This is an article from the Winter 2025 Civitas Examiner (Volume 2, No. 4) and was written by one of our students, Lucy M. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of Civitas other than respect for the value of open dialogue. To read more Civitas Examiner stories or to submit your own, click here.
Just two weeks ago, I attended the 2025 UNA-USA Leadership Summit held at the St. Louis Arch Hyatt. It was an exceptional experience and I really enjoyed learning about how the UN is connected to everyday life more than I knew before. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting at city hall that Friday, but I attended both full days over the weekend.
On Saturday, the day began around 7:00 AM. I was able to meet new people from different places around the city and the country. It was truly a wonderful experience getting to know all of the different faces all interested in the same topic. We may never have met if it wasn’t for this conference.
One of the most memorable people that I met at this conference was Theresa Carrington, founder of Ten by Three (originally named the Blessing Basket). Ten by Three was established in 2002 in order to alleviate extreme poverty through entrepreneurship. I found her work frankly inspiring, and I wanted to hear more.
We had a wonderful discussion about what she does for Ten by Three, how it works, and why she came to this conference.
“Ten by Three is a nonprofit organization that I founded 21 years ago, and we exist to end extreme poverty through entrepreneurship. So it’s in our name…when we purchase ten products from an artisan in a developing nation who is living in poverty…they can then onward fund at least three small businesses.”
Carrington explained how, even though her business is lesser known to the public, it’s still having a tremendous impact on these people and nations as a whole, which is serving SDG 1, No Poverty.
“I waited for a long time to get involved with UNA-USA until I was sure that we had something that we could talk about and that we could really add to the conversation…Twenty-one years in, our data speaks for itself, and we’re ready to share our story with the world.”
Ten by Three is a company rooted in innovation and service. Carrington understandably describes her company’s data as speaking for itself, because the sheer number of people it’s helping is in the tens of thousands, and the impact goes much farther than just those people. Ten by Three is impacting communities and economies in a major way as well, because–in many of these towns and villages–a small business can largely affect the economy and circulation of money.
Ten by Three accomplishes things like transforming artisans into full-on entrepreneurs. According to their website, Ten by Three has created a formula to end poverty for struggling artisans. Purchasing 10 handcrafted pieces from each person per month, can then prompt them to jumpstart 3 small businesses in addition to what they’re already doing. Their name is also a possible solution to poverty.
“So now to be a part of UNA-USA, my hope is that I get–as a leader–renewed strength, I’m in a group of like-minded people, and that I’m going to be able to encourage another leader who might be at their point in their journey where they’re tired and exhausted and wondering if they’re screaming into the wind…I hope to be able to share and inspire.”
Carrington shares that she came to this event particularly to share with others the story of Ten by Three, and to encourage other leaders, whoever they are, to take action with things that they care about. UNA-USA is a congregation of leaders who are all working together for a common cause in various different ways, and Carrington represents a working part of it. We are all parts of the same body, some are the hands, some are the legs, some are the ears, etc. Carrington, being a part of this organization, is able to serve as a part of this body, and encourage others to also assist in this cause.
“It starts with people like you who care enough to see the details of the story and see the good. You know, I don’t care who you are. Even with my own organization, people could look at us from the outside and they could say, ‘oh, you know, who are you to ask people living in extreme poverty to start three businesses?’….they’re not taking time to find the real story and the beauty in that story. It also doesn’t mean they have to agree with everything. And I think that’s actually a measure of success.”
I then asked Carrington what those who are affiliated with the UN or UNA-USA should be talking about when they are faced with people who are only seeing the “bad” or negative things the UN is doing, rather than seeing the good things that are being done in the same area. Carrington excellently explained her position on this topic, clarifying that it’s important for people to do research and look hard at the things they don’t agree with. It’s almost necessary for people, especially younger generations, to research and find the details of what they believe in or don’t believe in as society is developing and as we humans are developing. She goes on to say that being controversial can also be a measure of success. She says “If you were perfect to everybody, you would be nothing to everybody,” which is very profound. If you think about the issue you care most about in the world, it’s likely that it’s controversial to people, which is a sign of something that you can stand up for or against. It defines an organization that is willing to say that they might ruffle some feathers, but they believe it’s right to do what they’re doing.
