UN Drug Policy in Peril: U.S. Cuts and Global Tensions Could Spark Global Crisis
International drug policy and the organization that implements it, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), are in the midst of an unprecedented crisis. A dramatic shift in U.S. policy under Donald Trump's “might makes right” approach, drastic funding cuts, and the unexpected departure of Executive Director Ghada Waly have undermined the United Nations' long-standing consensus-building mechanisms, casting doubt on the future of global drug control.
Ghada Waly's resignation exacerbated the crisis at UNODC amid the global crisis of multilateralism. / Picture: © UNODC/Max Brucker / Flickr Attribution (CC BY 2.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/)
In his latest articles dated March 25 and July 18, 2025, Ian Tennant highlighted the serious changes within the UN system and international drug policy for the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC). He analyzes how geopolitical tensions are increasingly undermining multilateralism. This is also confirmed by the UNODC World Drug Report 2025, which notes a “new era of global instability” in the fight against the drug problem.
The UNODC World Drug Report 2025 alone painted a grim picture of the global drug situation: the number of drug users reached a new high of 316 million in 2023, an increase of 28 percent within a decade. This disturbing trend illustrates that consumption is growing faster than the world's population, exacerbating global challenges.
Breakdown of consensus and financial crisis at the UNODC
A central theme in Tennant's analysis is the breakdown of the traditional consensus principle (“Vienna Spirit”) at the 68th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in March 2025. He emphasizes that all resolutions, including a groundbreaking initiative by Colombia, were now adopted by vote – a sign of growing geopolitical tensions. This Colombian proposal, which envisaged cooperation with the UN Secretary-General, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the World Health Organization (WHO), aimed to broaden the debate on drug policy beyond the traditional framework of the CND. The U.S. took an unexpectedly confrontational stance.
This is clear from the “Explanations of Votes” of the U.S. delegation, read out by Chargé d'Affaires Howard Solomon. The U.S. openly rejected several resolutions or demanded a vote on them, underscoring the abandonment of consensus. The main reasons for the rejection were recurring: first, the rejection of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were considered “soft global governance” and “incompatible with U.S. sovereignty” as well as “detrimental to the rights and interests of Americans.” The U.S. explicitly stated that it would no longer routinely endorse these, as can be seen from its press release. Second, the U.S. criticized the use of “gender ideology”-related terms, which it believed did not use precise language to describe the “biological reality of two sexes: male and female” and promoted “divisive cultural issues.”
The resolution submitted by Colombia on “strengthening the global drug control framework” was particularly rejected. The U.S. voted against it because it considered the resolution “not ready for decision” and numerous questions regarding implementation remained unanswered, such as the appointment of independent experts, the frequency of meetings, budgeting, and the possible influence of external groups. The U.S. delegation emphasized that discussions on strengthening the international drug control framework should take place exclusively within the CND in order to avoid a “politicized process” that would undermine the Commission's technical approach.
Closely related to this is the financial crisis of the UNODC, detailed by Tennant, caused by drastic cuts in U.S. foreign aid, which previously accounted for more than a third of its funding. The then Executive Director Ghada Waly spoke of a “serious funding problem”. Tennant explains that this is bringing projects to a standstill and causing staff contracts to expire. This crisis and its far-reaching global implications are confirmed by various sources. Tennant emphasizes the need for innovative reforms in light of the end of the growth phase for the UNODC.
Trumpism versus the United Nations
The confrontational stance, rejection of Agenda 2030/SDGs, and repeated criticism of “gender ideology” reflect a national, sovereignty-oriented attitude that gained considerable momentum during Donald Trump's presidency. This policy, which places national interests above multilateral agreements and rejects globally agreed agendas as an infringement on sovereignty, is a clear characteristic of this political movement. It leads to a destabilization of consensus-based work within the UN and hinders international cooperation in critical areas such as global drug policy.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) analyzes this dynamic and confirms that “Trumpism” represents a clear break with the multilateral course of the U.S. that has prevailed since World War II. While the U.S. has traditionally played a leading role in global initiatives and organizations such as NATO and the WHO, Trumpism favors a unilateral approach that puts national interests above all else. This stance led the Trump administration to fundamentally question the benefits of U.S. participation in international organizations, withdraw from certain multilateral agreements such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the WHO, and introduce far-reaching tariffs. The belief that global standards and collective action restrict national sovereignty and may lead the country to act against its interests is a core argument of this mindset.
The reduction in financial contributions, as has been known for some time, deprives organizations of the resources necessary to fulfill their mandates. This can be seen as a deliberate strategy to weaken or realign multilateral institutions, often in the sense of reducing U.S. engagement and redefining global responsibility. Critics of multilateralism who share this view argue that the U.S. often bears the largest share of the costs of global efforts, while other countries do not pay their fair share. The consequences are immediate: projects are on the brink of failure, and for international bodies like the UNODC, it's ability to act is severely curtailed, directly hampering global efforts to combat drug trafficking and organized crime.
Leadership change and the future of cooperation
Tennant also highlights how Ghada Waly's unexpected resignation leaves the organization leaderless at a critical moment. He stresses that the international community should not only fill the gap financially, but also push for a strategic realignment of the UNODC. This requires a departure from the cautious leadership of the past in order to meet the current challenges. Despite all the divisions, however, Tennant also sees positive approaches to cooperation, particularly in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime, as demonstrated by the adoption of a resolution on synthetic drug laboratories and the North American discussion on fentanyl markets. Ian Tennant's comprehensive analysis thus provides a concise overview of the profound changes facing global drug policy and the UNODC.