The Reinstated Global Gag Rule

February 19, 2025

Trump is back in office (which perhaps bears no reminding) – and with that come his draconian policies, both old and new, including the anti-abortion policy known as the global gag rule.

The global gag rule itself is some 40 years old, first introduced in 1984. Then, the rule banned non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive U.S. family planning funds from engaging in any abortion-related counseling, referrals, or advocacy. It didn’t just prevent NGOs from using U.S. funds for abortion. As KFF clarifies, the global gag rule required that an NGO’s receipt of U.S. family planning funds be conditioned upon a certification that it would not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any (including non-U.S.) source.

The version of the global gag rule from the 1980s was awful, but Trump has made it exponentially worse. As he did in 2017, he’s recently expanded the rule to apply not only to family planning funds, but also to all U.S. global health assistance. And, as he did in 2019, he’s expanded the rule to apply not only to NGOs, but also to all sub-grantees of NGOs receiving U.S. funds, even if those sub-grantees never see a penny of that money.

The adverse effects of the global gag rule cannot be overstated. Garnet Henderson is clear: the rule will set access to critical health goals like “safe abortion care, contraceptive self-determination and access, maternal and infant health, and HIV and AIDS eradication back decades or more.” Not only will it set access to care back; it will also decrease access to information about abortion care. It’s called a “gag rule” for a reason — just like in the 1980s version, Trump’s rule conditions federal funds on not “promoting” (conservatively interpreted as providing information about) abortion.

We at the Woodhull Freedom Foundation firmly oppose the global gag rule. We firmly believe that everyone, everywhere deserves access to their fundamental human right to abortion. NGOs that join us in that belief should not be threatened with being stripped of U.S. funding should they decide to provide critical health care.