The United States announced on July 22, 2025 that it will again withdraw from UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), citing policy differences. President Trump’s administration said UNESCO had “strayed” into promoting what it called “woke, divisive cultural and social causes” that clash with U.S. priorities. The State Department also criticized UNESCO’s 2011 decision to grant full membership to a Palestinian state, saying it was “highly problematic” and had fostered “anti-Israel rhetoric” within the agency. The withdrawal, to take effect on December 31, 2026, is part of a broader “America First” policy that has pulled the U.S. back from several international bodies. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the decision ensures U.S. membership in international organizations “aligns with our national interests”.

Historical Context

Reactions and Responses

UNESCO and many U.S. allies reacted with disappointment. Director‐General Audrey Azoulay said she “deeply regret[s]” the decision but was not surprised, noting that the agency had prepared by diversifying its funding. She emphasized that only about 8 % of UNESCO’s budget comes from the U.S. today. Azoulay rejected claims of bias, highlighting UNESCO’s recent initiatives in Holocaust education and fighting antisemitism. In a statement she noted that the U.S. rationale was “the same as seven years ago” despite changed circumstances, and that UNESCO remains a “rare forum for consensus” on concrete multilateral action.

International leaders also responded. French President Emmanuel Macron posted on X that France would give “unwavering support” to UNESCO, calling it a “universal protector” of culture and science, and insisted U.S. withdrawal “will not weaken [France’s] commitment” to the agency. China’s foreign ministry criticized the move as “not the behaviour expected of a responsible major country,” and expressed strong backing for UNESCO’s work. UNESCO officials said the pullout would have only a “limited impact” on ongoing programs, given the reduced U.S. contribution. They stressed that UNESCO has offices in 54 countries and supports networks of World Heritage sites, schools, universities and cities around the world, with over 2,000 cultural and natural heritage sites and 13,000 educational and research institutions under its purview.

Within the United States, reactions split largely along partisan lines. Israel’s government welcomed the decision. Danny Danon, Israel’s U.N. ambassador, said UNESCO had shown a “consistent misguided anti-Israel bias,” and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar thanked the U.S. for its “moral support and leadership,” calling the withdrawal a necessary step to ensure fair treatment of Israel in U.N. forums. Conversely, Democratic lawmakers condemned the move. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the decision “short-sighted and a win for China,” noting Beijing has become the largest UNESCO contributor in the U.S. absence. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) warned that unilaterally cutting UNESCO ties is “another assault … on international cooperation and U.S. global leadership,” ceding ground to rivals like China.

Implications for International Cooperation, Culture, Education and Science

UNESCO is best known for its World Heritage Sites and cultural preservation. Its programs include World Heritage listing of landmarks (the U.S. has 26 sites such as the Statue of Liberty, Grand Canyon and Yellowstone), as well as safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and promoting cultural diversity worldwide. The U.S. pullout means American authorities and experts will no longer participate in UNESCO committees that decide such designations. However, UNESCO officials note that U.S. financial withdrawal has been manageable: the U.S. share of UNESCO’s roughly $900 million annual budget is only about 8 %, down from over 20 % in 2017. UNESCO’s director says no layoffs are planned, and the agency has many other donors.

In education and science, experts say the departure is a setback for global collaboration. UNESCO leads international cooperation on education, science and technology. It supports initiatives from girls’ literacy and rebuilding universities in conflict zones (e.g. in Ukraine and Lebanon) to setting global standards on research and new technology (for example, issuing guidelines for use of artificial intelligence in education). Academics warn that without U.S. participation, American scientists and educators lose a voice in shaping these efforts. “For generational challenges such as AI in education or improving literacy, where the U.S. is well‐positioned to lead, we are, in effect, cutting off our nose to spite our face,” commented one UNESCO chair on learning. The agency also promotes open science and biodiversity research globally. By exiting, the U.S. cedes these fields to international forums where Chinese and other interests may have greater sway.

On global multilateralism, the move underscores a U.S. retreat from some international bodies. The Trump administration (both first and second term) has withdrawn from or halted funding to several U.N. agencies, including the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council. The July decision reflects a continuing “America First” skepticism of global institutions. Critics caution that even if budgetary impacts on UNESCO are small, the political message is large: it signals the U.S. is willing to disengage when disagreements arise, potentially straining alliances and inviting other powers to set agendas in education and culture. Some analysts say future administrations may again reconsider: a Democratic White House could restore membership, while continued withdrawals could further weaken U.S. influence in setting international standards. As one congressional Democrat put it, the decision “cedes ground to U.S. competitors, especially China, who will take advantage of America’s absence to shape the international system in their favor.”