U.S. says it's leaving UN cultural agency UNESCO again, only two years after rejoining
'President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from UNESCO — which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November,' White House deputy spokesperson Anna Kelly told the New York Post. UNESCO and the White House did not immediately confirm the US move.
This will be the third time that the United States has left UNESCO, which is based in Paris, and the second time during a Trump administration. President Donald Trump had already pulled out during his first term and the United States returned after a five-year absence after the Biden administration applied to rejoin the organisation.
The decision will take effect at the end of December 2026.
The decision will come as no surprise to UNESCO officials, who had anticipated such a move following the specific review ordered by the Trump administration earlier this year. They also expected that Mr. Trump would pull out again since the return of the US in 2023 had been promoted by a political rival, former President Joe Biden.
The Trump administration in 2017 announced that the U.S. would withdraw from UNESCO, citing anti-Israel bias. That decision took effect a year later. The U.S. and Israel stopped financing UNESCO after it voted to include Palestine as a member state in 2011.
The United States previously pulled out of UNESCO under the Reagan administration in 1984 because it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt and used to advance the interests of the Soviet Union. It rejoined in 2003 during George W Bush's presidency.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
26 minutes ago
- First Post
What is Donald Trump's connection to Scotland? His mum, golf and more
Donald Trump's visit to Scotland goes beyond golf — it's a return to his maternal roots on the Isle of Lewis. With new tributes to his late mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, and potential political meetings amid planned protests, how much of his identity is still tied to Scotland? read more Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at Turnberry Golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, June 24, 2016. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump will land in Scotland on Friday (July 25, 2025), marking his first visit to the United Kingdom since securing a second term in office. Officially designated a private trip by the White House, the president's itinerary includes stops at his two flagship golf resorts — Trump International Golf Links near Aberdeen and the Turnberry estate in South Ayrshire. Despite its private nature, the visit reportedly includes scheduled meetings with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Scotland's First Minister John Swinney. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump is expected to return for an official state visit to the UK in September. Preparations for his arrival have triggered logistical challenges and security concerns. Police Scotland, anticipating demonstrations similar to those during his previous visits, has requested backup from other UK law enforcement agencies. Large-scale protests were seen during Trump's 2018 tour, when thousands marched in Scottish cities, including Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow. On that occasion, protestors booed as he played golf at Turnberry, and a paraglider flew over the resort with an anti-Trump banner. Organisers of the group Stop Trump Scotland have called for renewed demonstrations during this year's visit. The structure of this visit allows Trump to freely choose his engagements, with his primary focus being his business interests in Scottish golf — a sector he has repeatedly highlighted as both legacy and enterprise. The US president's mother: Mary Anne MacLeod Trump Donald Trump's ancestral roots lie in the Outer Hebrides, a rugged chain of islands off the northwest coast of Scotland. His mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, was born in 1912 in the village of Tong, located just three miles from Stornoway, the Isle of Lewis's main town. She was the youngest of ten children in a Gaelic-speaking family. Her father, Malcolm MacLeod, managed a post office and a general store in Tong, offering the family modest stability during difficult times. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Although they were slightly more affluent than some local households, life on the island during and after World War I was marked by scarcity and tragedy. Lewis had suffered grievous losses in the conflict, including the Iolaire disaster of 1919, in which approximately 200 servicemen returning from war perished in the harbour at Stornoway. Amid post-war hardship and limited economic opportunity, many islanders sought new lives abroad. Mary Anne joined that wave of migration in 1930 at age 18, leaving with her sister Catherine, who had already emigrated and returned to visit. Upon reaching New York, Mary Anne initially found work as a nanny in an affluent household but lost the job as the US economy collapsed following the Wall Street Crash. Mary Anne MacLeod Trump died in 2000 at the age of 88. Members of her extended family still live on Lewis. File Image She briefly returned to Scotland in 1934 but soon went back to the US, having met and begun a relationship with Fred Trump, a successful real estate developer and the son of German immigrants. