Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The bill would terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations, repeal enabling statutes and the U.S. Headquarters Agreement, bar U.S. funding and participation in UN activities (including peacekeeping), revoke UN-related immunities, repeal U.S. participation in the World Health Organization, end implementation of UN conventions, and require Senate advice and consent (with a withdrawal reservation) for any future reentry. It also directs the Secretary of State to notify the UN and related bodies of these actions.
Liberals emphasize harms to health, climate, human rights, and diplomacy
Substantive, high‑salience foreign policy change with limited bipartisan reach; may pass in a narrowly aligned chamber but faces strong opposition elsewhere.
The bill would terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations, repeal enabling statutes and the U.S. Headquarters Agreement, bar U.S. funding and participation in UN activities (including peacekeeping), revoke UN-related immunities, repeal U.S. participation in the World Health Organization, end implementation of UN conventions, and require Senate advice and consent (with a withdrawal reservation) for any future reentry.
It also directs the Secretary of State to notify the UN and related bodies of these actions.
A sweeping unilateral withdrawal from the UN with high controversy and weak compromise features has very low historical likelihood of becoming law.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberals emphasize harms to health, climate, human rights, and diplomacy
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize harms to health, climate, human rights, and diplomacy
Strongly opposed.
They would view this as a sweeping rollback of U.S. multilateral engagement that undermines public health, climate cooperation, human rights, and international law.
They would see the WHO repeal and funding ban as especially harmful to global pandemic response and to U.S. influence.
Likely opposed or very wary.
Centrists would view the bill as an extreme, legally fraught shift with uncertain benefits relative to substantial diplomatic, security, and public-health costs.
They would request clearer implementation plans and cost-benefit analysis before support.
Generally supportive.
This persona would emphasize reclaiming sovereignty, stopping U.S. financial support to the UN and WHO, and removing perceived legal privileges for UN personnel.
They may still worry about implementation details and national-security continuity.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A sweeping unilateral withdrawal from the UN with high controversy and weak compromise features has very low historical likelihood of becoming law.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize harms to health, climate, human rights, and diplomacy
A sweeping unilateral withdrawal from the UN with high controversy and weak compromise features has very low historical likelihood of becom…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for DEFUND Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.