US to leave UN cultural agency UNESCO again, diplomats say
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours.
The move is a blow to the Paris-based agency, founded after World War Two to promote peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture. The New York Post also reported on the U.S. withdrawal, citing a White House official.
Trump took similar steps during his first term, quitting the World Health Organization, the U.N. Human Rights Council, a global climate change accord and the Iran nuclear deal.
Joe Biden reversed those decisions after taking office in 2021, returning the U.S. to UNESCO, the WHO and the climate agreement.
With Trump now back in the White House, the U.S. is once again pulling out of these global bodies. He has already decided to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO and halt funding to the Palestinian relief agency UNRWA as part of a review of the U.S.' participation in UN agencies, due to be concluded in August.
UNESCO is best known for designating World Heritage Sites, including the Grand Canyon in the United States and the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria.
The United States initially joined UNESCO at its founding in 1945 but withdrew for the first time in 1984 in protest against alleged financial mismanagement and perceived anti-U.S. bias, returning almost 20 years later in 2003 under President George W. Bush, who then said the agency had undertaken needed reforms.
UNESCO's full name is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
The United States provides about 8 per cent of UNESCO's total budget, down from about 20% at the time Trump first pulled the United States out of the agency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Columbia University suspends or expels almost 80 students for pro-Palestine protest
Columbia University announced new sanctions against student activists on Tuesday, suspending or expelling dozens of students for their participation in pro-Palestine protests. The suspensions will last between one and three years and will require students to write an apology letter if they wish to return to the university. The disciplinary proceedings primarily targeted students involved in the takeover of Butler Library to host a teach-in honouring the Palestinian writer Basel al-Araj, who was killed by Israeli forces in 2017. Protesters renamed the library 'the Basel al-Araj Popular University'. 'The sanctions issued on July 21 by the University Judicial Board were determined by a UJB panel of professors and administrators who worked diligently over the summer to offer an outcome for each individual based on the findings of their case and prior disciplinary outcomes,' Columbia wrote in a statement. Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) said in a statement: 'Once Barnard joins Columbia in announcing charges, these will be the most suspensions for a single political protest in Columbia campus history and hugely exceed sentencing precedent for teach-ins or non-Palestine-related building occupations.' Barnard is a Columbia University affiliate. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters CUAD alleged that Columbia president Claire Shipman modified disciplinary proceedings to crack down on student protesters. '[Shipman] illegally restructured the University Judicial Board (UJB) and removed student members and faculty oversight to pursue exceptionally harsh sanctions against its own students,' CUAD said in a statement. Pro-Palestine protests at Columbia and other universities have come to the forefront since the beginning of Israel's war on Gaza, which several countries, as well as many international rights groups and experts, now say qualify as an act of genocide. More than 100 Palestinians in Gaza, including at least 80 children, have starved to death as a result of Israel's siege, and more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed at aid distribution sites since March. Police on campus Students have condemned Columbia's collaboration with the New York Police Department (NYPD) and Trump administration officials. During the takeover of Butler Library, Columbia invited NYPD officials on to campus, who ultimately arrested 78 demonstrators. Columbia claimed the NYPD's presence was necessary to 'assist in securing the building and the safety of our community'. Georgetown University professor placed on leave over misrepresented X post Read More » But four students were hospitalised with concussions due to NYPD brutality during the protest, according to CUAD. One of the arrested students reported being 'choked and going in and out of consciousness after the arrest. One of [the police officers] kept trying to gouge my eyes. They slammed my head into the floor multiple times.' CUAD alleged that the disciplinary sanctions were a result of talks between Columbia and the Trump administration to restore $400 million in cancelled federal funding. They listed Columbia's adoption of a definition of antisemitism that considers Zionism a protected class and a new partnership with the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League as similar concessions. Columbia's press office did not respond to a request for clarification. Student activists say they will continue to organise undeterred by disciplinary proceedings. According to one student quoted on CUAD's Substack, 'if this hearing was meant to isolate or shame, it has done the opposite. It has made us more clear: no sanction handed down here can expel principle. Basel al-Araj wrote: 'Join them, and don't betray the question.' We have joined, and we will not betray the question."
