US Withdraws from UNESCO Again: Bias Allegations Spark Global Debate
When the United States announced on July 22, 2025, that it was leaving the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), it provoked a contentious debate about perceived biases within the organization and international cooperation. The Guardian and CNN Politics claim that this is the third time since 1945 that the US has withdrawn from UNESCO, citing “divisive social and cultural causes” and “anti-Israel bias.” Just two years after reuniting under President Biden in 2023, what is the reason for this sudden departure, and what impact will it have on cultural preservation and international education?
The U.S. State Department, under the leadership of spokesperson Tammy Bruce, denounced UNESCO’s emphasis on the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN as a “globalist, ideological agenda” that is incompatible with the “America First” stance of the Trump administration. Allegations of anti-Israel rhetoric were fueled by the 2011 decision to admit Palestine as a member state, which was also deemed “highly problematic.” This is similar to the U.S. withdrawal in 2017 during Trump’s first term, which Biden undid to counter China’s increasing power. The multiple departures—first under Reagan in 1984, then in 2017 and now in 2025—emphasize a protracted struggle over UNESCO’s course.
Deep regret was expressed by UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, who emphasized the organization’s efforts to combat antisemitism and educate people about the Holocaust, which she claims refutes accusations of bias. Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar applauded the U.S. action as a response to perceived anti-Israel sentiment, while French President Emmanuel Macron referred to UNESCO as a “universal guardian” of culture and science. The United States will no longer have any say in UNESCO’s programs, including the designation of World Heritage Sites like the Grand Canyon, as a result of the withdrawal, which takes effect on December 31, 2026.
The financial impact is less severe than for other UN agencies because the United States only contributes about 8% of UNESCO’s budget, but the symbolic blow is nonetheless substantial. Critics caution that, especially in developing countries, this departure may erode international efforts in scientific cooperation, cultural preservation, and education. On the other hand, proponents view it as a daring denial of ideological overreach. Will this action weaken America’s cultural influence around the world, or is it a necessary stand for national priorities, as the world watches? Stay tuned to see what happens next in this unfolding global saga—the debate is far from over.
