New Bill Cuts All U.S. Aid to Countries Voting Against the U.S. at the UN More Than 50% of the Time

The United Nations Voting Accountability Act of 2025 is a big move to tie U.S. foreign aid directly to diplomatic loyalty at the United Nations. Essentially, this bill says if a country votes against the U.S. position in the UN General Assembly (or the Security Council, if they’re on it) more than half the time, they are cut off from U.S. assistance. This rule kicks in after the required UN voting report is submitted to Congress, which is due by March 31, 2026.

The Loyalty Test: What Triggers the Ban

This isn't about one bad vote; it’s about the overall scorecard. The bill defines "opposing the position of the United States" quantitatively: if a country votes the same way as the U.S. less than 50% of the time during the most recent session, the aid stops. This is a clear, hard line drawn in the sand, using data already compiled in existing State Department reports. For countries that rely on U.S. support, this creates a strong incentive to align their diplomatic positions or risk losing critical funding.

Where the Aid Ban Hits Hardest

The restriction is sweeping, covering nearly all types of U.S. assistance. It targets military financing (under Chapter 4 and 5 of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Foreign Military Financing Program) and economic aid. But here’s the kicker: the ban also includes money or help routed indirectly through international groups, multinational organizations, or non-governmental groups (NGOs) like UN programs. This means if a country hits that less-than-50% threshold, the U.S. can't even fund a clean water project run by a UN agency if that aid passes through the targeted country.

For regular people in these countries, this provision is where the rubber meets the road. If you live in a developing nation that depends on U.S.-funded programs for healthcare, food security, or infrastructure, your government's diplomatic disagreement in New York could suddenly mean a halt to essential services delivered by NGOs or international bodies. It’s a mechanism that uses aid—including humanitarian aid—as a direct diplomatic tool.

The Secretary's Safety Valve

There is one way around the ban, but it’s a tight one. The Secretary of State can grant an exception, but only if they determine that the targeted country has “fundamentally changed its leadership and policies” since the last UN session. This exemption is temporary, lasting only until the next required voting report is submitted. While this gives the State Department some flexibility to reward genuine policy shifts, the criteria for a “fundamental change” are subjective. The Secretary has to notify Congress and explain the decision, which adds a layer of accountability, but it still concentrates significant power in one office to decide who gets aid and who doesn't based on a judgment call.

The Real-World Friction

While the goal is to increase diplomatic alignment, the practical challenge lies in the broad sweep of the aid cutoff. For example, a country might align with the U.S. on 90% of votes but strongly oppose a single, high-profile resolution important to U.S. interests. If that country’s overall alignment still falls below the 50% mark due to other factors (perhaps abstaining on many votes), humanitarian aid programs could be severely impacted. This bill is a clear signal: diplomatic alignment is now a non-negotiable prerequisite for receiving U.S. assistance, even if the cost is felt by vulnerable populations served by international aid organizations.