Fact Check: Trump’s Withdrawal from UN Human Rights Body and Halt to Palestinian Refugee Funding

Published: February 5, 2025

One of our subscribers submitted this fact check request, concerned about the accuracy of claims regarding U.S. involvement in UN funding and its political motivations. Remember, you too can submit fact check requests for free, and we’ll investigate the truth for you.

Misinformation and Missing Context Found in the Article

The article from the Associated Press (read the original here) correctly reports on Trump’s retraction of U.S. support for both the UN Human Rights Council and UNRWA. However, there are gaps in context and instances where key information is omitted, leading to potential misinterpretation.

Did the U.S. Really “Withdraw” From the Human Rights Council Again?

One misleading claim in the article suggests that Trump’s announcement signifies a new withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council. However, the U.S. was already absent from the council following the 2018 withdrawal. The article later acknowledges this, but the initial framing makes it seem like a fresh decision with immediate consequences. In reality, the U.S. was not seeking reelection to the council under Biden, so Trump’s executive action carries little practical impact.

Claims That UNRWA “Harbored” Hamas Militants

The article states that Israel accused UNRWA of harboring Hamas members linked to the October 7 attacks while neglecting to mention that these allegations remain largely unverified. It does acknowledge that the UN terminated 19 accused employees and investigated them, but the phrasing leaves out critical context: the UN found that only nine of these employees may have been involved, and several international donors resumed funding after assurances of reform.

How Much Does the U.S. Actually Pay the UN?

The article correctly states that the U.S. contributes 22% of the UN’s operating budget but omits a significant detail: this has been a long-standing agreement due to the size of the U.S. economy and was not a new burden imposed during Trump’s presidency. When Trump calls for a “review” of U.S. funding, it echoes prior Republican criticisms that other major economies, such as China, contribute less proportionally, but the article does not provide this historical context.

What’s the Real Agenda Behind the Review of U.S. UN Funding?

Some readers have asked whether this shift in U.S. policy signals an internal political strategy rather than a principled objection to UN practices. Historically, Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term, have been skeptical of UN institutions, accusing them of unfair bias against Western and Israeli interests. With a 2024 election victory behind him, Trump’s moves align with longstanding conservative critiques of these bodies, yet the article does not contextualize this fully.

Final Verdict

While the article is mostly factual, it contains misleading framing in certain instances and omits key historical context that would help readers understand the full picture. The claim about a “withdrawal” from the UN Human Rights Council is somewhat misleading, as the U.S. had already left years prior. The allegations against UNRWA, while reported accurately in terms of accusations, lack emphasis on UN findings that dispelled some claims. The U.S. funding of the UN is correctly described, though it could have been contextualized better to acknowledge that this funding model is decades old rather than a recent development.

Stay Ahead of Misinformation

The spread of misinformation makes it harder than ever to separate fact from fiction. If you want real, fact-checked news without political spin, download the DBUNK app and take back control of the truth.

Have another news article you want fact-checked? Submit it to DBUNK for free, and we’ll investigate.