I then thanked her for her time, and we walked back to the conference room. I am really happy with how that interview went. I think it was a wonderful discussion about controversy, standing up to adversaries, service and sustainability, poverty, and much more.
After meeting all these wonderful people before the conference had even started, I–and many others–sat down in the main room. When almost everybody had arrived, the chatter finally ceased, and the event was kicked off by the Executive Director, Rachel Bowen Pittman.
The theme for the conference was “Meeting the Moment–Our Moment.” We were greeted by Carlos Suarez, the Director of Economic Development (International Institute of STL) and the UNA-Greater STL Chapter and Director. He gave us a brief overview of the event, and presented us with a message of showing up in leadership growth.
After his presentation, Jody Sowell, President and CEO of the Missouri Historical Society gave his own presentation about the importance of St. Louis. MHS works closely with the UN sustainable development goals and organizations. He gave us somewhat of a historical overview of major events that relate to SDG goals that all happened from Missouri.
When that was all finished, the last speaker was Will Davis–remember him–who is the Director of the UN Information Center in the Washington Representation Office. He talked to all of us about what it means to be a globalist (someone who advocates for global change rather than national change). He spoke to us about acting locally, but thinking globally.
These speakers were some of my favorite parts of the conference. I really enjoyed listening to their insight because they were all so passionate about their presentations.
After this was done, we moved into breakout sessions. There were three different rooms to choose from, and they all covered various different topics. For the first two sessions, I was called upon to run the microphone around, but I was listening in because the conversations were incredibly compelling. The first two really stood out to me. They were discussions with Will Davis, the director of the UNIC (United Nations Information Center).
The first session was a discussion centered around Will Davis, and what he thinks about certain topics. It focused primarily on insight he could bring to US related topics.
Before Davis arrived, the session kicked off with a small talk about what the further goals of UNA-USA would be this coming year, and over time.
“UNA-USA is part of a larger global network of UNAs. So you heard Will talk about member states of the United Nations, 193 member states. There’s actually, I believe, 189 UNAs across the world. So just like we are the United Nations Association of our country, there are UNAs in Brazil…Scotland…Kenya…So one thing that I’m hoping to do this next coming year is looking at how we partner more significantly with UNAs in the member states of other countries.”
We began with this topic of UNA-USA’s goals to have more communication and collaboration between us and other UNAs, with hopes to achieve more significant goals and even more efficiently and effectively. This is something that they are reportedly working on for the coming years. This is especially noteworthy because the collaborations between UNAs of different countries promotes direct people-to-people collaboration towards the same goals and encourages a sense of community between cultures.
At this point, Davis had arrived at the session after his interview with other students and he joined the discussion. The key points we focused on were really all pertaining to the United States and its involvement in the UN.
The funding, or lack thereof, to the UN has had severe consequences due to the fact that the US is the largest donor to the United Nations and funds most of their projects.
Will begins, “It’s not the UN’s job to meddle in the domestic political affairs of our member states… a big part of what we do in Washington is talk to Washington about the money, and yeah, you know, the money’s not always sexy. It’s kind of boring, but it is so important in terms of the U.S. being traditionally, by far, the largest donor and contributor to the UN system, and they don’t do it because it makes them feel good. They do it because it serves U.S. interests in many instances, whether it be support for peacekeeping missions, whether it be support for humanitarian relief, whether it be trying to find common policies on economic issues, so the UN system is useful to the United States. As far as Congress, we’ve seen some pretty disturbing developments over the first part of this year. There have been the rescission packages that, you know, as Washington speaks, for money that Congress has given to the executive branch that then the executive branch gives back. We’ve also seen a president’s budget request in the spring that really requested very little funding for the U.S. to contribute to the UN system, and for the most part, at least the House of Representatives has blessed that approach.”
Davis provides us with a lot of information that is relevant to this issue. Money is a big part of the UN, and the world at large, which is why it’s so important to this problem. The United States has allotted less money to the United Nations, which is going to impact the future of the UN in a large way. Congress has agreed to take back funds from the UN, backing President Donald Trump’s request. This rescission of funds demonstrates a motion from the US towards lower financial commitment when it comes to the United Nations as a whole.
