The United Nations has unveiled a new global pact that promotes gun control, encourages nations to counteract “misinformation” and “hate speech,” attempts to channel ecumenical religious dialogue to promote a Green, globalist agenda, advances the creation of “sustainable cities,” would siphon hundreds of billions of dollars out of the U.S. economy, would “turbocharge” global governance, and outlines the global redistribution of wealth and power from sovereign nations to the U.N.

Delegates met during the “Summit of the Future” at the United Nations headquarters in Turtle Bay, N.Y. on September 22-23 (Sunday and Monday), following two preparatory “Action Days” (September 20-21). Together, they promised to create a “U.N. 2.0” with enough money and power to enforce its will and transform “global governance,” particularly by promoting the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The summit’s final document — The Pact for the Future, The Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations — contains 56 action items, including a New Agenda for Peace about regulating cyberspace; a Global Digital Compact on artificial intelligence (AI) regulation and quashing “misinformation” online; and a Declaration on Future Generations to involve young people in global decision-making. Each transfers progressively more power and responsibility to the U.N.

The pact states that its goals will be implemented “through relevant, mandated intergovernmental processes, where they exist” (17). “We are committed to ensuring that the multilateral system can turbocharge our aspirations to deliver” on the SDGs and their globalist agenda (19). U.N. officials vow to “develop good governance at all levels,” undoubtedly including the global level (26a).

“The fact that sovereign national governments would so willingly cede national control of such important areas as referenced in the Pact for the Future illustrates the dangerous state of affairs for freedom today,” Travis Weber, vice president for Policy and Government Affairs at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand.

The Pact for the Future claims the world faces profound crises that “far exceed the capacity of any single State alone. They can only be addressed collectively, through strong and sustained international cooperation” (5). As a result, “the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the centre, must be strengthened.” These institutions must be “effective and capable, prepared for the future,” as well as “equitable and representative of today’s world, inclusive, interconnected and financially stable” (6). Signatories vow to unleash “a new beginning in multilateralism” and their “unwavering commitment to act in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations” (7-8).

The agreement puts environmental commitments on an equal footing with human rights, stating that “the three pillars of the United Nations — sustainable development, peace and security, and human rights — are equally important … We cannot have one without the others” (9). Delegates promise to “urgently accelerate progress towards achieving” the U.N. SDGs, “including through concrete political steps and mobilizing significant additional financing from all sources” (10). Since “[c]limate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time,” nations will “accelerate meeting our obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement” (11 and 20a). But the American people elected President Donald Trump in 2016 after he promised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement — which experts agreed would “destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035” — a promise Trump delivered on shortly after his inauguration.

Although the pact vows to eliminate poverty, it says little about business or economic innovation; instead, the U.N. will fight economic want through “investments” in the “social sector, especially education and health,” as well as developing “social protection systems” (e.g., welfare benefits) (21a-b). 

Funded by Taxpayer Dollars

Funding for these and other SDG goals will require hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Nations must “[s]cale up and fulfil our respective official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by most developed countries to reach the goal of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance to least developed countries” (23c). U.S. GDP in the second quarter of 2024 stood at just over $29 trillion; The U.N.’s 0.9% offering would siphon $261.1 billion out of the U.S. economy. This is just one avenue of revenue extraction, as officials promise to “[c]ontinue discussions on the modernization of measurements of official development assistance, while adhering to existing commitments” (23d).

The U.N.’s drive to enforce the SDGs will impact national policies, as governments that sign the Pact for the Future must “[i]mplement effective economic, social and environmental policies and ensure good governance and transparent institutions to advance sustainable development” (23g). They must plan to crack down on efforts to keep your money out of government officials’ clutches and “eliminate [tax] safe-havens” (23h). This will include exploring “options for international cooperation on the taxation of high-net-worth individuals in the appropriate forums” (23j). The pact promises to create “effective international tax cooperation” and develop “a United Nations framework convention on international tax cooperation” (23i). As this author wrote at TWS:

“The Biden administration took the first step toward such a tax in 2021, when it supported a ‘Global Minimum Tax.’ The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) agreed to an outline on a 15% tax, which would allow foreign nations to tax U.S.-based corporations. According to the OECD’s latest update, 55 nations have begun adopting the putatively voluntary guidelines, ‘with the rules coming into effect in 2024.’”

