U.S. Exit Reflects Deeper Disagreements with UNESCO
On Tuesday, the U.S. State Department announced that the United States would be exiting UNESCO by the end of 2026, only two years after it rejoined the organization in 2023 under the Biden administration. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce stated that the decision was based on UNESCO’s “divisive social and cultural agenda” and its admission of the “State of Palestine” as a full member, which Washington considers contrary to its long-standing foreign policy.
This move underscores the recurring ideological divide between the United States and international institutions, particularly those perceived to take stances that challenge key American foreign policy positions, such as unconditional support for Israel.
A History of Friction: U.S. and UNESCO
This is the third instance of the U.S. pulling out of UNESCO. The first exit occurred in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan, citing mismanagement and politicization. The U.S. rejoined in 2003 under George W. Bush. However, under President Barack Obama in 2011, the U.S. cut funding after UNESCO admitted Palestine as a full member.
In 2018, President Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO, accusing the agency of anti-Israel bias. The Biden administration reversed this decision and rejoined in 2023, in a move seen as a recommitment to multilateral institutions. The latest withdrawal, however, reasserts the cyclical nature of U.S.-UNESCO relations and the growing politicization of international cultural platforms.
Why Palestine’s Admission Remains Controversial
UNESCO admitted Palestine as a full member in 2011, recognizing its claims to heritage and cultural sites. While many countries supported the move as a symbolic affirmation of Palestinian identity, the U.S. and Israel saw it as a premature recognition of statehood without a peace agreement with Israel. This led to the cessation of U.S. funding and, eventually, withdrawal.
Critics in the U.S. argue that UNESCO’s stance has enabled the politicization of cultural and historical narratives—especially in contentious sites like Jerusalem and Hebron—fueling diplomatic friction and weakening UNESCO’s neutrality.
UNESCO's Response and Budget Implications
UNESCO’s Director-General Audrey Azoulay expressed deep regret over the U.S. decision but said the organization was prepared for the move. She defended the agency’s record, especially in Holocaust education and the fight against anti-Semitism, directly countering U.S. allegations of anti-Israel bias.
Financially, the exit may impact UNESCO’s budget, as the U.S. contributes a significant portion—though its contributions had already been suspended for several years since 2011. However, the organization has managed to adapt and restructure operations during previous funding gaps.
Broader Implications: Multilateralism at Crossroads
The U.S. withdrawal underscores a larger trend of retreat from global institutions when their agendas conflict with national policy preferences. This could undermine the credibility and functioning of multilateral platforms, particularly those dealing with cultural diplomacy, education, and heritage preservation.
Moreover, repeated exits and re-entries erode continuity, leadership, and influence for the U.S. in shaping international norms—especially at a time when rival powers like China are increasing their engagement with UNESCO and other UN bodies.