Davis goes on to say, “So there are assessed contributions based on the size of your economy and your population, and the US gets assessed at a rate of about 21% of the UN budget…roughly 25% of the peacekeeping budget is also assessed. And then finally, there are the voluntary contributions, and this is what kind of surprises a lot of people in the United States. Organizations that everyone has heard of, like UNICEF or the UN’s World Food Program or the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, nobody has to give them a penny, unless they’re doing things that countries find to be in their interest. And traditionally, the US has supported those parts of the UN system really generously with voluntary contributions…So those three funding streams all contribute to the work of the UN system, and we have seen dramatic cuts in voluntary contributions, which have meant layoffs or firing of UN staff, but more importantly, reducing the services, reducing food that we give out to people through WFP, reducing the number of refugees that we can shelter refugees in through the work of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.”
We went way more into what these budget cuts can mean for the future of the United Nations. Here, Davis speaks about what the consequences of these severe funding cuts may eventually lead to in the future. Obviously, there’s going to be less money going to these services that are provided by the UN, not to mention the layoffs and firings that are inevitably going to take place. The UN, due to the United States’ money and involvement, can do much more with the resources they have. Without this money, there is no doubt that the UN will need to downsize and perhaps even put entire programs on hold. The UN is currently seeing major decreases in the funds coming from the US in both annual dues and voluntary contributions, which both hold a lot of importance. According to the UN website, the US already owes about 1.5 billion dollars in unpaid dues. So this rescission of funds isn’t only bad for the UN, but it also puts the US further in debt. So, generally, this seems like a lose-lose situation.
The second session with Will Davis was a discussion about how the US withdrawal from the WHO (World Health Organization) will impact the United States and the world as a whole. This discussion was not very different from the first session, and a lot of the same talking points were brought up, but it was a deeper dive into these issues.
The first question to really kick us off: “So according to AI, the World Health Organization in 2025, the U.N. Human Rights Council, the U.N. Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees, UNESCO we have announced in 2025 and that will be completed by 2026, and we have ended all funding for the U.N. Population Fund. So advocating for any of this, I’m just saying that Siri believes that this is the comprehensive list, but what else has the U.S. withdrawn from, and what else should we be worried about as fellow globalists?”
This was just a list of UN-run organizations that the United States has withdrawn from. UNRWA, UN Human Rights Council, WHO, UNESCO, and UNFPA. This really launched a discussion about the UN and US relationship, which has really been tainted over the years.
Davis answers, “We have not seen a specific list of reforms come from the administration yet, so they’re not paying and they’re not telling us what we need to do in order to get paid, but we’re working with them to try to advance that…whenever there’s a change between a Democratic and a Republican administration, that funding for UNFPA generally gets frozen or [unfrozen]…But over the years, I’ve picked up some useful notes. So I think Bettina or somebody mentioned the dollar, 86 per capita per year. That saves people’s lives. That feeds people that would otherwise go to bed hungry through the U.N.’s World Food Program. In addition, that provides shelter to people that have been driven from their homes…through the work of the…UNHCR, the U.N. Refugee Agency…the U.N. is the mechanism for delivering that humanitarian relief that literally saves lives.”
He mentions the fact that the funding from the US to different organizations of the United Nations typically go through depending on the government party at the time. Davis also mentions the fact that the dues the United States are asked to pay is roughly 1.86 dollars per capita. This money goes to UN organizations that save peoples’ lives around the world. Though the US does have some reason for leaving these organizations, it’s the view of many that they do more good in the world than they do bad. Still, it’s a very hot topic of how many organizations have been left by the United States recently (pretty much all of them left in 2025).
Davis then goes on to talk about the benefits to the US, saying, “So much of the contributions that WFP uses to feed people around the world come from American farmers. So when you’re talking about American food assistance, it’s not only coming from American farms, it’s being shipped on American flag carriers. So the economic benefits to the agricultural community in the United States are particularly important. And then if you look at things like U.N. peacekeeping, the U.S. Government Accountability Office several years ago did a study that said it is one-eighth the cost to the United States to send in a U.N. peacekeeping mission compared to unilateral deployment of U.S. troops. So is U.N. peacekeeping a perfect tool? Absolutely not. But is it sometimes better than doing nothing and watching a country devolve into chaos or have a fragile peace unprotected? Absolutely.”