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
US State Department to investigate Harvard sponsorship of international student visas
The US State Department has launched an investigation into whether Harvard University should remain eligible to sponsor international student visas. The investigation comes amid heightened tension between President Donald Trump and the Ivy League university in Boston over what the Trump administration claims is anti-Israel bias. 'Visa sponsorship is a privilege, and sponsors whose conduct tarnishes our nation's interests will lose that privilege,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X on Wednesday. The State Department said it would look into whether Harvard has complied with visa regulations that include 'transparency in reporting, and a demonstrated commitment to fostering the principles of cultural exchange and mutual understanding upon which the programme was founded'. It is unclear exactly how or whether Harvard has violated the programme in any way. 'This investigation is yet another retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights,' university spokeswoman Sarah Kennedy-O'Reilly said in a statement. 'Harvard continues to enrol and sponsor international scholars, researchers and students, and will protect its international community and support them as they apply for US visas and travel to campus this [autumn]. The university is committed to continuing to comply with the applicable exchange visitor programme regulations.' The Trump administration has cracked down on foreign students who have demonstrated in support of Palestine and has attempted to force universities to address an alleged liberal bias. The administration and Harvard have been battling in court for months over issues including foreign students and federal funding. 'The American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law, and provide safe environments for all students,' the State Department said. 'The investigation will ensure that State Department programmes do not run contrary to our nation's interests.'
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Trump's AI plan seeks to remove regulatory barriers and shuns DEI
President Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a three-pillared strategy that his administration refers to as America's AI Action Plan, after much anticipation from US technology companies. Accelerating artificial intelligence innovation, building AI infrastructure in the US and leading in AI diplomacy are the strategy's three main sections. Mr Trump was expected to speak in greater detail about the AI strategy at an event in Washington later on Wednesday. Like many of Mr Trump's initiatives, his proposal seeks to portray former president Joe Biden's AI strategy as burdensome from a regulatory perspective and full of identity politics and environmental red tape. President Trump's plan directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to 'revise the AI management framework, eliminating references to diversity, equity and inclusion, misinformation and climate change'. The AI push also looks at issues many experts consider more pertinent to the global AI race. It seeks to streamline the construction permit process for data centres, which are becoming critical to AI breakthroughs. The plan also emphasises exporting 'American AI technologies through full-stack deployment packages and international data centre initiatives led by the Department of Commerce'. That sort of data centre deal is similar to what was unveiled during President Trump's visit to the UAE in May. Then, President Sheikh Mohamed and Mr Trump announced plans for a new 5GW UAE-US AI Campus in Abu Dhabi. If more of those deals come to fruition, it could help the US gain influence as other countries seek to join the race to provide computational power for AI. Hypothetically, it could also give the US a competitive edge over China, which also aims to be a dominant AI player. With his AI Action Plan, Mr Trump is attempting to put the kibosh on local regulatory efforts within the US. State legislative bodies have passed laws to put guardrails on AI in an effort to protect workers from labour disruption. 'Prohibit federal AI funds from going to states with restrictive AI regulations,' reads one of the plan descriptions, also insisting that such prohibitive policies 'respect states' legislative rights'. On a technical level, proponents of open-source AI development are likely to take a victory lap after Mr Trump's plan. It throws support behind open-source and open-weight AI models. Supporters of open-source AI models often say they democratise artificial intelligence, whereas closed-source models only allow for those with access to larger computing infrastructures to develop the technology. Neil Chilson, former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission and currently head of artificial intelligence policy at the Abundance Institute, called the AI plan a 'course correction' from the previous policies of the Biden White House. 'We're particularly excited to see the emphasis on removing regulatory barriers to AI adoption and deployment and streamlining of infrastructure permitting,' he said. Over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, reaction to President Trump's plan was more tepid, alleging that the AI plan still exerted too much regulatory control. 'The plan's push for international AI standards is similar to the European Union's stultifying regulatory harmonization, which, among other things, is locking the continent into USB-C technology for years to come, even as better technologies emerge,' said Ryan Young, Senior Economist with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. According to White House officials, President Trump is pushing 90 federal policy actions in the plan, which comes after he sought public input for a comprehensive AI policy in February. Tech companies, academics and advocacy groups submitted ideas. Consumer rights, labour and environmental groups outlined areas of concern within Mr Trump's less restrictive stance on AI. Several organisations, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, were concerned the tech industry would have too much influence in crafting the AI plan. 'While current machine-learning technologies have some positive applications, they are also being adopted in consequential decision-making contexts where these emerging technologies are likely to cause harm and unlikely to deliver the promised benefits,' the EFF wrote in a March letter to the White House. During a conference call with reporters, the White House disagreed with the narrative that tech firms had amassed more influence. 'It was probably one of the most diverse set of individuals from across the country and across different sectors, from civil society to Hollywood to academia to the private sector,' a White House official said. The Trump administration said it had received more than 10,000 responses to the requests for guidance, from which it moulded the AI plan. Early in Mr Trump's second term, he signed an executive order that rescinded Mr Biden's executive order on AI. That order acknowledged the tremendous potential upside of AI and encouraged the acceleration of vital AI standards, but was also geared towards implementing guardrails to protect consumers. 'Developers of the most powerful AI systems [must] share their safety test results and other critical information with the US government,' a portion of Mr Biden's executive order read. That policy is largely absent from President Trump's plan.
