U.S. Announces Withdrawal from UNESCO, Citing Bias and Policy Concerns

WASHINGTON, D.C. – July 22, 2025 — The United States government has formally announced its intention to leave UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, by December 2026. This move, declared by the Trump administration, marks a renewed departure and intensifies an already turbulent relationship between America and the UN agency.

U.S.-UNESCO Relationship Enters Another Turbulent Phase

The U.S. will exit UNESCO primarily citing what the administration describes as the agency’s anti-Israel bias, its support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and the inclusion of the “State of Palestine” as a member state. In a statement, a White House spokesperson described UNESCO as backing “woke, divisive cultural and social causes,” which are, according to the administration, “totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November.”

Historical Context: A Pattern of Withdrawal and Re-engagement

This departure is the second time during Donald Trump’s presidency that the U.S. has left UNESCO, the first being in 2017, also over alleged bias against Israel. The United States rejoined the body under President Joe Biden in 2023, only to reverse course as Trump began his second term in January 2025. This pattern is not without precedent; under President Ronald Reagan in 1984, the U.S. similarly withdrew, accusing the organization of mismanagement and politicization of global issues. Only under President George W. Bush did the country return in 2003, before subsequent cycles of exit and return under later administrations.

These oscillations underscore the volatile nature of the U.S.-UNESCO relationship, with shifts largely reflecting broader U.S. attitudes toward multilateral international bodies and contested foreign policy positions, particularly those involving Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Reasons for Withdrawal: Palestine, Policy Disputes, and Ideological Concerns

The Trump administration’s rationale for the withdrawal is multifaceted. The most prominent points are:

• Alleged Anti-Israel Bias: U.S. officials claim that UNESCO has promoted rhetoric and initiatives hostile to Israel, pointing to the agency’s recognition of Palestine as a member state since 2011—a status the U.S. does not recognize.
• UNESCO’s Social Policy Agenda: The administration cited opposition to UNESCO’s support of DEI initiatives, gender equity, and programs aligned with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Trump officials have frequently labeled these efforts as promoting a “globalist, ideological agenda” misaligned with U.S. interests.
• Broader Shift Away from Multilateralism: The withdrawal is also seen as part of a larger repositioning, with the U.S. stepping back from several other international organizations during Trump’s terms, such as the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council.

Economic Impact: Funding Shortfalls and Cultural Implications

One of the most significant consequences of U.S. withdrawal is the effect on UNESCO’s budget. The United States has historically been among the organization’s largest contributors, providing approximately 22% of its annual funding during some periods. Previous withdrawals, such as in the 1980s and late 2010s, forced UNESCO to downsize programs and seek increased support from other members.

UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay expressed deep regret at the decision, acknowledging that while anticipated, it presents operational challenges. However, Azoulay emphasized that reforms and contingency plans have placed the agency in a stronger position to weather the loss, stating the organization is now “better protected in financial terms.”

The Withdrawal’s Impact on American Influence is also noteworthy. By stepping away, the U.S. surrenders its voting rights and diminishes its ability to shape global standards on education, science, and heritage preservation—areas where American leadership has historically contributed to international consensus and policy innovation.

UNESCO’s Global Mission and Response

UNESCO remains best known for protecting World Heritage sites, advancing educational access, fostering scientific research, and promoting freedom of expression. Examples of its signature achievements include establishing global standards for safeguarding cultural treasures, coordinating responses to illicit trafficking of antiquities, and supporting innovative digital learning platforms in under-resourced regions.

In the wake of the U.S. announcement, support for UNESCO has poured in from other member states. French President Emmanuel Macron reinforced France’s “unwavering support,” calling UNESCO a “universal guardian” for science and culture. Conversely, officials such as Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar praised the U.S. withdrawal, viewing it as an act of moral support and leadership in the face of perceived institutional bias.

Regional and Global Comparisons: How Other Nations React

While the U.S. and Israel have expressed deep dissatisfaction with UNESCO’s policies, many countries have continued to uphold the agency’s centrality to global cultural and educational cooperation. Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia have predominantly maintained or even increased their engagement with UNESCO on collaborative initiatives ranging from environmental protection to artificial intelligence governance.

The divergence between U.S. policy and the prevailing views of other Western allies is pronounced. For instance, the European Union and the UK remain active supporters, emphasizing UNESCO’s role in fostering cross-cultural understanding and addressing transnational challenges. In the Middle East, reactions are often polarized, reflecting deep-seated disputes over representation, history, and sovereignty.

American Public and Sector Reaction

The U.S. withdrawal has triggered mixed responses across the American education, cultural, and scientific communities. Advocates for international collaboration warn the move risks isolating American institutions, scholars, and students from global networks and grant opportunities, especially in heritage conservation, digital education, and climate research. Public reaction on social media has ranged from strong support among those opposing perceived international overreach, to disappointment among educators and cultural professionals concerned about lost opportunities and diminished American influence.

Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations and many universities are calling for continued informal partnerships, seeking ways to cushion the impact on ongoing U.S.-UNESCO projects. Some have urged Congress to consider alternative mechanisms for maintaining America’s voice in global educational and cultural policy, particularly as UNESCO’s reach extends to pressing topics such as artificial intelligence standards and global media literacy.

Looking Ahead: What U.S. Departure Means for Global Governance

The U.S. decision to withdraw from UNESCO is emblematic of a broader skepticism toward multilateralism and international governance. It raises questions about the future role of global agencies in addressing issues that transcend national boundaries, from heritage preservation to educational innovation. For UNESCO, adapting to another U.S. withdrawal will require agility—both in replacing lost funding and navigating an evolving leadership landscape.

While Director-General Azoulay and key international partners have pledged to persevere in UNESCO’s core mission, the exit of the U.S. is likely to reshape dynamics in cultural diplomacy, standards-setting, and global education for years to come.

With the planned departure set for December 31, 2026, stakeholders across government, civil society, and academia are bracing for a new era—one in which America’s role in global cultural and scientific cooperation stands at a crucial crossroads. The decision’s long-term impact will hinge not only on diplomatic recalibration, but also on whether constructive U.S. engagement with international cultural governance can be reimagined—or whether ties will fray beyond repair.