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD They married in 1936, settled in Queens, New York, and Mary Anne became a US citizen in 1942. She passed away in August 2000 at the age of 88. Donald Trump is the fourth of their five children. Though he was raised in New York, his mother's homeland remained close to him. 'My mother was born in Scotland — Stornoway, which is serious Scotland,' he said in 2017. Mary Anne maintained strong ties to her birthplace, regularly visiting Lewis throughout her life. According to BBC, she remained fluent in Gaelic and was well-regarded in her hometown community. During visits, she attended the local church and maintained connections with her extended family. To this day, three of Donald Trump's cousins continue to live on Lewis, including two who now reside in the house where Mary Anne was born. The original structure has since been rebuilt, but the familial bond remains. These relatives have consistently declined all media interviews and have stayed out of the public eye. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The house where Donald Trump's mother grew up is seen in Tong on the Isle of Lewis and Harris, an island off the northwestern tip of Scotland in the Outer Hebrides, Scorland, April 27, 2016. File Image/Reuters Trump himself has made only two known visits to his mother's home village. In 2008, he visited the family home in Tong as an adult and said he had also visited once as a small child, though he remembered little. His 2008 stopover was brief — he reportedly spent just 97 seconds in the ancestral house. Are Trump's Scottish golf ventures about legacy? Trump's commercial footprint in Scotland centres around two major properties: Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeenshire and Trump Turnberry in South Ayrshire. The Aberdeenshire venture began in 2006 when Trump acquired a coastal tract north of Aberdeen with the aim of developing a world-class golf destination. The project faced strong local resistance from conservationists and residents concerned about the ecological impact. The site included sand dunes that were home to rare wildlife such as badgers, otters, kittiwakes and skylarks. The controversy attracted global attention. US property mogul Donald Trump leads a media event on the sand dunes of the Menie estate, the site for Trump's proposed golf resort, near Aberdeen, north east Scotland, May 27, 2010. File Image/Reuters Michael Forbes, a local fisherman, became a symbol of resistance after he refused to sell his land to Trump, despite a lucrative offer of £350,000. Trump was publicly critical of Forbes's property, describing it as 'a slum and a pigsty,' reported AP. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Despite the opposition, the Scottish government backed the plan, and the Trump International Golf Links officially opened in 2012. Nevertheless, some of the project's most ambitious elements — including plans for 500 homes and a 450-room hotel — have not materialised. Financially, the resort has struggled. In 2023, the latest available accounts reported a loss of £1.4 million. 'If it weren't for my mother, would I have walked away from this site? I think probably I would have, yes,' Trump remarked during the development phase. 'Possibly, had my mother not been born in Scotland, I probably wouldn't have started it.' This year, a second 18-hole course at the site is set to open. Named the MacLeod Course in tribute to Mary Anne, the launch is expected to coincide with Trump's visit. The adjacent hotel is also named after her — the Trump MacLeod House and Lodge Hotel. Turnberry, Trump's other high-profile property, is a much older and more established venue. He purchased the resort, including its three coastal golf courses and a five-star hotel, in 2014 for approximately £40 million. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Turnberry is widely known for hosting The Open Championship, though the tournament has not returned to the course since 2009. US President Donald Trump gestures as he walks on the course of his golf resort, in Turnberry, Scotland, July 14, 2018. File Image/Reuters Local sentiment in Ayrshire has been more favourable compared to the Aberdeenshire project. 'He did bring employment to the area,' Louise Robertson, a Turnberry-area resident told AP. 'I know that in terms of the hotel and the lighthouse, he spent a lot of money restoring it, so again, that was welcomed by the local people. But other than that, I can't really say positive things about it.' Trump has pushed for The Open to return to Turnberry. However, the tournament's organisers have cited ongoing issues related to transportation and accommodation infrastructure as obstacles. How Trump's political ties with Scotland have evolved Trump's relationship with Scottish officials has evolved over the years — from honourary recognition to outright rejection. More than a decade ago, he was named a business ambassador in the GlobalScot network. However, that status was revoked in 2015 following his controversial comments about banning Muslims from entering the United States. Around the same time, Robert Gordon University withdrew an honourary doctorate it had awarded him in 2010. In the next few days, Trump is set to meet with John Swinney, Scotland's First Minister, who had supported Kamala Harris during the previous US election cycle. