New Delhi: On July 22, 2025, the United States announced its decision to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time in its history, marking the second exit under President Donald Trump’s administration. The move, set to take effect in December 2026, has sparked widespread debate, with the White House citing UNESCO’s alleged support for “woke, divisive cultural and social causes” and “anti-Israel bias” as primary reasons.
Background of the US-UNESCO Relationship
UNESCO, a Paris-based UN agency founded in 1945, aims to promote peace and security through international cooperation in education, science, and culture. The US, a founding member, has had a tumultuous relationship with the organization. The first withdrawal occurred in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan, who criticized UNESCO for financial mismanagement and anti-Western bias. The US rejoined in 2003 under President George W. Bush, who acknowledged reforms within the agency. However, tensions resurfaced in 2011 when UNESCO admitted Palestine as a full member state, prompting the Obama administration to halt funding, resulting in $542 million in arrears by 2017.
During his first term, President Trump withdrew the US from UNESCO in 2017, citing anti-Israel bias and mounting arrears. The Biden administration reversed this decision in 2023, rejoining UNESCO to counter China’s growing influence, with the US agreeing to pay $619 million in unpaid dues. The latest withdrawal, announced on July 22, 2025, follows a 90-day review initiated by the Trump administration in February 2025, which scrutinized UNESCO’s alleged anti-Semitism and failure to reform.
Reasons for the 2025 Withdrawal
The Trump administration’s decision to exit UNESCO aligns with its “America First” foreign policy, which emphasizes skepticism toward multilateral institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and NATO. White House deputy spokesperson Anna Kelly stated, “President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from UNESCO – which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November.” State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce further criticized UNESCO’s focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, which include poverty reduction, gender equity, and climate change mitigation, labeling them a “globalist, ideological agenda.”
The admission of Palestine as a member state in 2011 remains a significant point of contention. The State Department argued that this decision was “highly problematic, contrary to U.S. policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric.” Israel’s UN ambassador, Danny Danon, and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar praised the US withdrawal, accusing UNESCO of “consistent misguided anti-Israel bias” and thanking the US for its “moral support and leadership.” Sa’ar called for an end to the “singling out of Israel and politicization by member states” in UN agencies.
UNESCO’s Response and Global Reactions
UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay expressed deep regret over the US decision but noted it was “expected, and UNESCO has prepared for it.” Azoulay disputed the US claims, stating that they “contradict the reality of UNESCO’s efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism.” She emphasized that UNESCO had diversified its funding sources, reducing reliance on the US, which contributes approximately 8% of the agency’s budget. Azoulay also affirmed UNESCO’s commitment to continue working with American partners in the private sector, academia, and non-profits, maintaining political dialogue with the US administration and Congress.
Global reactions were mixed. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed “unwavering support” for UNESCO on X, describing it as the “universal protector” of world heritage and reaffirming France’s commitment to the agency. China’s foreign ministry criticized the US move as “not the behaviour expected of a responsible major country,” pledging staunch support for UNESCO’s work. US Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the decision “short-sighted and a win for China,” noting that China became UNESCO’s largest financial contributor during the US’s previous absence.
Budgetary Impact of the Withdrawal
The US contributes roughly 8% of UNESCO’s total budget, a significant but not dominant share. UNESCO officials, including Azoulay, stated that the agency had diversified its funding sources to mitigate the financial impact of the US withdrawal. Unlike the World Health Organization (WHO), where the US is the largest financial backer, UNESCO’s programs are expected to face limited disruption. Azoulay confirmed that no staff cuts are anticipated, and UNESCO’s structural reforms have offset the decreasing trend in US financial contributions.
The US’s 2017 withdrawal left $542 million in arrears, which were partially addressed when the US rejoined in 2023 with a commitment to pay $619 million in dues and support programs like education access in Africa, Holocaust remembrance, and journalist safety. The 2025 withdrawal raises questions about future arrears and the sustainability of US-funded initiatives within UNESCO.
Geopolitical Implications
The US exit from UNESCO may create a vacuum for other powers, particularly China, to expand their influence within the agency. During the US’s absence from 2018 to 2023, China emerged as UNESCO’s largest financial contributor, a trend that could intensify post-2026. Senator Shaheen warned that the withdrawal hands China a strategic advantage, undermining US influence in global cultural and educational initiatives.
Israel’s strong support for the US decision reflects its broader concerns about perceived anti-Israel sentiment in UN bodies. The US has historically acted as Israel’s primary diplomatic defender, exerting pressure on international organizations critical of its ally. The withdrawal aligns with other Trump administration actions, such as sanctions on International Criminal Court judges investigating Israeli and US forces and the sanctioning of UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese in July 2025.
