*** around and find out). Kelly also called him an “agitator” and “subversive,” suggesting that staying away from federal operations could have prevented the death.

The remarks triggered accusations of cruelty, especially because Alex Pretti worked as an ICU nurse at a VA hospital caring for veterans.

Her response reflects the deep split over immigration enforcement. Supporters of tougher tactics see the earlier confrontation as proof that Pretti repeatedly interfered. Critics view the broken-rib incident as another example of excessive force by masked federal agents operating in city neighborhoods.

With the earlier ICE clash now public, the case looks less like a single confrontation and more like a series of escalating encounters between a committed protest observer and heavily armed federal agents.

The new context raises fresh concerns about training, de-escalation, and whether prior knowledge about Pretti affected how agents handled the January 24 scene.

Calls for an independent investigation have grown, including from some Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Minnesota leaders continue pressing for federal agents to leave, while protests continue and memorials expand at the site of the shooting.

As the country argues over the costs of aggressive immigration enforcement on city streets, the report about Pretti’s earlier injury adds a troubling detail. It also may reshape how many Americans think about accountability during a period of mass arrests and deportation efforts.

Related News:

President Trump Addresses ICE Actions Amid Minnesota Unrest