The pact also appears to encourage Western leaders to minimize domestic industry through regulation. The pact encourages First World political leaders to “[s]upport developing countries to catalyse increased private sector investment in sustainable development … by creating a more enabling domestic and international regulatory and investment environment, and through the catalytic use of public financing” (23k).

Governments must also create “preferential trade access for developing countries” and other forms of “special and differential treatment” (24a). The pact calls on nations to facilitate the accession of developing nations to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and promote “trade liberalization” (24c).

Addressing ‘Climate Change’

Nations that sign the pact vow to “strengthen our actions to address climate change.” This means making “deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” including the “phase-down” of coal and “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems” (28c). After Germany committed to a policy of renewable energy, the only way it mitigated blackouts was by building new coal-fired plants. Of course, “finance will have to be significantly scaled up” (28i).

The U.N. also hopes to hammer out “an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, with the ambition of completing negotiations by the end of 2024” (29d). The World Wildlife Fund insists such a treaty “must include [p]hasing out all unnecessary plastic products that pose a high pollution risk, including single-use items,” such as plastic straws and single-use plastic bags.

The pact promotes “universal health coverage” for all (25b). Developed nations must assure “access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing” and “support developing countries” to create “sustainable cities” (25c). The World Economic Forum promoted one version of the sustainable city as the “20-minute neighborhood,” a concept many see as oppressive. Sustainable cities would significantly impact nations’ quality of life. For instance, the GlobalGoals.org insists sustainable cities require more use of public transportation. “Save the car trips for when you’ve got a big group,” it instructs.

Promotion of ‘Tolerance’

The U.N. vows “to promote tolerance, embrace diversity and combat all forms of discrimination, including racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and all their abhorrent and contemporary forms and manifestations” (14). Yet the pact defines none of these terms. Would affirming that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, as recorded in John 14:6, constitute religious “discrimination”? Would refusal to use biologically incorrect pronouns, or to carry out transgender surgeries, be deemed “transphobia”?

The pact calls on politicians to “[m]aximize the positive contribution of migrants,” including enhanced “global cooperation for safe, orderly and regular migration to comprehensively address the drivers of irregular migration and ensure the safety, dignity and human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status” (25e). The U.N. proposes finding a permanent solution to “refugees” by forcing all nations to share “responsibility” equally. The pact calls for nations to find “durable solutions for internally displaced persons, refugees and stateless persons, including through equitable international burden- and responsibility-sharing” (36b).

Promotion of ‘Reproductive Health,’ Gun Control, Wealth Redistribution, and More

The Pact for the Future may be interpreted by Western governments to promote abortion-on-demand or potentially abortifacient forms of birth control. The pact requires nations to “[e]nsure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences” (27f). Although U.N. statements explicitly exclude abortion from “reproductive rights,” the Biden-Harris administration has led Western governments in attempting to redefine the terms to include ending human life.

National leaders promise to stimulate ecumenical religious discussions, channeling them toward its globalist, ecumenical agenda. Signatories say they will “[p]romote and support intercultural and interreligious dialogue to strengthen social cohesion and contribute to sustainable development” (30c).

The U.N. pact vows to bring peace and promises to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any” nation (32). It does not explain how it squares this contention with resolutions such as Resolution 678, which authorized nations to use “all necessary means” including the formation of a global military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in 1990, as well as subsequent measures allowing military force if Iraq violated its U.N.-prescribed military and national defense parameters. This is especially true, as the pact states, “United Nations peace operations, understood as peacekeeping operations and special political missions, are critical tools to maintain international peace and security” (42).

The U.N. also expresses its worry that national security funds would limit government spending on green-oriented wealth redistribution programs. “We are concerned about the potential impact that the global increase in military expenditures could have on investments in sustainable development and sustaining peace” (34).

Action 14 promises to “protect all civilians in armed conflict” — a resolution sure to complicate Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, where observers accuse the Israeli military of carrying out genocide against Palestinians.

Signatories promise to “fulfil our obligation to comply with the decisions and uphold the mandate of the International Court of Justice in any case to which our State is a party.” The ICJ attempted to intervene in the case of two Germans convicted of bank robbery and murder in Arizona.

The pact may also presage global gun control, as nations that sign the pact promise to “[a]ddress the risks associated with illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, their parts and ammunition, or associated ammunition, including through national prevention strategies and approaches” (39f).