Impact on Multilateralism
The US withdrawal from UNESCO, coupled with its exits from the WHO, the UN Human Rights Council, and reduced funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA), signals a broader retreat from global cooperation. Critics argue that this move weakens trust in multilateral institutions, which rely on collective participation to address global challenges like education, cultural preservation, and combating hate speech. Azoulay described UNESCO as a “rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism,” arguing that the US decision contradicts the principles of global cooperation.
The Trump administration’s skepticism of multilateralism is evident in its broader foreign policy. Trump’s pick for UN envoy, Mike Waltz, has called for UN reforms, expressing confidence in making the “UN great again.” However, the withdrawal from UNESCO and other bodies suggests a preference for unilateral action over collaborative frameworks, potentially isolating the US on the global stage.
UNESCO’s Role and Achievements
UNESCO is best known for designating World Heritage Sites, such as the Statue of Liberty and Grand Canyon in the US, Egypt’s pyramids, and Syria’s ancient city of Palmyra. With 1,248 global sites of “outstanding universal value,” including 26 in the US, UNESCO’s World Heritage List promotes cultural preservation. The agency also runs initiatives like the Global Education Monitoring Report, World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, and the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, fostering intercultural dialogue and sustainable development.
UNESCO’s 194 member states and 12 associate members collaborate to advance education, science, and culture. Despite criticisms, the agency has made strides in Holocaust education, combating antisemitism, and promoting journalist safety, areas Azoulay highlighted as evidence of UNESCO’s balanced approach.
Broader Context: US Foreign Policy and Israel
The US withdrawal from UNESCO occurs amid heightened scrutiny of its support for Israel, particularly since the onset of the Gaza conflict in October 2023, which has resulted in over 59,000 Palestinian deaths. UN experts have labeled Israel’s tactics as “consistent with genocide,” and the ongoing blockade has raised fears of famine, with 15 starvation deaths, including an infant, reported in a 24-hour span on July 22, 2025. Despite these concerns, the US has maintained unwavering support for Israel’s military campaign, a stance reflected in its UNESCO withdrawal over Palestine’s membership.
Conclusion
The US’s third withdrawal from UNESCO, effective December 2026, underscores ongoing tensions with multilateral institutions and reflects the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda. While UNESCO has prepared for the financial and operational impacts, the geopolitical consequences, including China’s potential rise in influence, could reshape global cultural and educational initiatives. Reactions from Israel, France, China, and US critics highlight the polarized views on UNESCO’s role and the US’s global engagement. As the world watches, the withdrawal raises critical questions about the future of multilateralism and the US’s role in international cooperation.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why did the United States withdraw from UNESCO in 2025?
The United States, under President Donald Trump, announced its withdrawal from UNESCO on July 22, 2025, citing the agency’s alleged support for “woke, divisive cultural and social causes” and “anti-Israel bias.” The White House and State Department criticized UNESCO’s admission of Palestine as a member state in 2011, calling it contrary to US policy, and accused the agency of promoting a “globalist, ideological agenda” through its focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. This marks the third US exit from UNESCO and the second under Trump’s leadership.
2. What is the budgetary impact of the US withdrawal on UNESCO?
The US contributes approximately 8% of UNESCO’s total budget. UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay stated that the agency has diversified its funding sources, reducing reliance on US contributions. As a result, the financial impact is expected to be limited, and no staff cuts are anticipated. UNESCO’s structural reforms have helped offset the decreasing trend in US funding, ensuring the continuity of programs like education access initiatives, Holocaust remembrance, and journalist safety.
3. How does the US withdrawal from UNESCO affect global geopolitics?
The withdrawal may create opportunities for other powers, particularly China, to expand their influence within UNESCO. During the US’s previous absence from 2018 to 2023, China became the agency’s largest financial contributor. US Senator Jeanne Shaheen warned that the 2025 exit could hand China a strategic advantage. Additionally, the move aligns with the US’s support for Israel, as it protests UNESCO’s perceived anti-Israel bias, particularly regarding Palestine’s membership.
4. How have global leaders and UNESCO responded to the US decision?
UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay expressed regret but noted the decision was expected, emphasizing that UNESCO’s efforts in Holocaust education and combating antisemitism contradict US claims of bias. French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed France’s “unwavering support” for UNESCO, while China’s foreign ministry criticized the US as irresponsible, pledging support for the agency. Israel praised the US for its “moral support and leadership,” accusing UNESCO of consistent anti-Israel bias.
5. What does the US withdrawal mean for multilateralism and UNESCO’s initiatives?
The US exit, combined with its withdrawals from the World Health Organization, UN Human Rights Council, and reduced funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine, signals a retreat from multilateral cooperation. Critics argue this weakens trust in global institutions. UNESCO, known for designating World Heritage Sites like the Statue of Liberty and Grand Canyon, and initiatives like the Global Education Monitoring Report, will continue its work, with Azoulay affirming ongoing collaboration with American partners in the private sector, academia, and non-profits.
