U.S. Exit From UNESCO: Soft Power, Science Cooperation, and Cultural Heritage Risks

Nic Adams is the co-founder and CEO of 0rcus, a U.S.-based cybersecurity company focused on offensive security, automated testing, and AI-aware defense. Drawing on black-hat roots and non-attributable operational experience, he builds adversary-modeled programs that probe real-world attack paths, software supply-chain risk, and emerging machine-learning attack surfaces. Adams advises national security stakeholders and private-sector leaders on exploitation methods, incident response, and pentesting strategy. He is regularly quoted by major business and tech outlets, including Forbes and Dow Jones MarketWatch, and writes commentary for SC Magazine.

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Nic Adams, co-founder and CEO of 0rcus, to assess the likely consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO in 2026. Adams argues the move would weaken American soft power by reducing the country’s ability to shape global norms in education, science, and culture. He warns of disrupted research networks, reduced access to collaborative funding and data-sharing, and diminished leadership on climate-related scientific programs. Adams also highlights risks to cultural heritage diplomacy in conflict zones, and notes past withdrawal cycles created influence vacuums competitors—especially China—moved to fill.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the likely implications of a U.S. exit from UNESCO for American soft power and global influence?

Nic Adams: The impending United States withdrawal from UNESCO in 2026 carries significant implications for American soft power and global influence. Historically, engagement with multilateral organizations like UNESCO provides a critical platform for projecting cultural values, scientific leadership, and educational norms. Disengagement curtails the U.S.’s capacity to shape international discourse on critical issues, ceding ground in arenas where ideational influence, rather than kinetic force, is paramount. This voluntary abdication diminishes the perception of the United States as a reliable and constructive partner in global initiatives, thereby eroding its diplomatic leverage and creating a vacuum that geopolitical competitors will inevitably seek to fill, potentially shaping international standards in ways antithetical to U.S. strategic interests.

Jacobsen: How could the withdrawal disrupt international collaboration in education, scientific research, and cultural exchange?

Adams: The withdrawal fundamentally disrupts established mechanisms for international collaboration in education, scientific research, and cultural exchange. UNESCO serves as a critical convener, facilitating cross-border research partnerships, standardizing educational methodologies, and fostering academic mobility. U.S. disengagement severs formal ties to these networks, limiting American researchers, educators, and cultural professionals’ access to multilateral funding, data sharing protocols, and collaborative projects addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and digital literacy. This isolation hampers knowledge dissemination and innovation, ultimately hindering collective progress on issues demanding transnational solutions.

Jacobsen: What impact might this have on global cultural heritage diplomacy, particularly in conflict zones or endangered sites?

Adams: The impact on global cultural heritage diplomacy, especially in conflict zones or at endangered sites, will be profound. UNESCO’s World Heritage program and its initiatives for cultural safeguarding in times of crisis rely heavily on international consensus, expertise, and funding. The U.S., historically a significant financial contributor and a source of expert personnel, plays a crucial role in these endeavors. Its withdrawal diminishes the collective resources available for emergency safeguarding, illicit trafficking prevention, and post-conflict cultural reconstruction. This reduced engagement weakens the diplomatic leverage necessary to protect vulnerable heritage, potentially exacerbating cultural destruction and undermining efforts to leverage heritage for peacebuilding in fragile states.

Jacobsen: How does U.S. participation in UNESCO support broader climate and sustainability goals, and what could be lost with its departure?

Adams: U.S. participation in UNESCO indirectly but significantly supports broader climate and sustainability goals through its scientific programs, particularly those related to oceanography, hydrology, and biosphere reserves. UNESCO provides a framework for international scientific cooperation on climate research, data collection, and the development of sustainable development educational curricula. With the U.S. departure, the potential loss encompasses scientific leadership in these critical domains, reduced funding for vital research initiatives, and a diminished capacity to influence global sustainability policy from within a key multilateral forum. This exit could fragment collective efforts to address complex environmental challenges that transcend national borders.

Jacobsen: Are there historical precedents for U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO, and what lessons can be drawn from past re-engagement or disengagement?

Adams: There are indeed historical precedents for U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO. The United States first withdrew in 1984 under the Reagan administration, citing concerns over politicization and mismanagement. It rejoined in 2003 under George W. Bush, only to withdraw again in 2017 under the Trump administration. The Biden administration reversed that decision in 2023. Lessons from these cycles of disengagement and re-engagement indicate that withdrawal often leads to a diminished U.S. voice in shaping UNESCO’s agenda and a vacuum that other nations, particularly China, actively seek to fill. Re-engagement typically requires significant diplomatic effort and financial outlays to clear arrears, highlighting the persistent cost of intermittent engagement. The recurring pattern suggests a fundamental tension between U.S. domestic political priorities and consistent multilateral engagement.

Jacobsen: Which countries or institutions might step in to fill the leadership and funding gap left by the U.S.?

Adams: The leadership and funding vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal will likely be filled by an increasingly assertive China, which has consistently expanded its influence within multilateral institutions. Other nations with robust cultural diplomacy objectives, such as France and Germany, or emerging economies with growing geopolitical ambitions, may also increase their contributions and leadership roles. Furthermore, non-state actors, including philanthropic foundations, private sector entities, and international NGOs, may intensify their efforts to support UNESCO’s programs, though their collective capacity may not fully offset the financial and ideational contributions of a major state actor.

Jacobsen: How might this decision affect public perception of the U.S. as a partner in global development and cultural preservation?

Adams: The decision will likely negatively affect public perception of the United States as a reliable partner in global development and cultural preservation. Withdrawal from an organization dedicated to education, science, and culture can be interpreted by the international community as a signal of disinterest in global cooperation and a retreat from the shared values of cultural understanding and scientific advancement. This perception undermines goodwill, potentially impacting bilateral relationships and fostering skepticism regarding U.S. commitment to collective humanitarian and developmental endeavors. It reinforces a narrative of isolationism, potentially diminishing America’s moral authority on the global stage.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Nic.

—

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.