An agreement from 1947 that outlines the obligations of the United States as the host nation for the United Nations provides employees and their families with relatively unrestricted access to the U.S. Fox News has reported that in light of growing national security concerns and immigration enforcement measures under the Trump administration, experts are calling for a re-evaluation of this host nation agreement, particularly regarding the functional immunity granted to U.N. staff and the minimal vetting of individuals holding U.N. visas.
Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, highlighted the potential risks, stating, “The United States seems to have adopted a lenient stance towards individuals entering the country associated with the U.N., whether as employees or representatives of various missions. Meanwhile, it’s known that U.N. staff have historically maintained close ties with terrorist organizations such as UNRWA and Hamas.“
UN WATCHDOG PROJECT CALLS ON DOGE CAUCUS TO ‘AUDIT’ THE INTERNATIONAL ORG
Bayefsky pointed out a “disconnect between the routine welcome extended to U.N. personnel and the serious threats posed to American interests.” She emphasized that hosting the U.N. shouldn’t necessitate compromising national security.
The U.S. government issues G visas to employees, their spouses, and children of international organizations, including the U.N., who either reside in or are visiting the U.S. As stated on the State Department’s website, “If you qualify for a G visa under U.S. visa law, you must obtain a G visa. Exceptions are extremely limited.” The Department of State also notes that “Embassies and consulates typically do not require an interview for G-1 through G-4 and NATO-1 through NATO-6 visa applicants, although a consular officer may request an interview if deemed necessary.”
Hugh Dugan, a senior advisor to 11 former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., remarked to Fox News Digital that the issuance of G visas for U.N. employees seems like a “rubber stamp exercise.” He added that while avoiding interviews for personnel may be convenient, it is crucial to always assess potential threats to national security.
According to Dugan, nations like Russia and China face restrictions on how far they can travel from U.N. headquarters. He stated, “We are aware of the activities and presence of our adversaries here, yet the host country agreement facilitates participation in the U.N., preventing any country from being barred due to political tensions.”
Fox News Digital inquired with the State Department regarding whether interviews are mandatory for staff from adversarial member states like Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China, but did not receive a response. A spokesperson reiterated that consular officers “have the authority to require an in-person interview for any reason.”
Peter Gallo, a former investigator with the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), expressed concern over the functional immunity granted to U.N. staff in relation to their employment activities. He noted that the U.S. legal system has essentially accepted a blanket coverage that leads to impunity.
REPUBLICANS SEEK TO BLOCK THE REAPPOINTMENT OF UN OFFICIAL ACCUSED OF ANTISEMITISM
Gallo pointed out an “epidemic of sexual offenses” and misconduct among U.N. personnel, citing an incident where a U.N. employee sexually harassed a young female colleague. He mentioned that it took two years to complete an investigation that ultimately led to the demotion of the offending employee, while the victim and her harasser remained in the same organization.
He asserted that if misconduct occurs while U.N. staff are based at U.N. headquarters, the U.S. government should have the authority to investigate and determine whether those individuals should retain their G visas.
Dugan suggested that if U.N. staff were aware that their immunity could be revoked at any moment, they might alter their behavior significantly.
In response to inquiries about whether U.N. staff have been accused of sexual misconduct in the U.S. or if any G visas have been revoked due to misconduct, a State Department spokesperson explained that the department “generally does not provide” revocation statistics. They noted that “all visa applicants, regardless of the visa type or their location, are continuously vetted. Security vetting occurs from the time of application through the visa adjudication process and continues throughout the validity of each visa to ensure individuals remain eligible for travel to the United States.”
The spokesperson added that U.N. officials are expected to adhere to U.S. laws, including criminal laws, and failure to do so may constitute an abuse of their residence privileges.
Among those raising concerns is U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, who visited the U.S. in 2024 to deliver a report at the Third Committee of the General Assembly. Albanese has faced widespread condemnation for her antisemitic remarks from senior U.S. diplomats and the State Department, yet she was allowed to tour various U.S. college campuses during her visit.
In addition to qualifying for the “rubber stamp” G visas, staff from international organizations like the U.N. may also be eligible for green cards if they have spent at least half of seven years of employment in the U.S. or have been present in the U.S. for a total of 15 years before retirement.
