Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsForeign policyStarted 15yrs agoActive 2yrs ago

Should the U.S. remain in the United Nations?

The UN. is an organization of governments founded in 1945 after World War II. The organization’s objectives include promoting peace and security, protecting human rights, the environment and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict. Recent U.N. interventions include the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009 and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. The U.S. joined the U.N. as a founding member in 1945. The U.S. is the largest financial contributor to the UN and contributes more than $11.5 billion or 25% of its total budget annually.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Chester (Pennsylvania)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 3.8k Chester voters.

90%
Yes
10%
No
81%
Yes
9%
No
6%
Yes, but scale back our current involvement
1%
No, and remove the U.N. headquarters from the U.S.
3%
Yes, and use the U.N. peacekeeping forces to protect our interests

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 3.8k Chester voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 3.8k Chester voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Chester voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @4QR5R98from Washington  answered…6yrs6Y

No, and remove the U.N. entirely from existence. It is absolutely the biggest threat to our sovereignty as an independent nation and our freedom from a one world slavery system a.k.a. the NWO.

 @4QW6TX3from North Dakota  answered…6yrs6Y

Donald Trump is correct. We need to renegotiate our affiliation with both the UN and NATO. If they cannot begin to provide funding for their own operations, then they need to go. The US has become their funding for anything they choose to do and America is fed up paying for their nonsense. We either need to have more control over what they choose to do or they need to get other countries to pay for it!

 @4RDCW6Gfrom Montana  answered…6yrs6Y

The USA should obey INTERNATIONAL LAW. We can cooperate fully with the U.N. without losing our sovereignty. Lately the USA has been a rogue nation.

 @4PR6WX8from Colorado  answered…6yrs6Y

Calling the UN a "world government" is fallacious. It's more akin to an international negotiating table with a name and a permanent staff to keep it running. What we need is an actual world government. See you in 100 years.

 @4NY2GFKfrom Utah  answered…6yrs6Y

What UN? The one that ignores the human rights violations of Saudi and the other Islamic terrorists factories? Why does it exist? Human Rights are not involved in the current agenda. If it exists it should function as it is funded. Currently it does not.

 @4W97ZPKfrom Maine  answered…6yrs6Y

We should push for an organization that only allows countries who respect human rights to have a say. Example: Why was Uganda under Idi Amin in the `70s and Lybia in 2003 allowed to have Najat al-Hajjaji in charge of the UN human rights commission? Like asking Hitler to oversee violations in a Concentration camp.

 @4PL25HBfrom California  answered…6yrs6Y

The feminists are taking over, if there were completely removed from the situation, then maybe I would support this.

 @4QDFKYNfrom Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes only to veto the two state solution that's just the same thing as Hitler's final solution

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “United Nations” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies

About This Data

Based on 3.8k responses to this question.

These results come from iSideWith's ongoing political issues survey. We collect over a million responses per day, filter out duplicate and multiple submissions, and break the results down by political party, ideology, age, state, and census demographics (income, race, education, household).

iSideWith is non-partisan — we don't advocate for any party, candidate, or position. We report what the public tells us.

Read Our Full Methodology →

Cite Or Embed This Poll

Writing about this issue? Use the live data and link back to the full results.

Cite This Poll

iSideWith. (2026). “Should the U.S. remain in the United Nations?” — Public Opinion Poll Results. Retrieved June 17, 2026, from https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965615

Embed The Live Result

Preview