Trump expands policy banning aid to groups that discuss abortion : NPR

For over four decades, Republican presidents have banned U.S. funds from going to groups that provide or promote abortion — and Democratic presidents have reversed the ban.

On Friday at the March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., Vice President JD Vance announced a major expansion of the policy. The Mexico City policy, named for where it was first unveiled, will now also bar funding to groups that promote “gender ideology” and diversity, equity and inclusion.

“We believe that every country in the world has the duty to protect life,” said Vance. “We’re expanding this policy to protect life, to combat DEI and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children.”

The administration is also expanding the policy beyond non-governmental charitable groups to larger organizations that cross country borders, like U.N. agencies.

Vance’s announcement was met with cheers from the large crowd of March for Life participants gathered on the National Mall. Each year, anti-abortion advocates gather in D.C. for the rally.

But that positive reception is not universal.

“This is about weaponizing U.S. foreign assistance to promote an ideological agenda,” says Keifer Buckingham, managing director for the Council for Global Equality, a coalition of advocacy organizations that focuses on LGBTQ issues. In effect, she says the policy will make it harder for marginalized groups, including transgender people, to get health care. “It’s so, so incredibly cruel.”

What is the Mexico City policy?

The Mexico City policy was created in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan. Initially, the policy was focused narrowly, banning U.S. money appropriated for family planning from going to groups that provide or promote abortion. That restriction on even the discussion of abortion has led abortion rights advocates to call it the “global gag rule.”

Since Reagan, the rule has been repealed by Democratic administrations and re-instated by Republican ones. In his first administration, President Trump expanded the rule to apply to all foreign aid for global health, instead of just those earmarked for family planning. The rule was rescinded by President Biden but reinstated last year.

That reinstatement had a major impact on MSI Reproductive Choices, a non-profit based in the U.K. that is a major provider of reproductive care in many lower resourced countries.

“We lost $15 million in funding,” says Sarah Shaw, MSI’s associate director of advocacy. In Zimbabwe, that meant they had to close half of their outreach teams that serve hard-to-reach communities. “We estimate 2.6 million women will have lost access to reproductive care.”

The expansion of the rule this year won’t change their work as much, since they’ve already lost funding. But they worry the move will put a chill on other organizations, and even governments, that provide abortion care or serve marginalized populations.

“Just as the Trump administration has aggressively sought to cripple abortion access at home, they are now exporting the same playbook worldwide, in a move that will deny women lifesaving care and deepen stigma,” says Beth Schlachter, senior director of U.S. external relations at MSI.

What impact will this new rule have?

For one, the policy now touches just about all foreign aid.

Instead of applying to around $8 billion earmarked for global health, the new rules will have an impact on all non-military foreign assistance, upwards of $30 billion according to the State Department. And since the expanded policy applies not only to foreign NGOs but also multilateral organizations, and to some extent foreign governments, many more programs could be affected.

“This is an expansion of the likes we have never seen before,” says Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, CEO of the Global Health Council, a nonprofit group that advocates for global health priorities. “It not only hamstrings health care providers and patients, but other country governments.”

The expanded policy could hamstring humanitarian responses too. When a natural disaster strikes, local organizations spring into action, often with the help of U.S. foreign aid.

“There may be a situation where the organization best positioned to provide emergency care for women and babies happens to be the same organization that also provides maternal care or counseling for abortion,” says Buckingham. This new policy could prevent such groups from responding.

“You may be the best partner, you may have the best connections, women may trust you, but you can’t get our money,” she says, referring to taxpayer funds. Ultimately, that could constrain recovery efforts.

Expanding beyond abortion

In addition to abortion, the policy will now restrict efforts to promote what the administration calls “gender ideology” and diversity, equity and inclusion.

Over the past year, the Trump administration has taken many actions to restrict funding to domestic institutions, from research grants to schools, that treat gender as a spectrum as opposed to a binary, or focus on marginalized racial or ethnic groups.

“This really represents a culmination of the Trump administration’s ideological war on LGBTQI+ people, marginalized populations, people of color, women and takes it to a whole other level, exporting what has been a domestic crusade abroad,” says Buckingham.

In practice, the new policy could mean groups that focus on providing health care of any kind to transgender people abroad can’t get U.S. funding. The policy could also impact groups that focus on serving specific racial or ethnic populations disproportionately affected by diseases or conditions.

“It’s a little mind-boggling to imagine how you would attach language on race to programs that are meant primarily for black people in Africa,” says Schlachter, of MSI.

The precise impact will depend on the specific language of the rules, which haven’t yet been released, and how they’re enforced. In a statement, the State Department told NPR that President Trump continues to deliver on his promise to “end woke foreign assistance.”

Whatever the final details, advocates worry that organizations may just pre-emptively decide to stop doing work that could cross the new lines drawn by the administration and endanger their funding.

“They have to choose, and may make choices that are not based in science, not based in public health, because they’re trying to preserve some semblance of their work,” says Buckingham. “We fear people will do that first.”