U.S. out of UNESCO—that headline once reverberated as a shockwave around the world, and it is possible that it will soon again as uncertainties brew around Washington’s long-term engagement with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Cha già José from Vienna, Austria
As of July 2025, tensions over political disagreements, global geopolitical shifts, and funding priorities have flared a conversation around America’s participation in the UN cultural agency, causing observers to speculate whether the U.S. could once again leave the organization.
A Chronicle of On-and-Off Relationships
The relationship between the United States and UNESCO has historically been choppy. The U.S. first withdrew from membership in 1984 during the Reagan presidency, citing issues of mismanagement and anti-Western bias among the agency’s management. It rejoined in 2003 during the George W. Bush presidency as part of an effort to rehabilitate relations with member states and reconnect regarding global agendas in education and heritage preservation.
However, the U.S. stopped contributing funds in 2011 after UNESCO oversaw the admission of Palestine as a full member—angering leading politicians inside the beltway. Although it maintained technical membership, the U.S. fell into arrears and lost voting privileges. In 2017, the Trump administration announced the U.S. would withdraw its membership in a statement effective from December 2018.
This transitory nature would continue again in 2023 when the Biden administration sought to maintain U.S. membership to improve global credibility as a country and counteract growing Chinese influence in international organizations.
Reinvigorated Friction and Policy Discrepancy
Jump ahead to 2025 and new friction is surfacing. According to Politico, Congressional republicans have begun to question the value of U.S. membership, specifically targeting what they see as increased politicization of UNESCO’s leadership and the retention of states they identify as controversial on committees with decision-making authority. Some members of Congress have even noted that American tax dollars should not support an organization that consistently acts directly in opposition to either U.S. interests or values.
“The United States should not be contributing to any multilateral organization that directly undermines our allies and wastes our resources,” Senator Ralph McDowell (R-Texas) stated at a recent committee hearing. He is part of a growing sentiment from Republican (usually) members of the House and Senate who are increasingly skeptical of international organizations as a whole.
UNESCO Responds
For UNESCO officials, the absence of the U.S. is cause for concern. According to France 24, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay identified the need for U.S. participation to provide balanced, transparent, science-based global conversations on heritage, education, and digital ethics.
“It is a pillar of the U.S. role to maintain the ideals of education, peace, and cultural protection,” Azoulay told reporters in Paris. “Not to have the U.S. would be a loss for both parties.”
The Director-General also explained that U.S. re-engagement already had beneficial effects on key initiatives, including the Global Digital Ethics Framework and emergency cultural heritage recovery missions in Ukraine, Sudan, and Haiti.
The Growing Weight of China
A key point of contention in the updated discussion is the growth of China’s investments in UNESCO. According to reporting from The Wall Street Journal, the Chinese government has substantially increased its funding and donations to UNESCO, gained leadership positions, and openly promoted its Belt and Road Initiative in partnership with cultural- and education-based programs.
U.S. lawmakers worry that a second withdrawal from UNESCO would yield even more soft-power influence on the Chinese Communist Party.
“Leaving again would not only hurt our credibility—it would give a megaphone to China,” said Amanda Rees, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If we want to influence conversations involving internet governance, historical truth, and education norms, we need to be at the table.”
Domestic Political Considerations
The U.S. future in UNESCO may depend on domestic politics. As we approach the 2026 midterm elections, global engagement is emerging as a partisan issue. Progressive leaders contend that we need to engage more deeply in international institutions to meet the challenges of climate change, disinformation, and cultural erasure. A growing populist bloc is increasingly doubtful about foreign engagement and believes that we should prioritize domestic needs over global obligations.
In 2025, the Pew Research Center found only 42% of Americans stating international organizations, with UNESCO being an example, were “mostly beneficial” to U.S. interests. This is down from 61% in 2020.
What’s at Stake?
If the US leaves UNESCO again, this would not only affect diplomatic ties, but also issues associated with:
- Preservation of World Heritage Sites – which includes dozens of sites in the US – the Grand Canyon to the Statue of Liberty.
- Global education initiatives – specially to support girls and marginalized people;
- Cross-border scientific work on issues like climate change, oceanography and AI ethics.
Moreover, leaving UNESCO will not only retreat the US from this type of soft-power leadership at a moment of serious global actors advancing their interests with a weakened US soft-power character.
For now, the U.S. is still in UNESCO, but the road ahead is uncertain. Political winds are changing in Washington and the world is watching carefully. The next headline may read “US leaves UNESCO again” or “U.S. furthers positive role in UNESCO,” depending on choices ahead, in weeks, by decision-makers and by a public who is increasingly invested in the meaning of global cooperation.
