US To Leave UN Cultural Body, Citing 'National Interest'
"Continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States," State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said.
UNESCO called the US departure -- which it said will take effect in December 2026 -- regrettable, but unsurprising, and said its financial impact would be limited.
President Donald Trump had already ordered withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation once before, in 2017 during his first term. President Joe Biden then reestablished US membership.
"I deeply regret President Donald Trump's decision to once again withdraw the United States of America from UNESCO," Director-General Audrey Azoulay said, adding the move contradicted fundamental principles of multilateralism.
"However regrettable, this announcement was expected, and UNESCO has prepared for it".
In recent years, Azoulay said, UNESCO had "undertaken major structural reforms and diversified our funding sources", including with private and voluntary governmental contributions.
The US share of UNESCO's total budget currently stands at eight percent, she said. This compares to an estimate of nearly 20 percent a decade ago, according to a UNESCO source who asked not to be named.
No staff redundancies were planned, Azoulay said.
Bruce described UNESCO as working "to advance divisive social and cultural causes" and being overly focused on UN sustainability goals, which she described as a "globalist, ideological agenda."
Bruce also highlighted what she said was the body's anti-Israeli position in admitting Palestine as a state.
"UNESCO's decision to admit the 'State of Palestine' as a member state is highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation," Bruce said.
The administration has also objected to UNESCO's recognition of heritage sites in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem as Palestinian.
Azoulay said the reasons put forward by the US "are the same as seven years ago" although, she said, "the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism".
Washington's claims "contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts", she added, "especially in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism".
The source at UNESCO described the US move as "purely political, without any real factual base".
The organisation had already been "forced" to do without US money for several years after the 2017 departure, the source told AFP. UNESCO adapted but new sources of funding would still need to be found, the source said.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said he welcomed the US decision. "This is a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system," he said on X.
French President Emmanuel Macron meanwhile said, also on X, that UNESCO had his "unwavering support" that would not weaken after the US departure.
The UN organisation describes its mission as promoting education, scientific cooperation and cultural understanding.
It oversees a list of heritage sites aimed at preserving unique environmental and architectural gems, ranging from Australia's Great Barrier Reef and the Serengeti in Tanzania to the Athens Acropolis and Pyramids of Egypt.
The UNESCO source said that the US will continue to be represented on the world heritage committee even after leaving the organisation formally, just as it had in 2017.
Trump was not the first to pull the United States out of UNESCO.
President Ronald Reagan ended US membership in the 1980s, saying the agency was corrupt and pro-Soviet. The United States reentered under the presidency of George W. Bush.
The American return under Biden was a major success for Azoulay, who became UNESCO chief in 2017, also because it included a pledge to pay back the US's contribution arrears to the tune of $619 million.
On Tuesday, Azoulay said the US could always return to the fold in the future.
"The United States of America is and always will be welcome," she said. UNESCO will have to find new sources of funding AFP UNESCO's boss said the US can always come back AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
10 minutes ago
- Int'l Business Times
UN Experts Call For GHF To Be Dismantled
United Nations special rapporteurs called Tuesday for the Israel- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to be immediately dismantled, saying aid was being "exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas". An exceptionally-large group of the UN-mandated experts voiced grave concerns over the GHF's operations. The private organisation began distributing food in Gaza Strip in May as Israel began easing a more than two-month aid blockade on the Palestinian territory that had exacerbated existing shortages. "The GHF ... is an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law," the experts said in a joint statement. "The entanglement of Israeli intelligence, US contractors and ambiguous non-governmental entities underlines the urgent need for robust international oversight and action under UN auspices. "Calling it 'humanitarian' adds on to Israel's humanitarian camouflage and is an insult to the humanitarian enterprise and standards." On July 22, the UN rights office said Israeli forces had killed more than 1,000 Palestinians trying to get food aid in Gaza since the GHF started operations -- nearly three-quarters of them in the vicinity of GHF sites. "Without clear accountability, the very idea of humanitarian relief may ultimately become a casualty of modern hybrid warfare," the special rapporteurs said. "The credibility and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance must be restored by dismantling the GHF, holding it and its executives accountable, and allowing experienced and humanitarian actors from the UN and civil society alike to take back the reins of managing and distributing lifesaving aid." The joint statement was signed by Francesca Albanese, the UN's special rapporteur on the rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. Israel accuses her of having an "obsessive, hate-driven agenda to delegitimise the state of Israel". The statement was also signed by 18 other special rapporteurs, plus other UN experts and members of UN working groups -- a notably large number for such statements. Special rapporteurs are independent experts mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to report their findings. They do not, therefore, speak for the United Nations itself. More than two million people live in the Gaza Strip. GHF says it has distributed more than 1.76 million boxes of foodstuffs to date. "We continue to improve our operations," GHF executive director John Acree said Monday. "We urge the international humanitarian community to join us -- we have the scale and capacity to deliver more aid to the people of Gaza."
