During a CNN interview with Jake Tapper that aired January 5, 2026, Steve Miller, top adviser for the current administration, stated while discussing the potential U.S. annexation of Greenland and other military actions:
“We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.”
“Might makes right” has in fact ruled among all animals, including early humans. The earliest writings from 5,000 years ago show that civilizations even practiced human sacrifice of conquered enemies to maintain political power and as a show of military strength. And, until more recently, all had institutionalized some form of slavery. The last couple of centuries however, and especially after WW2, democratic ideals began to restrain that darker side of human nature. Despite periodic relapses into the “law of the jungle,” societies learned a fundamental truth, that people prosper more in times of peace and stability under a shared rule of law.
In the last century our leaders have sought to uphold these principles through our Constitution and through international agreements, most notably the UN Charter signed in 1945 by 50 countries in the aftermath of Hitler’s violent pursuit of “manifest destiny” in WW2. These post war leaders realized that friends make the most reliable allies, and since then none of the original signees have threatened each other, until recently.
And for 80 years the United States has benefited enormously from the relative global stability of the now 193 member UN Charter. We became a prosperous nation, and our democracy a beacon of hope for people living under authoritarian regimes that rule through fear, coercion and repression.
As for the “Board of Peace,” thus far of its roughly 28 official members, 18 are authoritarian or authoritarian-leaning countries, and eight very corrupt or failing democracies. And history gives us little reason to believe those leaders will suddenly champion democratic values. So what values will they promote? And how will they pursue them? Intimidation? Threats? Extortion? And if that becomes the norm, will our United States truly be immune?
Five millennia of written history shows a clear pattern: leaders who view the world through the nihilistic lens of “might makes right” ultimately lead their countries into civil discontent and war, not peace. And war is costly for everyone—except for those in power.
So if we value our Democratic Republic, we need to pay attention and speak up now. Our nation’s continued prosperity, its strength, and even its democratic existence depends on adherence to the constitutional rule of law, the protection of our international friendships to secure strong alliances, and the preservation of our freedoms through democratic processes.
And if our leaders refuse to uphold these values, it’s our responsibility to vote in those who will.
Who wrote this piece? The U.S. Constitution and the UN Charter are incompatible with each other. Far from the U.S. benefiting “enormously from the relative global stability” of the UN Charter, I would have to argue the exact opposite – American taxpayers have poured more money into the UN over the years than any other nation by far, with hardly any rate of return to speak of. The level of corruption in the UN is off the charts. Which nation currently holds the rotating presidency seat of the UN Security Council? The answer: Somalia.
Enough is enough. It’s long past the time for our country to leave the United Nations…and make it leave us.
And I’m also unhappy with the “Board of Peace,” which should have never been created. (I tend to get a bit curmudgeonly when it comes to globalist stuff…the WEF, the WHO, and the UN. I’m not sold on the “Board of Peace” either.)
Eric, thank you for your comments.
Somalia did hold the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council in January 2026; in February, it was the United Kingdom.
A few quick facts: The presidency rotates monthly in English alphabetical order among its 15 members. And Somalia is a non permanent member, serving a two year term. And the U.S. is one of five permanent members with veto power.
And to correct a statement in my article, aside from limited, localized attacks on U.S. forces or assets, none of the original signers of the UN Charter has launched a declared war or major invasion against the United States since 1945.
Eric, I agree that bribery, exploitation, political bias, retaliation, and cover-ups have plagued the UN for decades, as in the U.S.. So it’d seem that ALL large governing bodies require independent watchdog oversight.
And like all democratic governing bodies, the UN is far from perfect in many ways. It’s limited in what it can do because of funding, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and competing national interests. And the balance between collective security and individual state autonomy causes tension in many countries including our own.
So what does the UN provide? Like the U.S. Constitution domestically, it sets shared rules for 193 members which, in a nutshell, enables coalitions, economic cooperation, conflict management, counterterrorism efforts, and nuclear nonproliferation. Its enforcement power is in Chapter VII, sanctions and military action; its strength is in collective action.
So the U.S. could withdraw if Congress votes to do so. And though a president cannot unilaterally end full membership, he/she can withdraw from specific UN bodies—such as UNESCO, the United Nations Human Rights Council, or the World Health Organization—by executive action, which we saw happen last year. And if the U.S. falls behind on dues another year, it will lose its vote in the General Assembly.
So like our Constitution, the UN Charter is only as strong as members’ commitment to it. The real question is whether we prefer a rules-based system or a return to “might makes right.”
Thank you, Georgia for writing! I should have dug a bit deeper to determine exactly how long a nation holds the position of rotating presidency on the UN Security Council. One month seems incredibly brief – I assumed it would be a lot longer. Good that Somalia didn’t get to be in this role for a 32nd day.
It’s also true that Congress would need to vote for UN withdrawal. It’s made multiple attempts to do so, but so far to no avail. Grrrr…..