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A placard is attached to a stake in the ground during a protest against the visit of US President Donald Trump, in Edinburgh, Scotland, July 14, 2018. File Image/Reuters A spokesperson for Trump's business interests in Scotland called Swinney's earlier endorsement 'an insult.' Nonetheless, Swinney has confirmed the meeting, saying it serves 'Scotland's interest.' Trump will also confer with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with whom he reportedly enjoys a constructive rapport. Despite ideological differences, Trump recently said, 'I really like the prime minister a lot, even though he's a liberal.' Trade discussions are expected to include a focus on securing exemptions for UK steel from American tariffs. There is no confirmation as to whether Trump and Starmer will visit either golf course together. Starmer is not known to be a golfer. Ironically, Trump's Scottish story is one of immigration. With inputs from agencies
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Agenda Stuck in Legal Wrangling Despite Supreme Court Wins
President Donald Trump has cast successes at the US Supreme Court as broad endorsements of his authority to fire agency heads, shrink the government workforce and halt billions of dollars in federal spending. Some lower court judges see it differently. Supreme Court rulings are supposed to be the final word on disagreements over the law. But the growing number of decisions being issued with little explanation on an emergency basis — often referred to as the 'shadow docket' — is creating even more legal wrangling. Now, tensions are building not only between the executive branch and the courts, but also within the judiciary. 'This is not helpful at all for lower court judges,' said Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal district judge in Pennsylvania confirmed during the George W. Bush administration. 'You're reading an abbreviated opinion from the Supreme Court like it's a Rosetta Stone.' The Justice Department has been arguing that the emergency track wins should translate into victories in other lawsuits against Trump's agenda. Federal judges are pushing back, saying the high court isn't giving them enough to work with. This week, the Supreme Court stepped in to settle one such dispute that one of its earlier orders created. A Maryland federal judge had blocked Trump's removal of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, saying it was different in key ways from a firing fight the justices resolved in the president's favor on May 22. In a two-paragraph order on Wednesday, the conservative majority said the district judge got it wrong, and the officials couldn't keep their jobs while they pressed the merits of their lawsuit. The problem, some judges say, is that more cases are reaching the justices on an emergency basis — often in the early stages, without oral arguments and with minimal or no explanation. These orders are frequently just a few paragraphs issued in weeks or even days, in stark contrast with argued cases that unfold over months and result in lengthy opinions offering more robust guidance. In yet another in the growing stack of firing cases, a Washington federal judge last week refused to let Trump oust Democrats from the Federal Trade Commission. US District Judge Loren AliKhan said she wouldn't read the 'tea leaves' in the justices' May 22 decision, a four-paragraph order that let Trump fire top officials at two other agencies. That ruling 'weighs against' the dismissed officials, she said, but doesn't settle questions over a 90-year-old precedent limiting a president's firing power at federal agencies. 'It would be an act of judicial hubris' to base a decision on what the justices might do later, AliKhan wrote in her order reinstating one of the commissioners. She was 'unsure of what to make of' the justices' order, absent more details about what they intended or how they reached their outcome. An appeals court has temporarily paused her ruling. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. A senior White House official who requested anonymity to discuss pending litigation said lower court judges aren't respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court's orders as well as the rulings themselves, and seemed to be taking extraordinary steps to avoid applying them to other cases. The official accused judges of defying the Supreme Court because of policy disagreements. The conflicts are growing as the Trump administration has taken lower court losses to the justices on an emergency basis 21 times so far this year. Unlike cases the court hears on the merits, emergency cases usually don't involve in-person arguments, robust written briefs or lengthy opinions that explain how the majority reached a decision. They don't offer a rubric for lower courts to apply new precedents going forward. For the Supreme Court's 2023-24 term, the average length of a majority