No More U.S. Money for Those Who Fund Abortion and Gender Ideology Abroad

No to federal funding of abortion

On Tuesday, January 27, the U.S. Department of State announced the introduction of new rules for U.S. foreign aid. According to three comprehensive documents published by the department, foreign aid provided by the United States is to be consistent with the current administration’s stance, which opposes the promotion of gender ideology, the introduction of discriminatory practices referred to as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), or the promotion of abortion abroad as a method of family planning.

Three documents published by the Department of State, namely “Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, PLFA,”“Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance, CGIFA,” and “Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance, CDEIFA” were prepared to implement the United States’ foreign policy of not supporting harmful ideologies beyond the country’s borders, thus countering the European Union’s policy abroad. Pursuant to changes implemented by the Department of State, a new requirement has been added for the U.S. Government to award grants, enter into cooperative agreements, and make voluntary contributions. It imposes certain requirements on U.S. and foreign non-governmental organizations, international organizations, foreign governments, and quasi-governmental entities regarding the non-promotion of ideologies and views deemed harmful by the United States. In this case, the legal basis consisted primarily of the provisions of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, which grant the U.S. administration broad authority to regulate foreign assistance matters.

The first of the cited documents—”Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance”—aims to implement the presidential memorandum dated January 24, 2025, which reinstates the “Mexico City Policy.” This name refers to a policy initiated by President Ronald Reagan in 1985 and continued by all his Republican successors, under which the United States may not provide federal funding to non-governmental organizations that provide abortion counseling or referrals to facilities that perform abortions, advocate for the decriminalization of abortion, or expand the scope of abortion “services.”

Pursuant to this document, the U.S. Department of State reinstates the “Mexico City Policy,” further expanding it by eliminating loopholes in previous versions of the policy that allowed the continued use of taxpayer funds for the provision or promotion of abortion. The scope of entities required to agree to specified conditions in order to be eligible to receive assistance from the U.S. government has been expanded. In addition to foreign NGOs, U.S. NGOs, international organizations, foreign governments, and quasi-governmental entities are also required to comply with them (the documents are already in effect). For example, the document states that U.S. non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are required to declare that they will not perform abortions as a method of family planning abroad, and to ensure the financial separation of programs funded by U.S. foreign assistance from abortion-related activities. Furthermore, these rules currently apply to all U.S. foreign aid, except for military aid. To justify their actions, U.S. administration officials also refer to the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family.

Foreign aid itself was defined in the document as non-military assistance, and examples include, among others, global health programs, humanitarian assistance, economic and development assistance, stabilization assistance, civil society and democracy programs, migration and refugee assistance, and voluntary contributions to international organizations funded through foreign aid.

It was also stated that a recipient’s failure to comply with the requirements for obtaining foreign assistance may result in the suspension of payments until the recipient takes appropriate corrective actions, or in the recipient’s exclusion from participation in such programs. It also set out the rules for the return of funds in the event of a breach of the rules governing their award, as well as matters concerning the transfer of those funds to subcontractors (who must also comply with U.S. rules on receiving support).

Fight against gender ideology and discriminatory “diversity”

The remaining two Department of State documents are based on similar assumptions. The document concerning gender ideology requires a broad group of beneficiaries of U.S. foreign aid, among other things, to refrain from using these funds for workshops, performances, or documentaries about drag queens; for the mutilation of children for the purpose of a so-called sex or “gender” change; or for promoting transition. In justifying its actions, the Department of State invokes the U.S. Supreme Court’s case law, cites domestic legal provisions relevant to this matter, and asserts the need to protect women and children from the detrimental effects of harmful ideologies, as well as the need to safeguard freedom of conscience and sovereignty. Here too, the authors cite the Geneva Consensus Declaration, noting that this soft-law instrument “affirms the importance of the family, of protecting women, and of the right of sovereign nations to implement programs and activities consistent with their laws and policies—all of these goals are directly threatened by gender ideology.”

The document on DEI policy points to the discriminatory nature of such practices, which are based on preferences for certain groups and undermine the prosperity and development of other countries. This also includes provisions under which recipients of U.S. foreign aid will be required to agree that, during the grant award period, they will not promote outside the United States the “discriminatory equity ideology,” engage in unlawful DEI-related discrimination, or provide financial support to any other foreign non-governmental organization or international organization that engages in such activities.

“When commenting on the recent actions of the U.S. Department of State, it is above all worth noting that they are in line with a far-reaching and—compared with the first term—consistent policy of President Donald Trump’s administration aimed at limiting the use of American taxpayers’ money to finance ideological programs and funds. In this context, one can point to actions of the U.S. government manifested, among other things, in recent statements regarding the recognition as human rights violations of regulations restricting freedom of speech under the pretext of combating “hate speech,” practices related to the “transition” of children and minors, or the funding of abortion with public funds—emphasizes Patryk Ignaszczak of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.

Read also:

• How the United States Challenges Abortion and Reproductive Rights Language in UN Documents