Antonio Guterres just said the quiet part out loud. The man tasked with defending the global rulebook told the BBC he believes the United States is acting like the rulebook is optional.
It is not a generic lament about a chaotic world. Guterres pointed straight at Washington, tied his warning to recent U.S. actions, and argued the UN’s founding promise, equal sovereignty, is getting squeezed by raw power politics.
A Secretary-General vs a Superpower Storyline
In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme, the UN Secretary-General said the U.S. has a “clear conviction” that multilateral solutions do not matter. What matters, he argued, is “the exercise of the power and influence of the United States and sometimes in this respect by the norms of international law.”
Guterres’ comments came in the wake of major geopolitical flashpoints that he explicitly referenced, including weeks after the U.S. struck Venezuela and seized its president, and alongside Donald Trump’s repeated threats to annex Greenland, according to the BBC interview.
Guterres framed it as something bigger than one dispute. He said the UN’s founding principles, including the equality of member states, are now under threat.
The Bluntest Line: Law of Power, Not Power of Law
Guterres, who has led the United Nations since 2017 and is due to leave the post at the end of this year, put the conflict in almost courtroom language. “There are those that believe the power of law should be replaced by the law of power,” he said in the BBC interview.
That is the tension he keeps returning to. The UN is built around the UN Charter and a promise that rules apply to big states and small states alike. But the UN’s tools depend on member states actually cooperating, and the countries with the most leverage can decide when they want the rules to bite.
Asked to respond to the damning view that the UN is struggling, Guterres did not duck it. He conceded his organisation is struggling to make members abide by the international laws laid out in the UN Charter.
Trump’s Longstanding Skepticism, Now Tied to Today’s Crises
Guterres’ critique lands in a political climate where President Trump has repeatedly attacked the UN as ineffective. The BBC interview referenced his General Assembly speech last September, when Trump questioned the organisation’s purpose and claimed he had “ended seven unendable wars” without UN help.
Trump’s quote, as reported in the BBC interview, was pointed: “Later I realised that the UN wasn’t there for us.”
The collision here is obvious. The UN’s top official is arguing that international law is getting pushed aside. The U.S. president is arguing that the UN is beside the point.
The Leverage Problem, Admitted on the Record
Guterres insisted the UN is “extremely engaged” in trying to resolve major global conflicts. Then he acknowledged the weakness that haunts every UN press conference and every stalled resolution. “But the UN has no leverage, the big powers have stronger leverage,” he said.
He also raised a question that cuts to the heart of crisis diplomacy. Are powerful states using that leverage to create enduring solutions, or to secure quick fixes that buy time and headlines? “There is a big difference between the two things,” he noted.
If you want the tabloid version, it is this. The UN can write the rules, but it cannot make the biggest players follow them.
Security Council Reform, and Why Vetoes Keep Poisoning the Well
Guterres argued the UN needs reform to meet “dramatic problems and challenges” across its 193 member states. His clearest target was the UN Security Council, the body designed to maintain international peace and security.
He said it no longer represents the world and is “ineffective.” He pointed to the veto power held by the five permanent members, France, China, Russia, the UK, and the US. Any one of them can block action, and Guterres said that has repeatedly produced paralysis.
In the BBC interview, he cited how both Russia and the US have used the veto in ways that have frustrated global efforts to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. He also argued vetoes are being deployed to serve national interests, not the collective interest the Council was designed to protect.
Then came another political grenade. Guterres criticised that “three European countries” are permanent members and called for changes to the council’s composition to “regain legitimacy” and “give voice to the whole world.” He also urged limits on veto powers to avoid unacceptable “blockages.”
None of this is new as a concept. Security Council reform has been debated for decades. What is new is the volume and directness with which the Secretary-General links U.S. behaviour to a broader breakdown in respect for international law.
Gaza as the Case Study Nobody Can Ignore
Guterres has repeatedly highlighted Gaza as a defining test of the international system, and he returned to it in the BBC interview as a practical example of UN constraints.
According to the interview, he said the UN was prevented for large parts of the war from distributing aid in the strip as Israel blocked international humanitarian organisations from bringing it into the territory. At one point, Israel backed an external contractor, the Gaza Humanitarian Organisation, to carry out work the UN had traditionally done for decades. The BBC report noted that hundreds of Palestinians were killed trying to access food at GHF sites.
Pressed on whether the UN looked powerless in Gaza, Guterres replied: “Of course, but let’s be clear.” He argued that when Israel did not allow the UN to move into Gaza, it could not move into Gaza. He also said that during a ceasefire, there was “a massive flow of humanitarian aid.”
His message was procedural, not rhetorical. “We were ready, provided we had the conditions,” he stressed.
The implication is hard to miss. The UN can organise, coordinate, inspect, and distribute. It cannot force access without buy-in from those who control borders, roads, and airspace.
Reform Ralk Is Easy – Reform Votes Are Brutal
Guterres also warned that the UN is working with a mid-20th-century structure in a world that has moved on. In remarks referenced by the BBC, he said “1945 problem-solving” would not solve 2026 problems, a direct nod to the UN’s founding architecture after World War II.
Here is the trap. To reform the Security Council in any meaningful way, you need agreement among member states, including the very powers that benefit most from the status quo. The same veto that creates paralysis is also the shield that protects permanent members from structural change.
And there is a personal clock ticking, too. Guterres is in his final year in the job. That gives his warning urgency and limits his ability to shepherd a long, grinding reform process to the finish line.
What To Watch Next
Guterres’ critique sets up an uncomfortable 2026 conversation in global capitals. If Washington believes multilateral rules are secondary to national power, other states may decide that is simply the new playbook and act accordingly. That is the contagion the UN was designed to prevent.
In the BBC interview, Guterres said he is trying to stay optimistic even as questions grow louder about the future of multilateralism and why some leaders hesitate to defend international law when the target is a powerful country.
His closing line sounded less like diplomacy and more like a dare, aimed at anyone tempted to stay quiet. “I think that people are sometimes reluctant to confront the powerful. But the truth is that if we don’t confront the powerful, we will never be able to have a better world.”