opinion was 5,010 words, according to Empirical SCOTUS, a blog that tracks data on the high court. The majority's July 14 emergency order that allowed the administration to go ahead with Education Department layoffs — praised by Trump on social media as 'a Major Victory' — was only 104 words. There are rare exceptions, such as the fight over Trump's birthright citizenship plan, in which the justices heard arguments and wrote a lengthy opinion. Still, the majority's June decision — which Trump called a 'GIANT WIN' on social media — left key issues unresolved for lower courts to sort through. The justices curbed judges' authority to expansively halt government actions but didn't completely rule out nationwide blocks. They didn't touch the core question of whether Trump's executive order is constitutional. In an emergency order, the Supreme Court considers which side is ultimately likely to succeed on the underlying legal questions, but the justices also focus on the harm each side might suffer in the interim. Tension on the Supreme Court over the escalating shadow docket activity predates Trump's latest term in office. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in 2021 that the conservative majority's use of the process resulted in decisions that were becoming 'more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.' Justice Samuel Alito accused critics of portraying the process as something 'sinister' in order to 'intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.' In remarks to a federal judges' conference on Thursday, Kagan underscored her concerns about the challenges that emergency orders create for lower courts. The justices 'don't usually meet about shadow docket matters and discuss them in the way we do with merits cases,' she said. There is 'a real responsibility that I think we didn't recognize when we first started down this road to explain things better.' The Trump administration's 21 emergency requests in six months exceeds the total number brought by the Biden administration and during the combined presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, according to research by Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent critic of the court's use of the shadow docket. The government has won 16 of the cases at least in part, even if only temporarily. The administration withdrew one application and largely lost four cases, including one filed by Venezuelans who were at risk of being sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison. Trump's wave of policies testing the bounds of presidential power has been met with a deluge of lawsuits, many of which have included requests by challengers for swift intervention by judges. The Justice Department, in turn, has quickly moved to at least temporarily halt the effects of lower court losses while it appeals. But that strategy hasn't always worked. It took just over two weeks for a federal appeals court in Boston to deny the government's emergency request to resume cuts to scientific research grants that a district judge blocked. In a July 18 order, a three-judge panel said it had 'no difficulty distinguishing' the facts of the case from the justices' emergency order in April letting the administration cut teacher-training grants. The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the grant fight. In its latest emergency application the administration claimed that 'district-court defiance' of the justices' April order 'has grown to epidemic proportions' in other funding cases. A Boston federal judge this month rejected the Justice Department's attempt to 'misguidedly argue' that two other Supreme Court orders required her to let Trump fire Department of Health and Human Services workers. In the first order, the justices said Trump could broadly proceed with a push to shrink the federal workforce but didn't rule on the lawfulness of any agency plan. In the other, the majority didn't offer an explanation when it let layoffs continue at the Education Department. The HHS case was likely to 'wind its way up and down the appellate courts,' US District Judge Melissa DuBose wrote, but 'this court declines the defendants' invitation to short circuit that process.' Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the mass firing fight, the San Francisco federal judge handling that case rejected the government's argument that it was effectively over. US District Judge Susan Illston wrote that the justices' 'terse order' was 'inherently preliminary' and left issues unsettled. With agencies carrying out layoffs following the Supreme Court's order, she wrote, 'the issues in this case remain of significant public importance.' The Justice Department raced to a federal appeals court, which this week temporarily paused Illston's latest order while it decides what to do. Should the government lose the latest round, it could bring the case back to the justices. With assistance from Suzanne Monyak and Greg Stohr. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India Today
34 minutes ago
- India Today
Donald Trump doesn't want FAANG to hire in India, but supply gap means companies may not listen to him