Int'l Business Times
4 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
UN Starts New Bid To Forge Plastics Treaty Amid 'Global Crisis'
Nations must resolve the global plastics crisis, the head of UN talks told negotiators from 180 countries gathered in Geneva on Tuesday to forge a landmark treaty on eliminating the life-threatening waste. "We are facing a global crisis," Ecuadoran diplomat Luis Vayas Valdivieso said at the start of 10 days of negotiations. "Plastic pollution is damaging ecosystems, polluting our oceans and rivers, threatening biodiversity, harming human health, and unfairly impacting the most vulnerable," he said. "The urgency is real, the evidence is clear, and the responsibility is on us." Three years of negotiations hit the wall in Busan, South Korea in December when oil-producing states blocked a consensus. Key figures steering the negotiations at this new attempt said they were not expecting an easy ride this time, but insisted a deal remained within reach. "There's been extensive diplomacy from Busan till now," UN Environment Programme executive director Inger Andersen told AFP. UNEP is hosting the talks, and Andersen said conversations between different regions and interest groups had generated momentum. "Most countries, actually, that I have spoken with have said: 'We're coming to Geneva to strike the deal'. "Will it be easy? No. Will it be straightforward? No. Is there a pathway for a deal? Absolutely." Plastic pollution is so ubiquitous that microplastics have been found on the highest mountain peaks, in the deepest ocean trench and scattered throughout almost every part of the human body. In 2022, countries agreed they would find a way to address the crisis by the end of 2024. However, the supposedly final negotiations on a legally-binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the seas, flopped in Busan. One group of countries sought an ambitious deal to limit production and phase out harmful chemicals. But a clutch of mostly oil-producing nations rejected production limits and wanted to focus on treating waste. Valdivieso insisted that an effective, fair and ambitious agreement was within reach. "Our paths and positions might differ; our destination is the same," he said Monday. "We are all here because we believe in a shared cause: a world free of plastic pollution." More than 600 non-governmental organisations are in Geneva. NGOs and civil society have access to the discussions tackling the thorniest points, such as banning certain chemicals and capping production. "To solve the plastic pollution crisis, we have to stop making so much plastic," Greenpeace delegation chief Graham Forbes told AFP. The group and its allies want a treaty "that cuts plastic production, eliminates toxic chemicals, and provides the financing that's going to be required to transition to a fossil fuel, plastic-free future", he said. "The fossil fuel industry is here in force," he noted, adding: "We cannot let a few countries determine humanity's future when it comes to plastic pollution." More than 400 million tonnes of plastic are produced globally each year, half of which is for single-use items. While 15 percent of plastic waste is collected for recycling, only nine percent is actually recycled. Nearly half, 46 percent, ends up in landfills, while 17 percent is incinerated and 22 percent is mismanaged and becomes litter. A report in The Lancet medical journal warned Monday that plastic pollution was a "grave, growing and under-recognised danger" to health, costing the world at least $1.5 trillion a year in health-related economic losses. The new review of existing evidence, conducted by leading health researchers and doctors, compared plastic to air pollution and lead, saying its impact on health could be mitigated by laws and policies. To hammer home the message, a replica outside the UN of Auguste Rodin's famous sculpture "The Thinker" will be slowly submerged in mounting plastic rubbish during the talks. The artwork, entitled "The Thinker's Burden", is being constructed by the Canadian artist and activist Benjamin Von Wong. "If you want to protect health, then we need to think about the toxic chemicals that are entering our environment," he told AFP. But Matthew Kastner, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said the plastics industry and its products were "vital to public health", notably through medical devices, surgical masks, child safety seats, helmets and pipes delivering clean water. Delegates gather for UN talks on securing a treaty on plastic waste AFP Activists stage a demonstation in front of the UN building in Geneva ahead of talks on securing a treaty on plastics waste and production AFP Activists stage a demonstation in front of the UN complext in Geneva ahead of talks on securing a treaty on plastics waste and production AFP Plastic waste has become a global threat to human health and the environment, according to experts AFP
DW
5 hours ago
- DW
Fact check: Are X's community notes fueling misinformation? – DW – 08/05/2025
"Community notes" are supposed to provide helpful context to potentially misleading content on X. But they are appearing less often and, when they do, sometimes present inaccurate information. Can users trust them? On July 9, the US government sanctioned United Nations Human Rights Council special rapporteur Francesca Albanese for what the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said was a "campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States." Albanese has consistently denounced Israel's actions in Gaza since its offensive against the Palestinian militant group Hamas began in October 2023, as well as the Trump administration's efforts to suppress dissenting voices critical of Israel. The announcement was rejected by the UN, which called for a reversal of the sanctions, and it also prompted a debate online, where Albanese's name began to trend on X (formerly Twitter). Posts poured in both defending and criticizing her work, accompanied in several cases by "Community Notes," X's signature tool to fight misinformation. The notes, which are essentially brief clarifications or extra context attached to posts, can be submitted by anyone. X claims it uses what it calls a "bridging algorithm" to