Davis lays out a lot of points of why the US benefits from financially contributing to the UN. The WFP purchases a large portion of the food they use from American farmers and use American shipping and handling, contributing to the US economy. Not only this, but since UN peacekeeping is drastically cheaper than the deployment of American troops, the UN has the possibility to be a more cost-effective tool for the United States to achieve foreign policy goals.
We then got into the question-answer segment of this discussion. There were many questions regarding how the UN will be getting over, not only the lack of funding from the United States, but the lack of funding for many of the other large donors. Davis says “…[it] was pretty clear that we weren’t going to be getting all the resources we’re used to, let’s go to the Brits or let’s go to the French or the Germans or the Scandinavians. They’re tightening their belts too, whether it’s because they’re dealing with their own domestic populist forces or whether they’re paying more for their own defense through NATO as encouraged by the United States.”
Many other countries that pay large sums of funds to the UN have been directing their money elsewhere. The Geneva Headquarters alone will be losing roughly 85% of their workstaff. The WHO is losing about 20% of their staff. And these are only two organizations of the UN. This also means that many peacekeeping missions are not going to be able to take place due to lack of funding from these high-donating countries.
The next question focused on what the implications of the US leaving the WHO will mean for the UN and the United States. Davis begins, “[I was hoping] They [The United States] might pause and rethink that. Because I think it’s hard to find a clearer example of shooting ourselves in the foot than the U.S. not having a seat at the table at the WHO. So I mentioned in my remarks the first country to show up with a massive check to the WHO to try to fill the void of the American withdrawal was China. They’ve obviously got their own commercial and industrial interests that they think they can influence by having a greater role within the WHO…So in tandem with WHO, I think these are things that are directly beneficial to Americans. It helps us to be able to stop diseases when we know about them overseas before they show up here at the door of the United States. With specific regard to the WHO, obviously it was the pandemic that I think created a political dynamic that soured the United States on working with the WHO. I wish we’d been able to do more early on in this administration to try to get over that sour feeling because I’m convinced U.S. full and active participation in the WHO really is to our advantage.”
The relationship between the WHO and the US has been one filled with tension, which was particularly clear to see during the 2020 pandemic and right after. The US, before their withdrawal, had been a large donor to the WHO and was very involved in it. Even throughout different US government administrations over the years.
In the US, there is a major existence of distrust of the WHO because of their handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic. There are concerns around the WHOs effectiveness, political bias, and management as a whole.
There were a few other questions, but these were the ones that felt the most relevant to what the session was really about.
After these sessions, we all took a break and had lunch, but we got right back to it quickly.
For the next session, I decided to move rooms, since I had been in the same room for the entire time. I headed on over to a session all about youth empowerment. The overall message really resonated with me because I, myself, am what most would consider part of the youth.
Something they talked a lot about was how important it is to have a mentor, and to seek advice from someone who has gone through the same thing as you. The speakers said, “Pick a mentor, have a mentor, be a mentor. I would not be where I am without my community. And I know I joke with Bettina about this all the time. If I hadn’t said hi, where would I be? But I do, I truly mean it. And the community within the UNA space between San Diego and their open arms, national capital area and their open arms.”
They speak about how important it is to have a community. I related this to the common use phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child.” When you’re young in the world, you’re going through a lot of new experiences, and having someone who you can go to for advice, insight, etc means a lot.
We also talked about how we, as youth, can have a voice and some kind of power in the world. There’s that big difference between voice and power, where you need to ask yourself: “If I wasn’t here, would the decision still be the same? And if that answer is no, then there is still work to do. Young people everywhere are causing change using this power and the platforms that UNA-USA provides.
After this discussion, I was able to move on to another. I moved along to a message all about public speaking and getting a message across to different audiences. I was particularly interested in this one because I am in a position in which I deal with a lot of public speaking, coupled with the fact that I’m still a student. This session was led by Monte Chambers, founder of Monumental Access. Chambers spoke to us about using the “head, heart, and legs” strategy in order to make our messages more compelling. The head represents the hook, the heart represents a personal connection to the message, and the legs represents an action that the audience is compelled to take after your message.
