Once again, the United States is walking away from UNESCO.
In a move that echoes its recurring ambivalence toward multilateral institutions, the U.S. State Department has formally notified Audrey Azoulay, UNESCO director-general of its intent to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The decision, set to take effect on December 31, 2026, is framed by U.S. officials as a principled rejection of what they call a “globalist, ideological agenda,” and a response to UNESCO’s longstanding recognition of the State of Palestine.
But beyond the headlines lies a deeper story, one about the fragile balance between national interest and global influence, and what is lost when great powers stop showing up.
A history of exits and returns
The United States helped establish UNESCO in 1945, part of the post-war effort to promote peace through education, science and culture. But its relationship with the agency has been rocky.
In 1984, under Ronald Reagan, the U.S. withdrew for the first time, citing mismanagement and anti-Western bias. At the time, it was funding nearly a quarter of UNESCO’s budget. It returned in 2003 under George W. Bush, only to freeze funding in 2011 after UNESCO admitted Palestine as a full member, triggering a domestic law prohibiting funding to any UN body that recognises the Palestinian State.
The Donald Trump administration formally withdrew again in 2017, citing politicisation and bias against Israel. Biden reversed that move in 2023, paying $619 million in arrears and restoring U.S. leadership on issues like artificial intelligence ethics and Holocaust education.
Now, in 2025, Washington is pulling out once more, this time citing “ideological incompatibility” with UNESCO’s priorities, particularly its alignment with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
According to Brandon Bohrn, a U.S. foreign and security analyst, the decision “signals a clear shift in U.S. foreign policy under this administration toward skepticism of multilateral institutions that are viewed as ineffective or misaligned with American interests.” Bohrn points to the administration’s FY2026 budget, which proposed a 50 percent cut across foreign operations, and remarks by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who declared the administration would only fund “efforts that can clearly be tied to making America stronger, safer, and more prosperous.”
“In essence,” Bohrn says, “this signals a departure from multilateralism in favour of a unilateral, transactional approach.”
Funding realities: big numbers, bigger shifts
Before the 2011 freeze, the U.S. was UNESCO’s largest donor, contributing 22 percent of its assessed budget. That funding supported global initiatives from girls’ education to cultural heritage preservation.
By 2023, the U.S. contribution had shrunk to around 8–10 percent of the total. The expected shortfall from the latest withdrawal—estimated at $20–25 million annually—still stings, especially for areas where U.S. leadership had been significant, including countering antisemitism and standard-setting in emerging technologies.
But according to Professor Ani Casimir Kingston Chukwunonyelum, a Nigerian academic and member of UNESCO’s Technical Working Group on AI Ethics, the impact is more political than financial.
“UNESCO has already overridden this ghost,” he says. “Over 85 percent of its budget comes from other countries and sources. The U.S. contribution has been dwindling since 2011.” He adds that the organisation had anticipated another withdrawal and had prepared through structural reforms and diversified funding strategies since 2014.
Yet, Ani emphasises that “taking the financial breast away from educational institutions is something the current U.S. administration is noted for—especially multilateral institutions like Harvard, USAID, and now UNESCO.”
Read also: US to withdraw from UNESCO again, citing ‘America First’ policy, Palestinian membership
Beyond the budget: the cost of absence
For many observers, the core issue isn’t funding—it’s disengagement.
“This is a win for China,” said U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, noting that Washington’s exit hands more space to rivals at a time when global governance is rapidly evolving.
Ani echoes that concern, noting that “UNESCO plays a crucial role in setting global standards for algorithms, AI, and cybercrime. The U.S. withdrawal creates a vacuum that may be filled by actors working at cross-purposes to the ethics of new technologies.”
Brandon Bohrn agrees. “Following the initial U.S. withdrawal under Trump, China became a major contributor, and Xing Qu was appointed as Deputy Director-General,” he says. “Without the U.S. at the table, leadership in shaping global norms is increasingly falling to powers with competing worldviews.”
Yet Bohrn also stresses that “UNESCO will continue its mission despite the latest U.S. withdrawal, but the inconsistency of U.S. engagement poses long-term challenges to its trustworthiness as a global partner.”
A symbolic retreat from soft power
UNESCO’s work rarely makes front-page news, but its impact is significant, designating over 1,200 World Heritage sites, promoting press freedom, protecting indigenous languages, and advocating for digital literacy. The U.S. National Park Service, the Smithsonian, and American universities have long been integrated into UNESCO’s programming.
Now, that collaboration faces uncertainty
“The ethical implications are serious,” says Ani. “The U.S. is seen as the king of the free world. Many UNESCO stakeholders are American. How do these experts maintain national pride when attending UNESCO meetings after such a withdrawal?”
He continues: “The justification for withdrawal, claims of ‘anti-Israel bias’ and cultural politicisation, are not grounded. UNESCO is an evidence-based multilateral body committed to cultural inclusivity and human diversity.”
Still, Ani remains optimistic: “This withdrawal is political and temporary. The values and mandate of UNESCO go beyond political regimes.”
Rising Chinese influence: myth or reality?
Concerns about Chinese influence have grown with every U.S. retreat from multilateral institutions.
“Yes, there are concerns,” Ani acknowledges. “But these are often exaggerated. The idea that China is using UNESCO as a mask for global power projection is a view rooted in American soft power anxiety.”
“UNESCO’s agenda is already set, no single country can rewrite it,” he argues. “Every state party, including China, engages through transparent mechanisms in the General Assembly.”
While he acknowledges China’s increased collaboration in Africa and in youth initiatives, he insists that “UNESCO is managing this relationship strategically, with an emphasis on shared goals and core values.”
What this says about the U.S. strategy
The United States’ withdrawal from UNESCO marks more than a break with a single UN agency. It reflects a broader retreat from consensus-based diplomacy.
Bohrn sees this as a pattern. “This administration began with Executive Order 14199 to defund certain UN bodies, followed by EO 14155 to exit the WHO. The FY2026 budget offers no funds for the WHO, UNHRC, or UNRWA. The trend is clear: strategic transactions over collaborative engagement.”
Ani offers historical perspective: “This is not the first time the U.S. has left UNESCO. The Reagan administration did it in 1984. Trump did it in 2017. But the American people and the core values of UNESCO remain aligned.”
Quoting Archibald MacLeish, the American poet who helped draft UNESCO’s constitution—“Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”—Ani concludes: “Multilateralism is the swelling eternal narrative of the United Nations. The U.S. may have left, but UNESCO will continue to carry that mission forward.”
