U.S. “Rejects and Denounces” United Nations 2030 Agenda

Dan Titus, May 1, 2025

In a significant move, the United States government has publicly stated it “rejects and denounces” the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs – See table below to view SDGs goals and opposition critiques). This statement, delivered at the 58th Session of the UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD58), indicates the U.S. will no longer automatically reaffirm the SDGs. U.S. Rejection: The U.S. delegation at the UN explicitly declared it rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda and SDGs. No More Reaffirmation: The U.S. will no longer automatically reaffirm its commitment to the SDGs, meaning they will no longer be treated as a matter of course.

In the Liberty Sentinel article U.S. “Rejects and Denounces” UN 2030 Agenda, Alex Newman states, “The U.S. delegation to the United Nations denounced the UN’s so-called “master plan for humanity,” better known as the 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals, sending shockwaves through the UN General Assembly. Patriots celebrated the news.”

Edward Heartney, counselor for Economic and Social Affairs (ECOSOC) at the U.S. Mission to the UN, was speaking in March during a discussion on a UN General Assembly resolution that reaffirmed governments’ commitment to the controversial UN goals.

“We have a concern that this resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),” Heartney said. “Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans.”

“Put simply, globalist endeavors like Agenda 2030 and the SDGs lost at the ballot box,” he added. “Therefore, the United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course.”

One longtime UN analyst, Mark Leon Goldberg of Global Dispatches, described the statement as the “diplomatic equivalent of ripping the foundation from a decade of work at the UN — not just walking away from the table, but flipping it over on the way out.”

The UN SDGs are essentially a roadmap to global tyranny. From centralizing government at the international level and mass wealth redistribution to a global war on farmers and brazen indoctrination of children, the SDGs cover it all. The The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) boasted about its “crucial role” in developing the plan.

The 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals & Opposition Definition/Critiques

UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs)	Definition	Opposition Definition/Critique
1. No Poverty	End poverty in all its forms everywhere.	Critics argue that global poverty reduction may prioritize socialist style wealth redistribution over economic growth, potentially stifling innovation and local economies.
2. Zero Hunger	End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.	In third-world countries, many oppose intensive agricultural interventions, citing environmental degradation or dependency on external aid over local self-sufficiency.
3. Good Health and Well-Being	Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.	Opposition highlights the high costs of universal healthcare, potential government overreach, or prioritization of certain health issues over others.
4. Quality Education	Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.	Critics question the feasibility of politicized universal education, citing resource constraints or cultural differences that may conflict with standardized approaches.
5. Gender Equality	Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.	Argument that gender equality initiatives can overlook biological differences or traditional cultural norms, leading to forced outcomes and/or reverse discrimination.
6. Clean Water and Sanitation	Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.	In third-world countries, oposition focuses on the high costs of infrastructure, privatization concerns, or the challenge of balancing farming and industrial needs with conservation.
7. Affordable and Clean Energy	Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.	In the U.S. critics highlight the economic impact of centralized planning in transitioning from fossil fuels, energy unreliability, or the high cost of renewable infrastructure.
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth	Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.	In the U.S. many argue socialized global labor standards may undermine local economies and move away from established free-markets.
9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure	Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.	In the U.S. opposition cites the risk of over-reliance on technology and displacement of traditional industries through regulation.
10. Reduced Inequalities	Reduce income inequality within and among countries.	In the U.S. critics contend that reducing inequality through policy interventions, such discriminatory Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs, can discourage individual effort, innovation, economic competitiveness.
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities	Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.	In the U.S. many argue that urban-focused development can impact suburban-rural areas or impose one-size-fits-all solutions, instituting regulations and costs on property owners.
12. Responsible Consumption and Production	Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.	Opposition highlights the economic burden on industries, potential job losses, or the challenge of enforcing global standards across cultures using unlawful behavior modification techniques.
13. Climate Action	Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.	In the U.S. critics question man-made climate change, the feasibility of rapid decarbonization, economic costs, and  the reliability of climate models, advocating for adaptation over mitigation.
14. Life Below Water	Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.	Some oppose strict regulations, citing impacts on fishing industries, coastal economies, or the prioritization of marine life over human needs.
15. Life on Land	Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt biodiversity loss.	Opposition has argued that conservation efforts can limit agricultural expansion, resource extraction, economic development in rural areas, and erode property rights.
16. Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions	Promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable institutions.	Critics highlight the risk of supranational governance undermining sovereignty or the challenge of enforcing universal justice standards and the U.S. Constitution.
17. Partnerships for the Goals	Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.	There opposition global partnerships, citing unequal power dynamics, loss of national autonomy.

A comprehensive report on Agenda 2030 that Alex Newman wrote in 2015 after they were adopted by Obama and all UN members can be found here: https://thenewamerican.com/print/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/

Dan Titus is affiliated with the American Coalition for Sustainable Communities (ACSC). Their mission is sustaining representative government; not governance, by collectivist-oriented unelected agencies and commissions.