After his message, I pulled Chambers aside for an interview because I really identified with his ideas.
“My name is Monte Chambers…I am a full-time public safety consultant. What that includes, I do a lot of teaching, facilitating across the United States to different government relations departments in public safety, police, fire, EMS, as well as I work a lot with transitional teams regarding the political parties as well.”
Chambers, founder of Monumental Access (MA), does a lot with the youth of America, which is why I wanted to interview him. Monumental Access, according to the website, deals with public service, crisis communications, understanding human behavior, and leadership extraction. MA is a consulting group that provides insight and training for law enforcement, healthcare, and leaders in faith.
I asked him about what his vision was for this conference. Chambers answered, “I think the biggest thing is seeing the amount of young professionals coming together, all unified, with the same cause. I think one of the things that you guys’ conference was doing in the moment and how important that really is. And so I made sure from my background, as someone who teaches for a living, how I can communicate and how powerful it is to be an American. So it was really encouraging being able to see a lot of young professionals come together and actually wanting to learn. Working with one another, I think it really goes a long way for sure.”
Chambers, like many of the other speakers and attendees at the conference, wanted to see unity, collaboration, leadership, among other things coming from the youth especially, but from everybody in general. I feel like this was very much accomplished over these two days.
I then asked about what advice he might have for young people who may be interested in talking about these controversial topics. Chambers said, “Yeah, well, one piece of advice I would give is to lean into it. There’s nothing wrong with the controversy. If a topic is considered controversial, that means that we’re not talking about it enough in the public spaces. There’s nothing wrong with communicating your ideas. We all live in the United States. We all have freedom of speech. Your ideas can be different from mine. But the common denominator, the thing that we have in common, is that we’re human. There’s nothing more greater than being human and respecting somebody who has maybe a difference of opinions. But if a topic is being controversial, that just means that we’re not communicating enough in the public space.”
I really enjoyed what he had to say about this. Chambers shows that controversy is really just a call to action, and that you shouldn’t avoid something just because it’s controversial, but actually the opposite should happen. If something is controversial, it should be discussed more. There are, of course, things that everyone will not always reach a common understanding on, but there are many issues that can be solved by talking to one another. A fundamental belief that America was built on is the freedom to talk about anything. To have an opinion on anything. No matter what anyone says, your opinion is your own, and you have the right to keep it or change it whenever you want.
I then thanked him for his time and we went our separate ways.
Immediately following my interview with him, I left to join the rest of the group in the main room. This was where the closing ceremony was being held. I arrived very near the end.
When everybody was dismissed, some people were given the option to stay after for a small concert with AY Young, the first artist to go on a tour that was 100% powered by renewable resources, The Battery Tour. This tour was the biggest tour powered with renewable energy ever performed. With more than 900 concerts and counting through more than 17 different countries including Haiti, Honduras, and several African countries. AY Young is also the creator of the Project 17 album–a seventeen track album, with each song representing a different UN Sustainable Development Goal. This album was created to inspire action behind the various goals by ordinary people through music. AY Young spoke about his mission to spread awareness about these goals and their importance all throughout the world.
Unfortunately, I had to leave early due to some prior commitments I had made. However, the energy was high when I left and everybody seemed to be having a great time. The performance was quite engaging, and he explained a lot about what he does and why it’s important to him.
The UNA-USA Leadership Summit in St. Louis was an exceptional experience that successfully unified a dedicated group of young professionals and seasoned leaders around a shared vision for global engagement. From the inspiring model of Ten by Three, which proves that entrepreneurship can end extreme poverty, to the strategic sessions with Will Davis, who clarified how UN funding directly benefits U.S. economic and security interests, the conference made the seemingly distant work of the United Nations immediate and relevant. Most importantly, the summit championed the spirit of active civic responsibility, encouraging attendees to “lean into controversy” and recognize open dialogue—even on challenging topics—as a measure of progress. Ultimately, the event reaffirmed the profound value of the UNA-USA community in providing a crucial platform for learning, collaboration, and inspiring the next generation to act locally while thinking globally.