US President Donald Trump, a day ago, urged tech giants like Google and Microsoft to stop hiring in India and 'focus on Americans'. His comments immediately went viral, with people posting the clip of him slamming tech companies for having a 'globalist mindset.' His comments were also rather clear and stark: he said that tech companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta and others should put Americans first and should have their offices in America rather than setting them in India. advertisement'Many of our largest tech companies have reaped the blessings of American freedom while building their factories in China, hiring workers in India and stashing profits in Ireland, you know that,' said Trump. 'Under President Trump, those days are over.'The question then is this: Will Google, Microsoft and others follow and heed the call put forth by Trump? Will they stop hiring tech engineers and software developers in India? More significantly, will they look to set up new offices in America instead of in India? The answer to most of these questions is — unlikely. That is because the reality of tech talent supply, demand, and cost tells a different story. The US simply doesn't produce enough engineers to meet the growing needs in its tech sector, and hiring in India offers huge financial advantages. So, despite political pressure, tech hiring in India by FAANG and others is likely to enough tech engineers in the USLet's look at the numbers. Each year, according to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the US produces around 150,000 engineering graduates at the bachelor's level. In addition, around 50,000 students complete their master's in engineering, and roughly 12,000 receive doctorates. These sound like large numbers, but they're not enough when you consider how many people the tech industry needs. Just to give you a hint of the scale: Google employs around 1,80,000 employees. According to forecasts by the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, STEM jobs — especially in areas like software development — are expected to grow by about 11 per cent every year through 2032. In comparison, non-STEM jobs are expected to grow at just 2 per cent a year. That means demand for engineers is rising far faster than America can train and supply this creates is a talent gap. There are simply not enough American engineers to meet the demand of growing tech companies, particularly at this time, as they get into an AI race with each other as well as the rest of the world. And this gap forces companies to look outside the country, with India being one of the top choices. advertisementCompared to the US, the number of Indian engineering graduates is extremely high. According to estimates by India's Ministry of Education and AICTE, India produces over 1.5 million engineering graduates every year. While not all of them are in tech and software, and not all of them have the skillset that top tech companies look for in their employees, the sheer number of graduates itself is an attractive proposition for hiring managers working with global giants. At the same time, there is also a perception that fresh Indian IT engineers, particularly from top institutes like IIT, are eager and ready to grind in a way that US graduates are not. Then there is the cost factor Along with the mismatch in demand and supply, another reason why tech giants love to have their offices in India is the cost. Hiring Indians in India is simply more cost-effective for tech giants. Take salaries, for example. The median annual salary of a software developer in the US is typically around $120,000 - $140,000 (roughly Rs 1 - Rs 1.2 crores). In cities like San Francisco or Seattle, the pay is even higher, often ranging between $150,000 - $200,000 (roughly Rs 1.3 - Rs 1.73 crores) annually. advertisementMeanwhile, an Indian software developer earns significantly less. The average salaries of Indian software developers working in the US are around $75,000 (about Rs 65 lakh) per year, and in many cases, they are even India, the salaries for the same role and same work are even lower. In some cases, they can be as low as Rs 20 lakh (around $25,000), or even lower for positions that are open to only trainees and interns. The lower cost is one of the biggest reasons why companies continue to hire from India. For the same skills and productivity, firms can hire more people, manage larger projects, or simply reduce expenses. Tech companies likely to ignore TrumpThe US President is the world's most powerful person. But even he cannot compel any private tech company to hire or not hire people in some other country. The US government can surely force the companies with some specific laws, but the Trump administration is unlikely to do that because it would hit the US tech companies adversely. That means Trump can only suggest, and that is precisely what he did on July 24. The logic and ground realities mean that tech companies such as Google and Meta will simply ignore his comments. At best, they may, as a measure of reverence, hire a few more people in the US. But in general, Trump's comments are unlikely to change anything in connection with the FAANG hiring policies in India. The US currently just doesn't have enough engineers, and is definitely not cheap to hire, to fill all the vacancies that the tech companies have.- Ends