Censorship also plays a role, as governments agree to “[a]ddress the risks to sustaining peace posed by disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and content inciting harm, including content disseminated through digital platforms, while respecting the right to freedom of expression and to privacy and ensuring unhindered access to the Internet in accordance with international law, domestic legislation and national policies” (39g).

Even the seas come under the jurisdiction of this pact. “We recognize the need to address the serious impact of threats to maritime security and safety. All efforts to address threats to maritime security and safety must be carried out in accordance with international law, including particularly as reflected in the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, taking into account other relevant instruments that are consistent with the Convention” (43). If the West adopts the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), “radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change,” warned Eagle Forum in 2012.

The pact may also open American voting rolls to minors, as it promises to “consult with young people and provide them with meaningful opportunities to engage in national policymaking and decision-making processes supported, upon request, by the United Nations system, in line with national legislation and policies” and “remove barriers that prevent full, meaningful and effective participation of all youth, including for young women, young persons with disabilities and young persons of African descent and those in vulnerable situations, in national policymaking and decisionmaking, and improve their representation in formal political structures” (62a, c). The Declaration on Future Generations defines “children and youth as agents of change.”

A whole section on “transforming global governance” promises to strengthen the United Nations and associated institutions. “We resolve to make the multilateral system, with the United Nations at its centre, more … [e]ffective and capable of delivering on our promises, with strengthened ... implementation mechanisms” (66a). To that end, all members “commit to meet our financial obligations in full, on time and without conditions” (66f).

The pact may establish a quota system, promising to give “due regard for recruiting staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible and gender balance” (73d).

To hide the cost of these measures, the nations must decide to come up with a new measure of economic output besides GDP. Nations “reaffirm the need to urgently develop measures of progress on sustainable development that complement or go beyond gross domestic product. These measures should reflect progress on the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, including in the consideration of informing access to development finance and technical cooperation” (81). The Biden-Harris administration attempted to measure the impact of its regulations in a similar way, to minimize the cost and shift the conversation from empirical economic measures to the enactment of theoretical and ideological aims.

The pact would also strengthen U.N. and international response to “complex global shocks,” defined as “events that have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population, and that lead to impacts across multiple sectors, requiring a multidimensional and whole-of-government, whole-of-society response” (82).

A ‘Global Power Grab’

The global government push leaders promoted comes in the face of populist-nationalist rebellion across the United States and Europe. Austria’s Freedom Party (FPO) captured 29% of the vote in Sunday’s election. Geert Wilders’ populist-nationalist Party for Freedom (PVV) has advanced into a dominant position in the Dutch government. Germany’s nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has become the strongest party in East Germany. And Sweden has introduced a policy of remigration forecast to see more migrants leaving than arriving this year.

“They seek to facilitate the evolution of the U.N. from an international cooperative body to an international governing body. These powers would be triggered by any number of so-called emergencies, including a gun violence emergency — whatever that’s supposed to be — or a financial emergency,” said Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) at a press conference earlier in the month. “The Biden-Harris administration is in full agreement with the U.N. and the WHO on efforts to place us under their authority, and require such things as their International Health Regulations, the surveillance of U.S. citizens, the silencing of their views, and more.”

“The U.S. should defund the WHO again. We should withdraw from the WHO. Any agreements with the WHO or the U.N. should require Senate approval or disapproval,” said Good.

National security expert Frank Gaffney added that Donald Trump must “call out his opponent, the vice president of the United States, and ask if she supports world government.”

“This is a global power grab,” declared FRC Action President Tony Perkins at the press conference.

The pact already faces pressures from within. Ahead of the summit, the Russian delegate said Moscow did not feel “comfortable with how gender was being opposed to family issues,” an eyewitness reported. “While the Russian Federation is known to have staked out pro-family positions in the past, especially at the Geneva-based Human Rights Council, it is rare and perhaps unprecedented to see such insistence in a high-level negotiation at the UN General Assembly,” reported Stefano Gennarini of the Center for Family and Human Rights. Russia would later offer an amendment clarifying the UN would not engage in “interference in the internal affairs of states” but the U.N. declined to vote on it.

Argentina, now led by libertarian leader Javier Millei, also declined to endorse the pact. Foreign Minister Diana Mondino said the pact would interfere with Millei’s freedom agenda. “One after another presidents, prime ministers and monarchs had their microphones automatically shut off by a digital timer before they could finish their remarks,” reported Gennarini.