Surge in Belief in Conspiracy Theories During the COVID-19 Pandemic
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a dramatic rise in the number of individuals worldwide who began to believe in conspiracy theories, particularly those related to the notion of a "new world order" and the United Nations' Agenda 2030. The unprecedented global crisis created fertile ground for these narratives, as societies faced widespread anxiety, uncertainty, and the breakdown of routine social and economic structures. Many of these conspiracy theories suggested a coordinated effort by powerful elites to use the pandemic as a pretext for imposing a totalitarian world government, frequently pointing to the United Nations and its Agenda 2030 as evidence of this supposed scheme.
In these narratives, the UN was portrayed as a secretive body intent on creating a global regime that would override national sovereignty, control populations through draconian measures, and manipulate all levels of society, including education and personal freedoms. The idea of a "new world order" thus became a popular rhetorical device, implying that institutions like the UN were orchestrating a fundamental and tyrannical transformation of the modern world order under the guise of global governance.
The Limited Power of the United Nations
Despite the proliferation of such conspiracy theories, the reality of the United Nations' power and influence is far more modest. The United Nations is an international organization comprised of sovereign member states, established to foster peace, facilitate cooperation, promote sustainable development, protect human rights, and uphold international law. The structure of the UN consists of main bodies like the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, International Court of Justice, Trusteeship Council (now inactive), and the Secretariat. Each of these organs functions within clearly delineated mandates, and the vast majority of the UN's activities revolve around dialogue, negotiation, and issuing non-binding recommendations rather than exercising enforceable authority over nations.
The UN does not—nor can it—impose laws or regulations upon its member states or their populations. Its role is advisory: it offers a platform for discussion and consensus-building and provides technical and strategic guidance in areas such as development, human rights, and humanitarian assistance. Actual decisions about policy implementation or legal compliance rest with each sovereign member state. Even in situations where the UN Security Council issues binding resolutions—such as matters of international peace and security—enforcement relies on the cooperation and capacities of its member nations, not on unilateral UN action.
UN Influence on National Governments, Schools, and Institutions
The influence of the United Nations on national governments and institutions—such as schools—is fundamentally consultative and indirect. Through measures like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and initiatives such as Agenda 2030, the UN provides frameworks for aspirational targets that member states voluntarily endorse and may choose to integrate into their own national policies. These global agendas are not binding treaties; they are guidelines intended to inspire national action, disseminate best practices, and encourage collaborative progress.
Regarding educational institutions, the United Nations can facilitate partnerships or provide platforms for information exchange—such as with the United Nations Academic Impact initiative and the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative—but it does not control curricula or school operations in member states. Issues such as educational content, teaching standards, and school governance remain entirely within the remit of national and local authorities. The UN may offer guidance on promoting universal education, equity, or sustainability, but implementation is always voluntary and adapted to local needs by national governments. The same consultative model applies in other sectors—such as health, environment, and law—where the UN provides expertise and facilitates cooperation rather than holding executive power.
Conditions for the Rise of Autocratic or Utilitarian Leaders During the Pandemic
While conspiracy theories focused on imaginary world domination by international organizations, the actual political developments during the pandemic were shaped by tangible and localized crisis dynamics. The COVID-19 pandemic created extreme conditions—widespread suffering, prolonged isolation, and waves of uncertainty—that allowed, in many countries, leaders with autocratic or utilitarian tendencies to assert greater control.
Emergency measures, justified by the need to contain the pandemic, were sometimes used to expand executive power, curtail civil liberties, delay elections, limit protests, and increase surveillance. For example, in countries with already fragile democratic institutions, governments took advantage of the crisis to suppress opposition and further restrict political rights. In still-democratic countries, ambitious populists and strongmen pushed existing boundaries, diminishing parliamentary oversight and leveraging the crisis to their political advantage.
These developments, however, were the results of local power dynamics and constitutional structures, not coordinated global schemes. They show how governments under stress may exploit emergencies to consolidate authority, but these actions were not dictated by or coordinated with the UN or any other international body.
Suffering, Isolation, and Misinformation: Conditions for Political and Social Change
The pandemic's impacts—prolonged suffering, economic hardship, social isolation, and a deluge of misinformation—contributed greatly to the public's vulnerability to authoritarian rhetoric and conspiracy narratives. Days and months of lockdown left many individuals reliant on fragmented or biased sources of information, deepening mistrust of public authorities and fueling suspicion of elites and international organizations. Polarization and a loss of trust in democratic norms accelerated in many societies, as fear and uncertainty heightened receptiveness to simplistic explanations for complex problems.
This climate of anxiety and mistrust bore striking similarities to populist movements such as Trumpism in the United States, which also thrived on skepticism toward established institutions, the spread of misinformation, and narratives that depicted governments or global elites as corrupt or self-serving. In both cases—conspiracy theories and populist movements—distrust of traditional authorities and the desire for more direct or radical solutions to perceived crises found fertile ground in the social dislocation of the pandemic.
Comparing Conspiracy Theories and Reality
In comparing the conspiracy theories about a "new world order" or a UN-led global takeover with the reality of what occurred during the pandemic, the disconnection is significant. The UN did not and could not impose a global regime—it continued in its customary role as a facilitator of international cooperation, an advisor to nations, and a forum for coordination. The genuine risks to democracy and liberty that arose during the pandemic did not stem from UN mandates or international schemes but from the way national governments navigated domestic challenges, sometimes expanding executive power under emergency pretexts.
What actually happened was a complex and often troubling constellation of local and national responses driven by extraordinary circumstances—suffering, isolation, and the spread of misinformation—that set the stage for the rise or strengthening of autocratic tendencies in diverse political systems around the world. While populist movements like Trumpism in the US and similar trends elsewhere amplified distrust and polarization, the underlying drivers were the social and psychological impacts of the pandemic and not orchestrated machinations by the United Nations or any other external body.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic unmistakably increased public susceptibility to conspiracy theories, especially those projecting the United Nations as a new totalitarian regime bent on establishing a "new world order" under Agenda 2030. However, these beliefs are fundamentally disconnected from the reality of the UN's nature and powers—it remains an advisory and consultative organization, subject to the sovereignty and voluntary cooperation of its member states, with strictly limited influence over national policies, schools, or other institutions. The real transformations witnessed during the pandemic resulted from domestic politics, suffering, isolation, and the spread of misinformation, which at times enabled leaders with autocratic ambitions to seize opportunities for power—not because of international diktat, but due to the particular social and institutional challenges posed by the global crisis. The interplay between these conspiratorial imaginations and the true sources of political change during the pandemic highlights the need for critical scrutiny of both the content and context of such narratives.
