After nearly 150 days since President Donald Trump entered office, the United States still does not have an ambassador to the United Nations, despite the significant geopolitical role the position plays in his second presidential term. The absence of a confirmed representative raises concerns about America’s ability to influence major global challenges, as the United Nations remains a key platform for international diplomacy and conflict resolution.
President Trump nominated former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz for the position in May, following the withdrawal of Elise Stefanik from the nomination in late March. However, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not yet confirmed receipt of the nomination, delaying the confirmation process. This slow progress contrasts with the administration’s ability to move other nominations, such as that of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, which was finalized within days of Trump’s inauguration.
The delay has drawn criticism from experts and policymakers, who argue that the lack of a permanent ambassador weakens U.S. influence in critical international discussions. While the U.S. continues to have representatives at the United Nations, the absence of a Senate-approved ambassador is seen as a diplomatic handicap, particularly as the country faces multifaceted global conflicts, including tensions with Iran, the Russia-Ukraine war, and Israel’s situation in Gaza, all of which are major points of discussion at the United Nations.
Experts emphasize that the United Nations is a critical forum for shaping global policy, and the absence of a direct liaison to the president makes the U.S. more reliant on indirect representation. Jonathan Wachtel, who previously served as counsel to the U.S. permanent representatives to the U.N., stressed the importance of having a strong U.S. presence at the organization, arguing that without it, the country risks being sidelined in critical international debates.