The United States announced its decision to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), effective December 31, 2026, marking its third exit from the agency since 1984. This move, driven by the Trump administration’s “America First” policy, has sparked global debate about its broader implications for international cooperation, cultural preservation, and geopolitical dynamics. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay expressed deep regret, stating that the decision “contradicts the fundamental principles of multilateralism” and could impact U.S. partners seeking World Heritage status, Creative City designations, and academic collaborations.
The Context of the U.S. Withdrawal
The U.S. decision to leave UNESCO, as articulated by State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, stems from accusations that the agency promotes “divisive social and cultural causes” and an “outsized focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals,” which the administration views as a “globalist, ideological agenda” at odds with U.S. interests. The recognition of Palestine as a member state in 2011, deemed “highly problematic” by the U.S., has been a long-standing grievance, with claims of anti-Israel bias fueling the withdrawal. This echoes the U.S. exit in 2017 under Trump’s first term, which was reversed by the Biden administration in 2023 to counter Chinese influence. Azoulay, however, countered that UNESCO’s efforts, particularly in Holocaust education and combating antisemitism, contradict these accusations, emphasizing the agency’s inclusive mission to embrace all nations.
The withdrawal will reduce UNESCO’s budget by approximately 8%—a significant but not crippling loss, as the agency has diversified funding since the U.S. stopped contributions in 2011. Nonetheless, the move raises questions about the U.S.’s commitment to multilateralism and its ripple effects on global education, science, culture, and geopolitics.
Global Implications of the U.S. Withdrawal
The U.S. exit from UNESCO carries far-reaching consequences across multiple domains, from cultural preservation to international influence and global stability.
Cultural and Educational Impacts
UNESCO, with its mandate to foster peace through education, science, culture, and communication, oversees over 2,000 World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves, and Global Geoparks, alongside networks of Creative Cities and educational programs. The U.S. withdrawal could disrupt American participation in these initiatives:
World Heritage and Creative Cities: U.S. sites like the Grand Canyon and cities seeking Creative City status may face challenges in securing UNESCO designations or funding. Azoulay highlighted that this decision “may affect first and foremost our many partners in the United States,” potentially limiting opportunities for cultural recognition and economic benefits tied to tourism.
Educational Programs: UNESCO’s initiatives, such as literacy campaigns and girls’ education in conflict zones like Yemen and Ukraine, rely on global cooperation. The U.S. absence could weaken these efforts, particularly in regions where American expertise and funding have been pivotal. For instance, UNESCO’s reconstruction of Mosul’s old city, a landmark project, benefited from U.S.-aligned resources.
Scientific Collaboration: UNESCO’s leadership in setting global standards for artificial intelligence ethics and ocean sustainability will lose U.S. input, potentially diminishing American influence in shaping these frameworks. Representative Gregory Meeks warned that China could “celebrate our empty seat” in setting AI standards, a critical area for global technology governance.
Geopolitical Shifts
The U.S. withdrawal strengthens the perception of American disengagement from multilateralism, creating power vacuums that other nations, notably China, may fill:
Rising Chinese Influence: During the U.S.’s absence from UNESCO (2017–2023), China became the agency’s largest financial backer. The Biden administration rejoined in 2023 to counter this trend, but the 2025 exit risks ceding further ground. China’s increased sway could shape UNESCO’s priorities, from AI standards to cultural designations, aligning them with Beijing’s interests.
Strained Alliances: European allies, including France, have expressed alarm at the U.S. move, viewing it as part of a broader retreat from global institutions like the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council. This could strain transatlantic partnerships, as allies balance support for U.S. positions with their commitment to multilateralism.
Global Governance Weakening: The U.S., a founding member of UNESCO, has historically shaped its agenda. Withdrawal reduces its ability to influence policies on education, heritage, and science, potentially undermining the rules-based international order. India, advocating for a “world is one family” approach, may step up as a stabilizing force, but it cannot fully replace U.S. influence.
Economic and Budgetary Consequences
UNESCO’s $1.5 billion annual budget will face an 8% shortfall with the loss of the U.S.’s $75 million contribution in 2025. While Azoulay noted that diversified funding has mitigated reliance on the U.S. (down from 40% for some UN agencies), cuts to programs in developing nations, such as literacy initiatives and heritage preservation, are likely. This could exacerbate inequalities in education and cultural access, particularly in Africa and the Middle East.
Symbolic and Normative Impacts
The withdrawal sends a symbolic message about U.S. priorities, prioritizing national sovereignty over global cooperation. Azoulay’s statement that the decision contradicts multilateralism underscores UNESCO’s role as a “rare forum for consensus.” The absence of the U.S. could embolden other nations to question their commitments, weakening the UN system’s cohesion.
