The Okefenokee swamp is poised to join awe-inspiring U.S. landscapes including the Grand Canyon and the Everglades as the nation鈥檚 27th World Heritage Site, a designation a United Nations committee will vote to formalize early Saturday in South Korea.
Despite the prestige, it鈥檚 an honor that some folks who live near the swamp would just as soon skip. It鈥檚 not that they don鈥檛 love the Okefenokee. They do. What they can鈥檛 bear is the United Nations.
Lawn signs urging 鈥淜eep the U.N. (UNESCO) out of the Okefenokee鈥� have dotted the roads around Ware and Charlton counties for several years. The same slogan appears on t-shirts.
It鈥檚 a widespread sentiment around the swamp, said Ware County Commissioner Barry Cox, who spent 40 years running the county鈥檚 vehicle maintenance shop before being elected in 2024.
Ware is one of three Georgia counties that surround the swamp, along with Charlton and Clinch. All three are rural and deep red. Donald J. Trump received more than 70 percent of the vote in each county in the 2024 general election.
Trump鈥檚 鈥淎merica First鈥� agenda resonates here. The United Nations, not so much. that the U.S. would withdraw from UNESCO 鈥� the UN body that directs the World Heritage Sites program 鈥� at the end of this year because it鈥檚 focused on goals 鈥渁t odds with our America First foreign policy.鈥�
A World Heritage Site designation 鈥渋ncreases a site鈥檚 significance to the world,鈥� according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which owns and manages the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 鈥淏ecoming a World Heritage Site does not confer any ownership or management authority to the United Nations, . 鈥淯NESCO only monitors the current conditions and potential threats to the designated properties. The Refuge would continue to be wholly owned and managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.鈥�
Constituents oppose it
Nevertheless, Cox opposes the World Heritage Site designation because his constituents oppose it.
鈥淎ll I could hear was the people that I represent were scared that they was going to come in here and maybe start taking their land, or you know kind of ruling them what they could do,鈥� he told The Current. 鈥淎nd to be honest with you, I went to one of the meetings that they had that showed, you know, about UNESCO, and it was kind of very unsettling to me, and that鈥檚 basically about all I know.鈥�
The meeting he attended was sponsored by an anti-UNESCO group, but he couldn鈥檛 recall which one. Cox was unable to attend a meeting held by the pro-UNESCO faction, he said.
The Current tried unsuccessfully to contact the two main anti-UNESCO groups active on social media in South Georgia. declined an interview, saying 鈥淎fter review, I don鈥檛 think we are interested in an interview with The Current GA at this point, but thanks for asking,鈥� via Facebook messenger. did not reply to multiple messages sent via Facebook messenger and through its website.
In June of 2025 Cox and his fellow commissioners passed a resolution addressing the World Heritage Site nomination. They voted to affirm the county鈥檚 鈥渃ommitment that it shall not adopt, implement, or enforce any rule, regulation, policy, or mandate originated by, or traceable to, the United Nations or a subsidiary entity of the United Nations which infringes upon or restricts private property rights without due process in violation of the U.S. Constitution or Georgia Constitution.鈥�
CFACT video
The anti-UNESCO contingent points to several examples of how public opinion is on their side. They鈥檙e laid out in a , a Washington, DC-based nonprofit that advocates for a free-market approach to environmental issues and rejects the scientific consensus around man-made climate change.
Gabriella Hoffman is a CFACT policy analyst and host of 鈥淪ave Okefenokee from UNESCO Control,鈥� the December 2025 addition to CFACT鈥檚 鈥淐onservation Country Series鈥� that focuses on the World Heritage Site nomination.
She points to the Ware County resolution as well as a similar one in Charlton County. Then there鈥檚 a vote in Ware County that Hoffman said provides evidence that 鈥渢here was a lot more opposition than was being reported.鈥�
That vote was a Republican party question posed by the county Republican party in the June 2024 primary. Party questions are nonbinding. They do not enact any policies but rather function as polls. And they鈥檙e not a random sample, scientific poll, said Andra Gillespie, associate professor of political science at Emory University. Instead they鈥檙e taking the pulse of party faithful, the people who turn out for primary elections.
The 2024 Ware County party question read:
鈥淭he Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is being considered for the United Nations designation as a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) World Heritage Site. The UN has an agenda which includes a policy for control of local school curricula, infrastructure plans, land use, transportation and housing. Knowing that this infringes on United States sovereignty, do you favor the designation of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge as a United Nations UNESCO World Heritage Site?
Of the 3,144 Republican primary voters, 93% said 鈥渘o.鈥�
Charles Bullock, longtime distinguished professor of Public International Affairs at the University of Georgia, noted the question鈥檚 wording leads to this answer.
