Washington’s Test Threatens the Next UN Secretary-General’s Independence
Jordan Ryan
October 13, 2026
Image: GrAI / Shutterstock
The United States is reported to oppose every candidate now standing for Secretary-General of the United Nations. If the report is accurate, the danger extends beyond a delayed appointment. Making agreement with Washington’s political priorities a condition of selection would threaten the independence on which the office’s authority depends.
According to Politico, two people familiar with internal discussions say none of the seven candidates is sufficiently close to President Trump’s view of the organisation. Washington wants new names. One State Department official said it sought “a little bit of a disruptor.” On the record, the department declined to discuss individual candidates, saying it would support the most qualified nominee with “an unwavering commitment to drive meaningful reform,” regardless of gender or geographic origin. The account rests partly on unnamed officials and warrants caution. But American officials have publicly demanded a return to basics for more than a year.
Washington is entitled to press for serious reform. The United Nations needs it, and the leading candidates acknowledge that need. Requiring agreement with one member state’s political priorities would impose a different test. Governments should seek a Secretary-General capable of leading reform while retaining the freedom to disagree with them.
Each permanent member can block a candidate and applies its own criteria. The United States vetoed a second term for Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1996. Russia has reportedly signalled opposition to candidates holding European Union or NATO-country citizenship. Such pressures are longstanding. Ms Grynspan has written that the organisation cannot answer a crisis of trust by assuming its critics are wrong. Rafael Grossi has warned that the UN is moving into irrelevance, while arguing that it need not be so.
A candidate needs nine Security Council votes and no permanent-member veto. The General Assembly then appoints on the Council’s recommendation. In the fifth informal poll on 7 October, Costa Rica’s Rebeca Grynspan led with nine encouragements and six discouragements. The next poll is expected on 16 October and may use coloured ballots distinguishing permanent from elected members, revealing permanent-member opposition without identifying the state. António Guterres’s term ends on 31 December.
The first and fundamental danger concerns independence. Article 100 of the Charter prohibits the Secretary-General from seeking or receiving government instructions and requires member states to respect the office’s international responsibilities. It does not prescribe how governments should assess candidates’ views. But demanding political alignment risks compromising the independence it protects.
The Secretary-General must be able to challenge powerful governments, including those that supported the appointment. Much of the office’s influence rests on confidence in its independent judgement. A Secretary-General chosen primarily for compatibility with Washington could enter office with that confidence weakened, limiting the capacity to mediate and build trust. One State Department official told Politico that FIFA president Gianni Infantino could be a good option and did not rule out Nickolay Mladenov, High Representative for Gaza for the Trump-created Board of Peace.
The second danger is imitation. If Washington makes alignment a condition of support, other permanent members could insist on similar loyalty to their priorities. Russia and China hold the same veto. Five competing tests of alignment could favour candidates with the thinnest records and the fewest stated convictions. Clear positions would give one or another permanent member a reason to object, rewarding ambiguity over demonstrated judgement.
The third danger is the link to money. A Republican congressional aide told Politico that support for regular-budget funding would be hard to find if Ms Grynspan, whom the aide considered too critical of Israel and soft on China, were chosen. Member states owe their assessed contributions. Making payment depend on the appointment would encourage other contributors to bargain similarly. It could also constrain the Secretary-General afterwards: financial pressure rewards accommodation of a powerful government’s priorities.
The fourth danger is prolonged deadlock. The Charter provides no explicit procedure for a failed selection. Mr Guterres’s spokesman has said that he expects a timely decision and that Mr Guterres plans to return to private life in January. John Bolton, a former American UN ambassador, told Politico that a cynic would say a vacancy suits Washington because the organisation would lack a leader whom heads of state respect. Institutional continuity would not remove the political cost of beginning 2027 without a confirmed Secretary-General.
Other member states can limit these dangers. The ten elected Council members can decline to endorse a late entrant they have had no opportunity to examine. Any new candidate should face the same public questioning in the Assembly as declared candidates. Governments should assess demonstrated independence and leadership, alongside a credible commitment to reform, and make clear that assessed contributions cannot depend on who is appointed.
Britain and France also have a choice. If Washington, Moscow and Beijing converge on a late entrant, London and Paris should assess that candidate independently and be prepared to withhold support, including through a veto, if the office’s independence is at risk. Agreement among three permanent members does not relieve the other two of responsibility for the appointment.
The Assembly should also prepare for deadlock. In 1950 it extended Trygve Lie’s term without a new Council recommendation, over Soviet objection. That was a contested extension of an incumbent’s tenure, not an uncontested precedent for appointing a successor without the Council. It nevertheless shows why the wider membership should consider continuity before an impasse becomes a crisis.
Washington may yet accept a declared candidate, and the report may reflect a negotiating position rather than settled policy. The principle should be clear now. The next Secretary-General should be judged by the independence, judgement and capacity needed to reform and lead the United Nations, including the courage to challenge its most powerful members.
Related articles:
What Governments Owe the Next Secretary-General (3-minute read)
At Hammarskjöld’s Grave, Sixty-Five Years After Ndola (3-minute read)
Governing the Ungovernable (3-minute read)
