Submission by Lynne M. Taylor

Have you heard of the “Decade of Science”? I recently found out about this global movement that, at best, is nothing short of a giant “experiment” on the people to coerce their sense of trust. Why “trust”? Because, in a government purview, thus the use of the word, it’s a commodity. A commodity that’s like cash: used, traded, and then no longer needed. Is this really our future existence? This “decade” is directly being used to extend the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals).

First, the “Decade of Science” isn’t really a single 10-year span. According to UNESCO, the years 2024–2033 are deemed THE decade. However, as we’ve seen, the agenda that has used science as a weapon is much, much older than a mere 10 years. Here’s an excerpt from the website about THE decade:

“On August 25, 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) declared the years 2024–2033 as the ‘International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development.’ This Decade offers a unique opportunity for humanity to fully harness the power of science in advancing sustainable development and securing a safe and prosperous future for everyone. UN Member States and all relevant stakeholders are urged to actively back the Decade, with UNESCO designated to lead its implementation.”

Contrast this information with an announcement by the U.S. State Department released in July 2025, after the Decade and U.S. involvement were already “cemented.” Here’s an excerpt from the announcement:

“UNESCO works to advance divisive social and cultural causes and maintains an outsized focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.”

The announcement further shares that the SDGs are un-American in values. While that IS true, it doesn’t begin to address the fact that the initiatives, projects, and funding for American compliance with the SDGs suddenly cease in their entirety.

That, my friends, would be ideal. However, it’s totally unrealistic. Why do I say that? Am I anti-American? No, I’ve seen the documents and studied them. The amount of taxpayer dollars supporting the SDGs is astronomical. The legislation created by both mainstream political parties in support of SDG agenda items has also created a constant cycle of tyranny at our expense—not simply financially, but more importantly, in our attitudes, values, and beliefs. This is where the “trust factor” comes in.

“Science for all”… that’s the phrase of choice. Science in what’s taught in our schools; science in what’s inserted in our pharmaceuticals; science in how our natural resources are preserved. The better question all this begs is: Are we REALLY preserving our lives through this type of science? Before we can answer this, we need to understand the types of science that have been chosen not only by UNESCO, but by Americans, and how these are being used as weaponization—not for our preservation, but for our blind trust.

Why does the UN want to use science as a tool against us? This education subject holds the key to total achievement for the SDGs. However, UNESCO, many years ago, set up systems to manipulate science to fit whatever narrative the UN needed. How? By aligning science with global political policies.

Here’s a short YouTube video that helps explain it. Not only can global political policy, in this case, be called “citizen science,” but also “open science”.

UNESCO has also declared that science is a basic human right through its interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 1945, the UNESCO Constitution was put into motion and is still in power. Look at the role science was—and still is—given. Related are the many areas of our lives that connect science to the SDGs. Especially through education and culture, these influences will remain with us whether America exits UNESCO or not.

Climate, education, healthcare, and all that connects these major goals use science to advance what’s been defined as a “basic human right.” Think about it: science is a basic human right. Really? So does this mean math is also a basic human right? What about any of the other subjects taught in schools? Before you think I’m being too dramatic, I’m asking you to think for yourselves. Science, math, and all the other school subjects are NOT basic human rights. Does this declarative statement counter the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights? Indeed it does.

While we cannot undo all the damage American compliance with the United Nations has done, we can certainly be aware of what’s ahead of us. IF the U.S. is successful in a total abandonment of UNESCO beginning 1/1/27, then much “un-plugging” between now and then MUST occur.

July 2026’s Paris Conference

Happening this upcoming July, thousands from across the world, including America, will be in Paris for the “Decade of Science” conference. Why is this a “big deal”? If you look at the starting year of THE decade, you’ll see it was 2024. That means in 2026, we’re only two years into the all-important time span. The topics listed above about science and the vast connections to the SDGs will be featured during the conference.

