Last Updated on July 22, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke

In a bold move that has sent ripples through diplomatic circles, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on July 22, 2025, citing concerns over the organization’s alignment with what he described as “divisive global agendas.” The decision, which marks the second U.S. exit from UNESCO during Trump’s presidency, has sparked a heated debate about the role of international cultural institutions in shaping global narratives and the implications for America’s soft power on the world stage.

A Strategic Retreat or a Missed Opportunity?

The Trump administration’s decision to pull out of UNESCO comes after a 90-day review initiated in February 2025, which focused on evaluating the organization’s policies and their alignment with U.S. interests. According to White House deputy spokesperson Anna Kelly, the review highlighted UNESCO’s emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as its perceived favoritism toward certain geopolitical stances, as misaligned with American priorities. “President Trump is committed to ensuring that U.S. participation in international organizations reflects the values of the American people,” Kelly said in a statement to the press. “UNESCO’s current trajectory does not serve our national interests.”

The administration specifically pointed to UNESCO’s 2023 “anti-racism toolkit” and its 2024 “Transforming MEN’talities” campaign as examples of initiatives that it views as promoting ideological agendas over universal cultural and educational goals. Additionally, officials raised concerns about UNESCO’s designations of certain historical sites and its resolutions, which they argue unfairly critique U.S. allies while overlooking the actions of others. “The organization has been co-opted by interests that don’t reflect the commonsense policies Americans voted for,” a senior White House official told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

This is not the first time the U.S. has distanced itself from UNESCO. Under President Ronald Reagan, the U.S. withdrew in 1983, citing mismanagement and politicization, only to rejoin in 2003 under President George W. Bush. Trump himself oversaw a previous exit in 2017 during his first term, a move reversed by President Joe Biden in 2023. The latest withdrawal, set to take effect by December 2026, underscores a recurring tension: balancing national priorities with participation in global institutions.

Global Reactions: A Fractured Cultural Landscape

The announcement has drawn sharp reactions from both supporters and critics. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay expressed regret, emphasizing the organization’s role in fostering global cooperation. “This decision risks undermining the shared goals of education, science, and cultural preservation that benefit all nations, including the United States,” Azoulay said in a statement. She highlighted UNESCO’s work in protecting World Heritage Sites, such as Yellowstone National Park and the Statue of Liberty, and its partnerships with American universities and communities.

Internationally, the move has been met with a mix of concern and opportunism. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called the withdrawal “a step backward for multilateralism,” urging the U.S. to reconsider. Meanwhile, Chinese state media outlet Xinhua suggested that the decision could open doors for Beijing to expand its influence within UNESCO, where it is already the second-largest financial contributor. In 2024, China pledged an additional $50 million to UNESCO’s education programs, a move analysts see as part of its broader strategy to shape global cultural and scientific standards.

Critics argue that the U.S. exit could cede ground to rivals like China, which has increasingly leveraged UNESCO to promote initiatives aligned with its Belt and Road strategy. For example, UNESCO’s Silk Roads Program, which received significant Chinese funding in 2024, has been criticized by some Western analysts as a platform for advancing Beijing’s geopolitical narrative. “By withdrawing, the U.S. risks losing a seat at the table where global cultural and educational standards are set,” said Dr. Emily Carter, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University.

Domestic Divide: Ideology vs. Influence

At home, the decision has reignited debates about America’s role in global institutions. Supporters of Trump’s move, particularly within conservative circles, applaud it as a rejection of what they see as excessive international overreach. “UNESCO has become a battleground for ideological agendas that don’t align with American values,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) in a statement. He pointed to UNESCO’s resolutions on contested historical sites as evidence of bias, arguing that U.S. taxpayer dollars should not fund organizations that “undermine our allies.”

Conversely, Democratic lawmakers and cultural organizations have decried the withdrawal as shortsighted. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called it “a self-inflicted wound” that weakens America’s global influence. “UNESCO’s programs, from literacy initiatives to preserving cultural heritage, amplify American values like education and freedom,” she tweeted on July 22, 2025. The National Education Association, which partners with UNESCO on global education projects, issued a statement warning that the withdrawal could disrupt programs benefiting millions of students worldwide, including in the U.S.

Data from UNESCO’s 2024 annual report underscores the stakes. The organization oversees 1,157 World Heritage Sites across 167 countries, including 24 in the United States. It also supports 194 Biosphere Reserves and funds education programs reaching over 150 million learners globally. In 2024, UNESCO allocated $1.2 billion to projects in science, education, and culture, with the U.S. contributing approximately 22% of its budget before the withdrawal announcement. The loss of U.S. funding could force UNESCO to scale back initiatives, potentially creating gaps that other nations might fill.

The Geopolitical Chessboard

The withdrawal also raises questions about U.S. foreign policy priorities under Trump’s second term. The administration’s focus on “America First” has led to exits from other international bodies, including the World Health Organization in 2020 and the Paris Climate Agreement, both of which were rejoined under Biden. Analysts see the UNESCO decision as part of a broader strategy to prioritize bilateral agreements over multilateral frameworks. “Trump’s approach is to negotiate directly with nations rather than through institutions he views as bloated or biased,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

However, this strategy is not without risks. UNESCO’s work often intersects with U.S. strategic interests, such as countering disinformation through media literacy programs and promoting STEM education in developing nations. In 2024, UNESCO launched a $100 million initiative to combat online misinformation, a priority shared by the U.S. State Department. By withdrawing, the U.S. may lose influence over such programs, potentially allowing adversaries to shape narratives in critical areas like technology and education.

What’s Next for UNESCO and the U.S.?

As the December 2026 deadline approaches, UNESCO faces the challenge of adapting to the absence of its largest financial contributor. The organization may seek to diversify its funding, with countries like Japan, Germany, and the European Union likely to step up. In 2024, the EU pledged €200 million to UNESCO’s climate adaptation programs, signaling a potential shift in leadership.

For the United States, the withdrawal could reshape its cultural diplomacy. American institutions, such as universities and museums, may need to forge direct partnerships to maintain global influence in education and culture. For example, the Smithsonian Institution, which collaborates with UNESCO on heritage preservation, may need to seek alternative frameworks to continue its work.

The decision also comes at a time of heightened global tensions. Recent events, such as the U.S.-China tariff disputes and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, underscore the importance of cultural diplomacy in building bridges. Trump’s critics argue that withdrawing from UNESCO could weaken America’s ability to counter narratives promoted by rivals, particularly in regions like Africa and Asia, where UNESCO’s education programs are most active.

A Polarized Path Forward

As the world grapples with the implications of the U.S. withdrawal, the debate over UNESCO’s role reflects broader questions about global cooperation. For Trump, the move is a stand against what he sees as ideological overreach, prioritizing national sovereignty over international entanglement. For critics, it’s a retreat from a platform that amplifies American values and influence.

The coming months will reveal whether the U.S. can maintain its global cultural presence without UNESCO’s framework. As Dr. Carter noted, “Cultural diplomacy isn’t just about heritage sites or education programs—it’s about shaping how the world sees us. Walking away from that conversation has consequences.”

For now, the world watches as the U.S. charts a new course, one that could redefine its role in the global cultural landscape for years to come.