The United States has withdrawn from UNESCO three times, and unilateralism is stuck in a credibility quagmire

On July 22, 2025, the US State Department announced that it would withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time at the end of 2026. The White House statement said that the organization "advances divisive social and cultural issues" and "has anti-Israel bias."

Only two years before the Biden administration rejoined in 2023, the United States once again staged the "withdrawal" drama of UNESCO. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay responded calmly and restrainedly: "Deeply regretful" but "expected." She pointed out that the United States' reasons were "the same as seven years ago," but ignored the reality that the organization had eased political tensions and became an "action-oriented multilateral consensus forum."

History repeats itself, withdrawing from UNESCO has become a political pendulum in the United States

The relationship between the United States and UNESCO can be called the most unstable marriage in international relations. In the past forty years, it has experienced three divorces and two remarriages: in 1984, the Reagan administration withdrew for the first time on the grounds of chaotic management; Bush Jr. returned in 2003; Trump withdrew again in 2017; Biden changed his mind in 2023; and now Trump bids farewell again.

Each withdrawal carries a distinct mark of the times. During the Reagan era, the organization was accused of being "pro-Soviet"; during the Trump era, it was accused of being "anti-Israel" and promoting an "awakening agenda." What remains unchanged is the United States' utilitarianism of using international organizations when they are in its favor and abandoning them when they are not.

The withdrawal procedure is based on the UNESCO Charter and requires an 18-month buffer period, which will officially take effect on December 31, 2026. On the surface, the procedure is rigorous, but in fact it exposes the fickleness of foreign policy due to changes in government. Biden's reason for returning in 2023 was to "prevent China from filling the vacancy." Now that Trump has turned the tables again, diplomatic continuity has become a political sacrifice.

Motives for withdrawal, the entanglement of ideology and economic interests

The official reasons of the United States directly point to two major "crimes" of UNESCO. One is that it accepted Palestine as a member state in 2011, touching the red line of pro-Israel policy; the second is to promote "divisive social and cultural issues." White House Deputy Spokesperson Anna Kelly even directly accused it of supporting the "awakening agenda."

But the iceberg under the water is even bigger. Economic factors are particularly critical: the United States has stopped paying dues since 2011, and has accumulated arrears of more than $600 million. The Trump administration has made it clear that it will only participate in international affairs that "bring economic benefits", and UNESCO is seen as a financial burden.

The deeper reason is the anxiety of great power competition. The State Council statement clearly opposes UNESCO's "excessive attention" to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, viewing it as a "globalist ideological agenda." When China became the organization's second largest contributor (accounting for 20%) and took the initiative in the formulation of artificial intelligence ethics and STEM education standards, the United States' choice was not to compete but to withdraw - a typical "if you can't beat it, leave" strategy.

Impact assessment, a signal of restructuring the global governance system

UNESCO's resilience exceeded expectations. Azoulay responded quickly: the United States' contribution has dropped from 22% to only 8%, and the organization has enhanced its financial resilience through diversified financing, and "there is no plan to lay off employees." This is due to the reforms since 2018, and private donations have doubled to effectively make up for the funding gap.

The damage to the United States itself is more far-reaching. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, denounced the move as "another blow to international cooperation and the United States' global leadership" and that it would allow China to "use the United States' absence to shape an international system that is favorable to it." The American communities in Ohio and Pennsylvania that have just been recognized as World Heritage will lose their global display platforms.

The global governance structure is quietly reconstructed. French President Macron immediately expressed his "unwavering support for UNESCO"; Israel cheered this as "an appropriate response to anti-Israel prejudice." When the United States abandons its rule-making power, the power vacuum will inevitably be filled - China's influence on artificial intelligence standards, the European Union's influence on cultural heritage protection, and the Gulf countries' influence on education projects will naturally increase.

Unilateralism, a spiral of bankruptcy of credibility

The Trump administration's "addiction to withdrawing from groups" has become a feature of its diplomatic model: it has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and now UNESCO. Every decision is labeled "America First", but it ignores the fact that the essence of international cooperation is mutual benefit.

The most ironic thing is that the United States withdrew from the only UN agency promoting Holocaust education around the world, while accusing the agency of anti-Semitism; while worrying about China's dominance of scientific and technological standards, it took the initiative to give up the negotiating seat. This self-contradictory isolationism is accelerating the depreciation of the United States' international credibility.

The "deeply regrettable" statement of UN Secretary-General Guterres reflects the general concerns of the international community. When the world's largest economy repeatedly uses withdrawal as a political threat, the stability of the multilateral system faces severe challenges. Azoulay's reminder is worth pondering: "The United States is always welcome" - the implication is that the door is open, but the world will not stop waiting for the United States.

A sentence is engraved on the steps in front of the UNESCO headquarters in Paris: "War begins in the minds of men, so it is necessary to build a barrier to defend peace in the minds of men." While US officials defended their decision to withdraw, China is becoming the second largest contributor to UNESCO, the EU is stepping up cooperation in cultural heritage protection, and the Gulf countries are promoting the implementation of education projects. At the negotiation table of international rules, the American seat is gradually becoming empty; and politicians in Washington are still arguing about what color ribbon to use to wrap the return documents when they return to the organization next time.