President Trump has declared that the United States is exiting the UN Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time. Many view this as a positive development. UNESCO has been known to support gender ideology in education, discriminatory DEI policies, and has been accused of revising Jewish history in sacred sites.
Interestingly, it seems the administration didn’t really need to officially withdraw from the treaty. Constitutionally speaking, the US hasn’t been a member since its first departure in 2017.
When Biden attempted to rejoin the Paris-based entity back in 2023, he did not seek Congressional approval, which was somewhat unusual. Because of this oversight, the US didn’t actually re-enter UNESCO by domestic law standards.
This nuance is critical, particularly as the current administration is planning reforms within the UN. The idea of international membership shouldn’t just be a political tool. When someone wants to be a member, the council first has to approve that. Now that the US has exited, the next president will need to secure a fresh Congressional license to come back.
According to the Constitution, the President can only commit the nation to treaties with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. This is a significant obstacle, and rightly so: treaties with foreign states can impose more complex obligations compared to domestic agreements, which can be harder to retract. Historically, many presidents have sought approval from both houses.
When the US joined UNESCO in 1946 (and the World Health Organization in 1948), President Truman was acting in line with laws that both houses had approved.
However, Congress didn’t give Biden the green light to re-enter UNESCO. Instead, he seemed to believe that the 1946 approval was a lifetime membership, when really it was a single-instance agreement. If the US exits a treaty that has Senate ratification, rejoining must adhere to the new advice and consent requirements. Congressional approval should mimic Senate ratification in this aspect.
To draw a parallel: if a president dismisses someone who was approved by the Senate and wants to reappoint them, no one would agree that they can do so simply because they were once confirmed. For instance, Andrew Jackson’s Attorney General resigned and was later reappointed, only to be rejected by the Senate.
The statutory context shows that the 1946 agreement allowed the president to “accept membership.” If such legislative approvals allowed for an endless cycle of rejoining, it complicates the process of exiting international agreements.
The concept of permanent membership was introduced by Jimmy Carter in 1980, referencing a permit from 1934 about rejoining the International Labour Organization. When President Bush reentered UNESCO in 2002 nearly 20 years after Reagan had exited, he also didn’t seek Congressional approval. Neither instance has received significant scrutiny, and these modern actions don’t necessarily validate constitutional protocols.
There is certainly a strong discussion around the Trump administration’s withdrawal from UNESCO, treating it as if it had formally been a member, maybe to sidestep confusion or complacency. Yet, it’s crucial for the administration to clarify that this “resignation” stems from cautiousness and isn’t an acknowledgment of valid participation, given the lack of payment of membership fees.
To prevent future abuses by administrations, Congress should consider rescinding outdated approvals related to UNESCO and the WHO. If a future president wishes to rejoin, they’ll need to convince Congress based on current organizational standards, rather than the ideals of the 1940s.