Is the U.S. Setting an Inappropriate Precedent?
The U.S.’s repeated withdrawals from UNESCO—1984, 2017, and now 2025—raise concerns about setting a precedent that undermines international cooperation:
Erosion of Multilateral Norms: International relations experts warn that the U.S.’s pattern of exiting and rejoining UNESCO based on political shifts signals that membership in global institutions is optional. This could encourage other nations to withdraw when agendas misalign, destabilizing the UN system. For example, Israel’s simultaneous withdrawal in 2017 reinforced perceptions of coordinated disengagement by major powers.
Encouraging Unilateralism: The Trump administration’s rationale—rejecting UNESCO’s “globalist agenda” and perceived anti-Israel bias—aligns with a broader trend of unilateral actions, including exits from the Paris Climate Agreement and WHO. Critics argue this fosters an “America Alone” approach, diminishing U.S. soft power and ceding leadership to rivals like China.
Impact on Smaller Nations: Developing countries reliant on UNESCO’s programs may face reduced support, as the U.S.’s exit could prompt others to scale back contributions. This precedent risks prioritizing political grievances over collective global challenges like education access and climate resilience.
However, supporters of the withdrawal, including voices on X, argue it sets a positive precedent by rejecting institutions that stray from their founding missions. They claim UNESCO’s focus on “divisive” issues like DEI and Palestinian membership justifies the exit, saving U.S. taxpayers $150 million annually. Yet, this view overlooks the long-term costs of reduced global influence and weakened cooperative frameworks.
How Does the U.S. Want to See UN Institutions?
The Trump administration’s actions and rhetoric provide insight into its vision for UN institutions:
Alignment with U.S. Interests: The U.S. seeks institutions that prioritize American sovereignty and values, as evidenced by the February 2025 executive order mandating a review of UNESCO and other agencies for “anti-American sentiment” and anti-Israel bias. The State Department’s criticism of UNESCO’s Sustainable Development Goals suggests a rejection of agendas perceived as ideologically driven.
Transactional Engagement: Trump’s foreign policy favors bilateral deals over multilateral commitments, viewing UN agencies as costly unless they deliver direct benefits. The withdrawal from UNESCO, UNRWA, and the UN Human Rights Council reflects a preference for selective engagement, focusing on “non-politicized issues” where the U.S. can maintain influence as a non-member observer.
Reform and Accountability: The U.S. demands “fundamental reform” in UN agencies, citing mismanagement and bias. This aligns with historical criticisms, such as Reagan’s 1984 exit over UNESCO’s perceived anti-Western stance. The administration’s call for reduced bureaucracy and alignment with “America First” policies suggests a desire for leaner, U.S.-centric institutions.
Countering Rival Influence: While withdrawing, the U.S. remains wary of China’s growing role in UN bodies. The Biden administration’s 2023 rejoining of UNESCO aimed to counter Beijing, and some analysts suggest Trump’s team may pursue observer status to monitor China’s influence without full membership commitments.
A Unique Perspective: The Ripple Effect on Global Stability
The U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO is not merely a financial or diplomatic maneuver; it’s a signal of shifting global priorities at a time when cooperation is critical. UNESCO’s work—whether rebuilding Mosul, setting AI ethics standards, or protecting biodiversity—addresses root causes of conflict and instability. The U.S.’s absence risks amplifying global challenges:
Cultural Heritage at Risk: Without U.S. support, efforts to protect sites like Syria’s Palmyra or counter the illicit antiquities trade that funds terrorism could falter, as noted in a 2017 New York City Bar Association letter emphasizing UNESCO’s role in global security.
Educational Gaps: UNESCO’s programs for girls’ education and literacy in conflict zones are vital for reducing migration and extremism. Cuts could exacerbate humanitarian crises, indirectly affecting U.S. security interests.
Scientific Leadership Vacuum: As climate change and technological disruption accelerate, UNESCO’s role in coordinating global responses is crucial. The U.S.’s exit may hinder progress on ocean sustainability and AI governance, areas where American innovation has historically led.
The U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO in 2025 carries profound implications for global cultural preservation, education, science, and geopolitics. By reducing its financial and diplomatic presence, the U.S. risks ceding influence to rivals like China, straining alliances, and weakening multilateral frameworks essential for addressing global challenges. While the move may align with a nationalist “America First” agenda, it sets a precedent that could destabilize the UN system, encouraging other nations to prioritize short-term political gains over long-term cooperation. The U.S. envisions UN institutions as lean, aligned with its interests, and free from perceived biases, but this vision may come at the cost of global leadership and stability. As Azoulay affirmed, UNESCO will continue engaging with American partners, but the path to multilateral consensus grows narrower without U.S. participation.