prevent bias, lending more weight to upvotes from users with historically different viewpoints and thus theoretically reducing the chance that a single group can dominate the narrative. But that doesn't make them immune from error. In the case of Albanese, for instance, one community note claimed that "Francesca Albanese is not a lawyer," amplifying arguments by her critics about her qualifications and "ethical conduct." While Albanese did admit in an interview with Vanity Fair that she didn't take the bar exam, which would have qualified her as a practising attorney, she did study law. Her official profile on the website of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) describes her as an "international lawyer" who has authored publications on International Law. What this example shows is that while community notes can be a valuable tool to reduce the spread of disinformation, they are not always accurate and often fail to paint the whole picture. Notes are meant to be a system where users collaboratively add context and verify facts. Research from Cornell University has shown that notes on inaccurate posts on X help to reduce reposts and increase the likelihood that the original author deletes the post. However, according to an analysis of X data by NBC News, the number of community notes being published are declining in number, and DW Fact check spotted several examples of the tool misleading users instead of helping them spot falsehoods. In July 2025, a post by Sky News quoting the United Kingdom's Metropolitan Police chief went viral, accumulating over 4.7 million views. The post linked to a Sky News article based on an interview with the police chief, which highlighted structural inequality, noting it was "shameful" that black boys in London were statistically more likely to die young than white boys. The community note was then added; however, it was reframed, stating: "The headline lacks the essential context that despite making up only 13% of London's total population, Black Londoners account for 45% of London's knife murder victims, 61% of knife murder perpetrators, and 53% of knife crime perpetrators." While factually correct, the note introduced unrelated crime statistics from 2022 — subtly shifting the focus from systemic inequality to framing black boys as perpetrators of crime. Instead of clarifying the issue, the note distorted the original message, misleading users who hadn't actually clicked on the link in the post. Another problem was spotted by experts during the 2024 US Presidential elections. Researchers Alexios Mantzarlis and Alex Mahadevan from the Florida-based Poynter Institute analyzed community notes posted on Election Day. Their goal was to assess whether community notes were helping counter election misinformation or not. Their findings raised concerns. Out of all fact-checkable posts analyzed, only 29% carried a community note rated as "helpful." In X's system, a note is rated "helpful" when it is upvoted by a diverse group of contributors and prioritized for public display. But of these "helpful" notes, only 67% actually addressed content that was fact-checkable. In other words, nearly a third of the notes that appeared as helpful were attached to posts that didn't contain factual claims at all. The researchers saw this as a problem of low precision and recall: too few misleading posts were getting corrected, and even when notes appeared, many weren't targeting actual misinformation. As Poynter noted, "This is not the kind of precision and recall figures that typically get a product shipped at a Big Tech platform." Meanwhile, Germany's Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft, a research institute based in Berlin analyzed nearly 9,000 community notes in the run-up to the country's federal elections in February this year, and found that "community notes follow political patterns." The institute said, "Users who write notes are not free of political views. Their assessments and comments may therefore be influenced by their own interests or ideological biases." Poynter's Mahadevan explained in an interview with DW's fact-checking team how people may be gaming the system: when someone new joins Community Notes, X assumes they're unbiased because they haven't rated many notes yet. "Bad actors and troll farms have figured out you can flood the system with new accounts to upvote certain viewpoints and get those notes published," says Mahadevan. Another potential problem with notes is speed. A study by the Digital Democracy Institute of the Americas (DDIA), which analyzed over 1.76 million notes across 55 languages from January 2021 to March 2025, found that while publication speed has improved — from over 100 days in 2022 to an average of 14 days in 2025 — that's still too slow to help stop the spread of disinformation. Falsehoods spread within hours, not days. For example, a November 2023 Bloomberg analysis during the Israel-Hamas war found that relevant community notes took over seven hours to appear, with some taking as long as 70 hours. In breaking news situations, where users are looking for quick and reliable information online, this might be too long. Community notes do help clarify misinformation; however, sometimes, they mislead. But their overall usage is declining, and that's where X's strategy can come into question. According to Grok, X's AI chatbot, in spite of a decline in community notes, over 1 million users were contributing to Community Notes by May 2025. But Mahadevan calls this a façade, pointing out two opposing trends: contributor numbers are rising, but the number of published notes is falling. He describes X's approach as a kind of "Ponzi scheme" constantly adding new users to keep the system active, while the actual fact-checking effectiveness declines. With platforms like Meta and TikTok now copying X's community notes model, experts warn that the risks are growing. At its core, community notes depend on ordinary users having the skills to fact-check complex claims. Mahadevan puts it bluntly: "We live in a very media-illiterate society, and people have a tough time determining what's a trustworthy source." Therefore, without sufficient safeguards, such systems risk amplifying misinformation instead of stopping it.