鈥淲ho in the world is going to vote for that?鈥� he said. 鈥淩ight? We鈥檙e going to be taken over by the UN.鈥�
The CFACT video and a shorter version released in late June label the World Heritage Site designation a 鈥渓and grab.鈥� In the long video, Cox and other local residents appear on camera to voice their concerns.
鈥淚f I had 10 minutes with Donald Trump, we could talk about these issues as clear and concise,鈥� Charlton County Commissioner Drew Jones told CFACT in the video. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 just flown under the radar, some maybe deliberately by the NGOs who pushed this, and I think Trump鈥檚 just busy.鈥�
He also suggests there should be state and federal level laws passed 鈥渢hat just basically codify the fact these international organizations have no jurisdiction here.鈥�
Metaphorical land grab
In speaking to The Current GA, Jones said his fear about the UNESCO designation is really a more subtle effect.
鈥淚 absolutely understand it would not be a direct land grab, but I think what people mean is metaphorically they would have some implicit influence on lands, public lands, and they shouldn鈥檛,鈥� Jones said.
The fact that U.S. adversaries including Russia and communist China are powerful within the U.N., with permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council, doesn鈥檛 sit well with local residents.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think China or Russia, whoever, they鈥檙e not going to come, you know, manage the swamp, steal the swamp, poison the swamp,鈥� Jones said. 鈥淏ut I just don鈥檛 even like the idea of them sitting around a table 50 years from now talking about this is a threat or that is. It needs to come from Atlanta or DC.鈥�
Joe Hopkins did not participate in the videos but also doesn鈥檛 support the World Heritage Site designation. Hopkins鈥� family business, Toledo Manufacturing, owns and manages forest land around the swamp. His opposition boils down to what he sees as protecting his property rights.
鈥淭he idea of the U.N. or a U.N. agency having any kind of say over land down here concerns me,鈥� he said.
He pointed to a proposed gold mine near Yellowstone National Park, the nation鈥檚 first national park and among the first to be named a World Heritage Site in 1978.
鈥淵ou know it鈥檚 one thing to have 100,000 plus letters written because some guy wants to mine, but if you鈥檙e part of the United Nations, you may have 100-something countries writing letters,鈥� he said.
But that鈥檚 not what tipped the balance against the New World Mine proposed outside of Yellowstone in the early 1990s, according to . The World Heritage Committee did visit Yellowstone in 1995 and placed the park on its 鈥渆ndangered鈥� list, a decision the law journal said 鈥渃arried little legal weight, (but) it did heighten national and international scrutiny of the mine proposal.鈥� Instead, a ruling against the mine in a Clean Water Act lawsuit is credited with prompting the company to eventually abandon its plans and reach a settlement.
CFACT鈥檚 video points misleadingly to two studies to argue against World Heritage Site status for the Okefenokee.
鈥淭hese designations often come, quote, at a cost to the local population鈥檚 human rights,鈥� Hoffman narrates while referring to a . That鈥檚 not the case with the Okefenokee.
In the second case, Hoffman narrates 鈥淪tanford University lamented that UNESCO World Heritage has lost its way,鈥� while showing a headline from a highlighting the work of anthropologist Lynn Meskell. In the article, Meskell argued the program had lost its way because countries cared more about benefitting from UNESCO鈥檚 brand rather than focusing on conservation and preservation.
And in a Q&A accompanying the article, Meskell rejected the notion that World Heritage Sites are under U.N. control.
鈥淥ne problem is that there is widespread ignorance when it comes to UNESCO,鈥� she said. Some people think that a UNESCO inscribed site is not U.S. sovereign territory and that the United Nations somehow controls those sites. That is incorrect.鈥�
Bullock, the UGA political scientist, attributes the anti-UNESCO attitudes to strong localism.
鈥淔olks say, you know, we don鈥檛 want anybody telling us what we can do with our property, or we can do with our schools. So yeah, you don鈥檛 want the U.N. to be able to do this.鈥�
It鈥檚 happened throughout U.S. history, he said.
鈥淚f you go back to 1928 or 1960, when Democrats nominated a Catholic president, it was 鈥榳e don鈥檛 want our politics to be run out of Rome,鈥欌�� he said. 鈥淎nd another aspect of this localism would be, for better part of a century, 鈥榳e don鈥檛 want the federal government telling us what we can do to run race relations.鈥欌��
The UNESCO committee is scheduled to vote on the Okefenokee鈥檚 World Heritage Site nomination at 3 p.m. local time in Busan, South Korea on Saturday. Watch a livestream or video of the vote
___
This story was originally published by and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