Other agenda items will encompass massive movement in areas like AI (artificial intelligence), all levels of academics, reconciling with nature, public-private partnerships, and, most of all, civil science. What’s “civil science”? That’s also known as “open science” as well as “citizen science.”

In other words, it’s another way to breed collectivism, not independence or free thought.

But wait, Lynne, the U.S. is getting out of UNESCO, so all of this is a moot point! Is it really? Folks, we may be two years into this special decade, but we’re YEARS into the indoctrination of our society toward the UN, UNESCO, and especially the SDGs. You cannot undo years of harm in two years—or even six months.

IF America is to be truly free of the grasp of UNESCO, we should have broken these ties decades ago. We should have never allowed professors from American universities to attend global conferences advancing the UN and then return home to create massive amounts of documents, head up special projects, and influence politicians at all levels with one goal in mind: compliance for a “greater good.”

We shouldn’t have allowed our politicians and/or their appointed representatives to represent the U.S. at these same global conferences. We shouldn’t continue allowing any of this from this day forward. Why? Because the U.S. State Department can declare an end all it wants, but the agenda will NOT stop.

How do we know this? Look at the list of SDG advancement projects the U.S. is involved in that will NOT end on 12/31/26, the State Department’s end date for U.S. participation in UNESCO. These projects will, in some form, continue on. That’s a huge key to weaponizing science against us.

Here are just a few examples:
sustainable cities; water quality and planning for municipalities; increased AI, especially for 15-minute cities; AI literacy for all; energy sources; climate education; hydropower reservoirs; scientific research tied to the SDGs; bioeconomics; environmental sustainability education targeting young children; branding management of space and technology; data services research; and customizing science by region.

To see the full list, review the UN Decade of Science endorsed activities database and look for “North America” as the tag.

Then look at this NASA-related federal science budget request and see how many dots you can connect to the SDGs.

Heard of the UN Decade of Science Task Force?

This group is all about “collectivism.” The website couches this using words like “uniting” for nature. The North American group will use nonprofit organizations to conduct much of the agenda. These nonprofits will continue the agenda whether or not UNESCO membership remains in place. This will also include many public-private partnerships attached to jobs.

“Overlapping decades” like the “Decade of Science” will also not end U.S. participation in SDG-related agendas.

Food manipulation efforts

Did you know there’s a major push to turn seafood into shapes and textures resembling meat from land animals? The Associated Press published an article about this on 3/25/26.

Why is this concerning? Disguising food isn’t new. However, if we’re using seafood—many forms of which some consider “unclean”—as a substitute for meat, what does that say about the future of livestock production? Critics argue it’s another way to reduce dependence on traditional meat sources.

If that’s not concerning enough, critics also point to the Palantir contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for “technology purposes,” calling it another expansion of data surveillance.

How the agenda sticks around after a scheduled UNESCO exit

“Investing” in American AI projects continues increasing from the top down.

Critics question why FY 2027 budget requests continue expanding AI technology tied to SDG initiatives if America truly intends to move away from UNESCO-driven policies.

Why are government projects now partnering with private corporations to continue research and development tied to SDG targets contained within all 17 goals? Some critics even reference “SDG Zero,” which focuses on “joy” connected to religion and environmental loyalty. They argue the idea is to emotionally condition people into accepting the remaining SDGs.

The information above is by no means exhaustive. There will always be more connections between the U.S. and the UN/UNESCO as long as we continue supporting leaders who support globalism. Remember, those leaders are not always elected, nor are they always politicians.

As we continue watching constitutional rights erode—or what should be constitutionally protected rights—we must understand how ideas like “national security” are used to justify expanded surveillance, AI-enabled transportation systems, and even warrantless searches. Discussions surrounding the right to travel and warrantless searches already exist at the constitutional level.

It’s not our government’s job, nor the job of unelected global organizations, to weaponize science in order to build false trust with the people. If we are to trust anything about science, that trust should come from our own thinking—not from surrendering to an agenda that seeks to place science above individual thought and freedom.