The campaign against the UN Sustainable Development Goals is not a debate about how to improve the world; it is a coordinated assault on the very idea that the world can be improved together. What presents itself as a principled defence of sovereignty and freedom is, in practice, a reactionary project financed by vested interests, animated by a politics of resentment, and intellectually hollow. Its rise poses a far greater threat to human welfare than the flaws of the SDGs themselves.
The Reactionary Core: An Enemy Narrative, Not a Critique
At its heart, the anti-SDG campaign is driven by right-wing populist and extremist forces for whom the Goals serve as a convenient symbolic enemy. As Imme Scholz, co-chair of the UN’s Global Sustainable Development Report, observes, “The forces behind Donald Trump and right-wing extremists elsewhere have clearly made the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda part of their enemy narrative”. This is not a matter of policy disagreement. These actors “do more than simply ignore the issues the SDGs address – they actively oppose them. They are against gender equality, human rights and climate and biodiversity protection”.
The worldview behind this opposition is starkly anti-solidaristic. Scholz explains that right-wing extremist forces “are working for a future in which everyone fights for themselves. Ideals like international solidarity and democratic values contradict their basic assumptions”. The SDGs, which rest on the premise that humanity has shared interests and must cooperate to address climate change and global injustice, are anathema to this vision. The goal is not to reform the Goals but to “completely undermine the change” they represent.
Political leaders have operationalised this hostility. Argentina’s Javier Milei has made rejection of the 2030 Agenda a signature position, aligning with Donald Trump to build what they envision as a “league of conservative nations” explicitly aimed at “disrupting the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda”. Spain’s Vox party has served as a transnational hub for this politics, hosting gatherings of like-minded extremists from Europe and Latin America. A leading Vox MEP has described the 2030 Agenda as “diabolical,” and scholarly analysis situates the party’s opposition not as a mere ideological reaction but as “a programmatic attempt to build an alternative nationalist project based on traditional Western values”.
The Money Behind the Campaign: Fossil Capital and Libertarian Philanthropy
The intellectual and political offensive is underwritten by a network of donors whose interests align precisely with dismantling the environmental and social provisions at the core of the SDGs. The Atlas Network, a global association of libertarian think tanks, is a central node. Its funders include the Koch Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, and the Templeton Foundation, alongside major corporations in sectors such as oil, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals.
The historical record is unambiguous. Internal correspondence reveals that ExxonMobil made substantial donations to the Atlas Network over a period of years, and that the Network explicitly offered its services to the oil major ahead of a UN climate conference, proposing to establish a “war room” near the conference centre to “sow agreements that threatened the sector’s profitability” and secure “favourable media coverage”. ExxonMobil’s funding helped finance the translation and distribution of climate-denial literature across Latin America and paid for events featuring prominent sceptics.
This financial architecture exists to produce a specific political outcome: the protection of a deregulated, fossil-fuel-dependent economic model. As one analysis concludes, “Atlas Network seeks to perpetuate the deregulated and neoliberal economy sustained by fossil capital”. The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, has authored “Project 2025,” a policy blueprint that seeks to dismantle environmental regulations and climate action—a direct assault on the ecological core of the SDGs. When an organisation funds both the denial of climate science and the legislative programme to roll back environmental protection, its opposition to the SDGs is not a matter of principled concern for sovereignty; it is the defence of a business model.
The Progressive Critique: A Different Kind of Objection
It is essential to distinguish this reactionary campaign from legitimate, progressive criticisms of the SDGs. Scholars from decolonial and political ecology perspectives have long argued that the Goals are insufficiently transformative. They contend that the SDGs are embedded within a neoliberal paradigm that prioritises economic growth and market-based solutions, thereby failing to address the structural causes of poverty and environmental degradation. The Goals, on this view, “risk further deteriorating the status quo” by offering a technocratic agenda that conceals power asymmetries and the ongoing marginalisation of the commons. Critics also point to the absence of binding mechanisms to hold governments and corporations accountable, meaning the SDGs can “stabilise the neoliberal ‘one-world’” without guaranteeing a just future.
These are serious and necessary critiques. They argue that the SDGs do not go far enough in challenging the systems that produce injustice. The anti-SDG campaign, by contrast, argues that the Goals go too far in the opposite direction: that they are a “socialist” plot, a threat to national sovereignty, and an illegitimate constraint on market freedom. One critique seeks to deepen collective obligation; the other seeks to abolish it. Confusing the two would be a category error.
The Hollow Case: Ignoring Real Progress
The campaign’s intellectual bankruptcy is most evident in its refusal to acknowledge the tangible, life-saving achievements of the SDG framework. The 2025 UN progress report documents that since 2015, 110 million more children and youth have entered school; social protection now reaches 52.4 per cent of the world’s population, an increase of 10 percentage points; internet use has surged from 40 to 68 per cent, unlocking access to education, jobs, and civic participation; and new HIV infections have declined by nearly 40 per cent since 2010, while malaria prevention has saved an estimated 12.7 million lives since 2000. These are not abstractions. They are the measurable difference between a child in school and a child in labour, between a family with social protection and a family in destitution.
The anti-SDG campaign offers no alternative framework capable of delivering such outcomes. Its promise is not a better model of development but the dismantling of the very mechanisms of international cooperation that make progress possible. As Scholz warns, the multilateral order on which the SDGs depend is “being undermined, ignored and supplanted” by precisely these forces. The consequence of their success would not be greater freedom or prosperity for ordinary people; it would be a more fragmented, more unequal, and more dangerous world, in which the most vulnerable are left to the logic of “everyone fights for themselves”.
The campaign against the UN Development Goals is not a legitimate interlocutor in the debate about humanity’s future. It is a destructive enterprise, funded by those who profit from the crises the SDGs seek to address and driven by a politics that treats solidarity as an enemy. The appropriate response is not to concede ground to its bad-faith arguments, but to defend the principle of shared, cooperative action—and to demand that the SDGs live up to their promise far more radically than they have so far been allowed to.
Liked this? Get the next one by email
New posts in your inbox. No spam, unsubscribe with one click.