Photograph Source: I, Aotearoa – CC BY-SA 3.0
“Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” was the key question at the U.S. House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings during the 1950s McCarthy era. At the height of the anti-Soviet/Communist fear, HUAC cost thousands of people their jobs and created a powerful chill to freedom of speech and association. A similar chill with global consequences has now come to 2000 U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. funding. An Office of Management and Budget questionnaire asks them to describe with whom and how they do business. It has created stupor and confusion here in Geneva as they ponder how to reply.
Of the questionnaire’s 36 questions, here are five of the most politically charged:
6) “Does your organization have a clear policy prohibiting any collaboration, funding or support for entities that advocate or implement policies contrary to U.S. government interests, national security, and sovereignty? [yes/no]”
11) “Can you confirm that your organization does not work with entities associated with communist, socialist or totalitarian parties, or any party that espouses anti-American beliefs? [yes/no]”
12) “Does this project reinforce U.N. sovereignty by limiting reliance on international organizations or global governance structures (e.g. UN, WHO)? [yes/no]”
13) “Can you confirm that your organization has not received ANY funding from the PRC (including Confucius Institutes and/or partnered with Chinese state or non-state actors), Russia, Cuba, or Iran? [yes/no]”
15) Can you confirm that this is no DEI project or DEI elements of the project? [yes/no]”
Feel the chill? What to do? On March 11, according to Philippe Mottaz who broke the entire questionnaire story, the U.N. Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) sent a directive to the U.N. agencies in Geneva to try to help them respond to the questionnaire. According to Mottaz, the document was sent by email without a heading or signature. The directive said it was “vital” for all the organizations targeted to “adopt a common approach to ensure coherence” in their response as well as “the preservation of the status of the United Nations.” In addition, New York encouraged the agencies to emphasize the importance of cooperation with the United States as well as their historic relations, including reference to the U.N. Charter and the founding role of the U.S.
Trump’s spending freeze had already sent tsunami waves throughout International Geneva. The U.S. Government funded around 47 per cent of the global humanitarian appeal last year. Examples of the consequences of the financial squeeze; the Office of International Migration, funded by almost 40% by Washington, will lay off 20% of its Geneva staff, having already laid off 6000 in the field. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific warned that between 2025 and 2028 in Afghanistan, the absence of U.S. support will likely result in 1,200 additional maternal deaths and 109,000 additional unintended pregnancies.
The U.N. is stifled about how to respond to the questionnaire. What should the agencies do? Risk not responding? Several NGOs have already said they will not answer. But, after all, the United States does fund 22% of the U.N.’s overall budget, the most of any country. Can the agencies risk being defunded or have the U.S. withdraw as it has done at the World Health Organization?
At a recent human rights film festival in Geneva, I asked Adam Kinzinger, the former Republican Congressman from Illinois, “What should we do about the Trump assault?” One of the options I gave were to do nothing, as suggested by James Carville. In an op-ed piece, the Democratic Party strategist’s justification was that Democrats couldn’t win fighting Trump directly. Rather, he wrote in The New York Times, the Trump phenomenon will eventually implode with no direct confrontation needed.
Kinzinger, a former lieutenant colonel in the Air Force who flew missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, did not hesitate to advocate confrontation. The Republican turncoat who served on the House Committee investigating the Capitol attack suggested going directly after Trump. As a former Congressman, he prioritized town meetings to put pressure on members of Congress up for election in the 2026 midterms.
Different Democratic Party reactions to Trump show rifts in the party. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did not attend Trump’s State of the Union address. Some Democrats held up signs during the speech; Rep. Al Green shouted and was thrown out. On the other hand, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer supported Trump and the Republicans on their spending bill.
If Democrats cannot agree on a unified strategy, what are U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations to do? What kind of agency do the agencies have? Who is Mr. or Ms. Multilateralism? Could a Dag Hammarskjöld, Kofi Annan or Cornelio Sommaruga counter an Elon Musk? To paraphrase Stalin on the Pope; How many divisions has the Secretary-General of the United Nations?
Whether the U.N. agencies respond or not will probably have little effect on Donald Trump’s attitude toward the United Nations and multilateralism. Whereas individuals within the agencies may act against Trump, the question of specific organizations having agency as effective actors is more complicated. Australian National University Professor Toni Erskine has several times perceptively examined the complex question of whether institutions have responsibilities. And the U.N. as a multilateral institution? Not simple for an international institution to counter a country that is its biggest funder.
When people say fascism could never happen in the United States, they should refer back to the McCarthy era and how intimidation works. The simple question, “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” shook fear into an entire generation. Millions of government employees were required to sign loyalty oaths and submit to background checks under President Truman’s 1947 Federal Employee Loyalty Program.
The United States government’s questionnaire to international organizations and NGOs reeks of McCarthy era intimidation, but on a much broader global scale. The McCarthy era officially ended; HUAC was disbanded, the Loyalty Program repealed. And the Trump era, multilateralism, and the U.N.?
