The competition to replace Secretary-General António Guterres is ongoing. For the first time since its inception, the United Nations is holding elections in a fragmented world marked by geopolitical tensions, profound power struggles, and pressure on global diplomacy. “At a time of growing challenges, the world needs the United Nations more than ever — and a Secretary-General capable of strong, principled and effective leadership,” said General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock. The central truth of contemporary multilateral politics is simple: the United States remains the single most consequential actor in the selection of the UN Secretary‑General, not because it imposes outcomes, but because its geopolitical weight shapes the field of possibilities, and its financial investment speaks. This influence is structural, not episodic — embedded in the architecture of the Security Council, the dynamics of global power, and the expectations of member states navigating an increasingly fragmented world order.

At the core of this influence lies the veto power. Any candidate for Secretary‑General must pass through the Security Council before reaching the General Assembly, and the United States — as one of the five permanent members — can block any nominee it deems misaligned with its strategic interests. This does not mean Washington selects the Secretary‑General; rather, it determines who cannot be selected. In practice, this shapes the diplomatic calculations of every regional bloc, every major power, and every aspiring candidate.

Beyond formal mechanisms, the United States exerts agenda‑setting influence. Its priorities — whether peacekeeping reform, great‑power competition, human rights, or the governance of emerging technologies — inevitably frame the expectations placed on the next Secretary‑General. Candidates who demonstrate the ability to work constructively with Washington, while maintaining credibility across the Global South, tend to gain early momentum.

The United States also influences the election through coalition diplomacy. There is power in coalition diplomacy. Coalition diplomacy is the practice of groups—states, political parties, or NGOs—temporarily coordinating their actions to achieve a shared objective, pooling strengths while retaining individual identities, and often dissolving once the goal is met or unachievable. Even when it does not champion a specific candidate, its signals — subtle or explicit — shape how other states position themselves. Regional groups often calibrate their endorsements to avoid confrontation with Washington, especially when broader bilateral interests are at stake. Coalition diplomacy has the potential to help stabilize international order and advance US-oriented cooperation, if the nation chooses to do so. And the US can do so within the United Nations.

What is more, the United States will also the outcomes of the elections through its massive capital investments in the UN’s global operations. There is a new persistent habit in international relations of gaining or imposing political power where money is most visible. If conflicts recreate geographic opportunities, money decides who sits in the leadership seat; if norms and treaties build alliances, capital consolidates the foundations of these alliances. Emily Rosenberg captured a decisive part of this transformation in her study of American Dollar Diplomacy. Emily’s principal argument was that money did not simply follow foreign policy; it regularly became a tool of foreign policy, and in some cases, it shaped it. The power of money enables leaders to pursue diplomacy, international relations, and international politics. The United Nations’ election outcomes, we are certain, will be influenced by the United States of America. Foreign policy and global diplomacy now depend on financial investment, shaping the choices available to foreign multilateral institutions and their actors.

Finally, the United States shapes the election through narrative power. American think tanks, media institutions, and diplomatic networks will help define what “future‑ready leadership” at the UN should look like. These narratives influence perceptions of legitimacy, competence, and global expectations — all critical in an election where geopolitical interest matters more than competition. These subtle actors are having their moment. Not a day passes in the international diplomacy world, it seems, without narrative influence or change. And there is a good reason for that. Shaping narrative is to gain power.

In short, while the next UN Secretary‑General will be chosen by the collective will of member states, the strategic posture of the United States will remain a decisive factor in determining which candidates rise, which fall, and which vision of global leadership ultimately prevails. Regardless of what other nations attempt, America holds a powerful competitive advantage in this race to elect the next UN Secretary-General.

About the Author

Jean Narcisse is Chair and Leader of the Reform United Nations Project, an initiative of the African Council on Foreign Relations. Reform UN aspires to shape a renewed United Nations multilateral system—one capable of anticipating global transformations, empowering nations to co-create resilient solutions, and advancing a governance architecture that reflects the shared destiny of humanity. Led by young global leaders and backed by career diplomats, senior foreign service officers, former ambassadors, multilateral negotiators, UN policy specialists, and international governance advisors, global cooperation architects, institutional reform advisors, peacebuilding practitioners, development strategists, senior envoys, etc.