On 22 July 2025, the US administration announced its definitive withdrawal from UNESCO, effective as of 31 December 2026. This is not the first time this has happened: the United States already left this organisation in 1984 and in 2017, marking a third departure with multiple political and cultural consequences.
This announcement has opened a critical strategic space for the European Union, which now could take on a more decisive leadership role in the field of global cultural diplomacy. This opportunity coincides with the development of the Cultural Compass for Europe, a key initiative within the European strategy for international outreach and democratic values.
The significance of this moment lies not only in the symbolic importance of the US withdrawal, but also in the many practical implications it has for the future of international cooperation in education, science and culture.
The US withdrawal from UNESCO goes beyond a budgetary or ideological dispute. It is a reconfiguration of global cultural power at a time when the European Union is seeking to project greater international normative leadership.
The European reaction has been unanimous in its message: cultural multilateralism cannot be left in the hands of a single global actor. Emmanuel Macron reiterated France’s “unwavering support” for UNESCO, while Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot described the US decision as “deeply regrettable”. Germany emphasised its preference for “reform over abandonment”.
This consolidated European position reflects a broader EU strategy to position itself as a guarantor of democratic values in multilateral organisations, especially when other actors adopt more transactional or authoritarian approaches.
China has significantly increased its influence in UNESCO following the US withdrawal in 2017, becoming the leading donor with contributions of close to $65 million per year. Beyond funding, it has managed to place key diplomats in strategic positions, consolidating its institutional presence.
In 2018, China secured the appointment of Xing Qu as UNESCO’s deputy director-general. As Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group explains: “China does not need to control all decisions; its constant and financially active presence allows it to shape the agency from within.“
In addition, China uses initiatives such as its Belt and Road project to promote cultural and heritage projects in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, strengthening diplomatic and academic networks in these areas.
A key aspect is control over historical narratives. In nominations for heritage sites, China presents an official version that emphasises Han cultural identity, relegating minority voices, with impacts in regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet.
The Trump administration argues that UNESCO is advancing a “globalist and ideological” agenda with approaches to diversity and inclusion that it considers contrary to “America First.” This perception reflects a deeper tension over the role of multilateral organisations in defining global values and norms.
Palestine’s membership in UNESCO since 2011 continues to be the basis for US accusations of anti-Israeli bias, a dispute that transcends administrations.
According to PBS News, US assistance currently represents only 8% of UNESCO’s total budget, the result of the diversification of funding sources that the agency has undergone in recent years. This figure contrasts sharply with the 22% contributed by the United States in 2017.
Although the direct financial impact is manageable for UNESCO, the symbolism of this reduction creates uncertainty about the sustainability of cultural multilateralism.
The European Union has developed a solid consensus on the strategic value of UNESCO that transcends changes in national governments. This stability contrasts sharply with US intermittency and provides a solid basis for greater European leadership.
The consolidated European narrative presents the United States as an exponent of harmful unilateralism, China as a worrying authoritarian opportunist, and the EU as the natural defender of democratic multilateralism.
The timing is particularly auspicious because the EU is currently developing its Cultural Compass for Europe with specific objectives for greater global cultural outreach.
To learn more about cultural diplomacy strategies and practices, which are fundamental to this European leadership, I recommend consulting my analysis on cultural diplomacy, where I discuss key concepts and practical cases that enrich this strategic perspective.
Europe can fill the institutional vacuum left by the United States to promote a more inclusive, transparent and human rights-based multilateralism. This involves not only increasing financial contributions but also leading coalitions of countries that share democratic values.
The EU has significant comparative advantages: internal linguistic and cultural diversity, experience in managing differences through dialogue, and consolidated networks with countries in the Global South through development cooperation programmes.
Europe can proactively defend cultural diversity, academic freedom and historical plurality against homogeneous or authoritarian approaches. This is particularly relevant in heritage nominations, where a balance between cultural recognition and respect for minority rights is required.
Europe can promote global standards in education and artificial intelligence based on human oversight, fairness and security. The European regulatory framework for AI offers a model that can be exported through UNESCO, especially in countries seeking alternatives to more permissive or authoritarian approaches.
Through EU-funded cultural, educational and scientific programmes in partnership with UNESCO, a European profile as a global normative actor would be consolidated. This includes funding for projects in third countries and academic exchanges.
Without an effective democratic counterweight, UNESCO could lean towards agendas that validate official versions of history and minimise violations of minority rights. The absence of Western leadership may reinforce perceptions of democratic decline in global bodies.
Europe must also avoid internal fragmentation in cultural diplomacy. The effectiveness of European leadership will depend on the ability to maintain cohesion among member states.
The EU can increase its financial contribution to UNESCO in a coordinated manner, establishing conditions linked to transparency, democratic participation and respect for cultural diversity. At the same time, it should intensify the placement of European professionals in key technical positions.
Strategic alliances with countries in the Global South are crucial, offering alternatives to the Chinese model of cultural cooperation. Europe can lead initiatives that combine heritage preservation with local economic development.
The third US withdrawal from UNESCO is not just more news about unilateralism. It is a historic opportunity for Europe to take the lead in defining global standards for culture, education and science.
As professionals in strategic communication and cultural diplomacy, we have a responsibility to analyse these dynamics beyond the headlines. The cultural diplomacy of the 21st century is being decided in these moments of geopolitical reconfiguration.
What is your perspective on the role Europe should play in these multilateral spaces? Connect with me on LinkedIn to continue this conversation about the future of European cultural diplomacy.
Institutions keep designing messages for public feeds while their audiences make decisions in WhatsApp groups no institutional algorithm can reach. The problem is not technical. It is a question about how trust works when public visibility disappears and what remains are relationships.
When a deepfake involving your organisation surfaces, the first instinct is to treat it as a technical emergency. But what determines the real damage is not the fake content itself — it is what your organisation does, or fails to do, in the hours that follow. That is a communication decision.
Is your team already using AI without clear rules in place? This practical guide shows how to build an AI editorial policy for communication: what to allow, who reviews it, and how to disclose its use without putting trust at risk.