Trump’s Version of the ‘Global Gag Rule’ Threatens Global Health and Free Speech

The Trump administration announced earlier this week a massive expansion of the so-called “global gag rule,” a policy that cuts off U.S. support from nongovernmental organizations abroad if they so much as provide information about abortion to women who might want to hear it. This expansion will have a devastating impact on global health — particularly for women and families — as well as on free speech.

The global gag rule stops foreign NGOs from using their own money to provide abortions, information about abortion, or referrals for abortion to women who want them. In addition, it prohibits groups receiving U.S. funding from engaging in legal and political advocacy to promote changes to a country’s laws or policies related to abortion. It also bans NGOs from running public education campaigns to provide people with truthful information about abortion.

The president’s announcement came just one day after he issued a statement marking the start of Women’s Health Week, calling for affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare for women. Yet this policy does exactly the opposite, and its unprecedented expansion makes things worse.

Previous administrations that have imposed the global gag rule have made it a condition of receiving grants from a pool of some $600 million in family planning funding. The Trump administration has drastically expanded the reach of the policy to apply to all global health assistance furnished by the U.S. — to the tune of $8.8 billion. That means that money intended for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, or for combating malaria and Zika, is now conditioned on compliance with a rule that is inherently devastating to women and families the world over.

When the global gag rule has been imposed in the past, the health consequences have been severe: Clinics that provided reproductive, maternal, and child health care services were shuttered Access to contraception was restricted And the number of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions increased — factors that lead to more women and children dying.

The expansion of this dangerous policy means that not only will women lose access to critical reproductive health care, counseling, and information, but there will be ramifications across an even broader range of global health programs. If organizations refuse to stop providing truthful and often life-saving information about abortion that their clients want and need, they may have to shut down critical programs that prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, fight infectious diseases, and improve nutrition, hygiene, and maternal and child health throughout the world. Simply put, it will devastate health care access in some of the world’s neediest communities.

Let’s be clear: The Trump administration is essentially coercing groups by telling them that if they want to continue to receive aid that their community desperately needs — to prevent maternal mortality, to stop the spread of malaria, to provide health care for children — they must give up their right to engage in truthful speech that the U.S. government doesn’t like.  

For the communities that cannot afford to lose U.S. health aid, the administration is ensuring the silence of the very experts who can provide a unique perspective on reproductive health and is stopping the free flow of information. The limits on advocacy and public education mean that parts of the world that are heavily dependent on U.S. global health aid will not hear from the full range of local groups and medical experts on legal and policy debates about abortion. The rule expansion will also make it very difficult or impossible for U.S. groups and individuals to partner with foreign groups to engage in legal advocacy and education, and it will stymie research into abortion-related health outcomes — thereby hampering the advancement of medical science.

The government should not be able to do to foreign organizations what would be unconstitutional were it imposed on domestic groups, which cannot be forced to censor their private speech as a condition of government funding. There is no doubt that with this policy, the administration is not only trying to control the flow of information — an unworthy goal for the U.S. government and contrary to the values of the First Amendment — but also threatening the health and lives of women and families across the globe.

View comments (10)
Read the Terms of Use


You don't want to give up !

Evelyn Walsh

Go guys! I trust America's youth - they will defeat this man. And do it silently - simply turning up and stanfding o'/s THe White House in complete silence. Then sing one song together. Ye can do it. You are the brave descendants of people who ran away from the type of world Trump and the GOP are trying to re-instate. Great interview with Bono in the Irish Times today. Maybe he would march with you? Or even better his wife - Alii Hewson is an earth angel - convinced of it! BTW a couple of typos on the passionate plea EventBrite page. And it's a bit too long and ranty; sorry to the author - passion is great but temper it for your audience. Writers, journalists, creatives all over the world are watching you with interest- typos slow the eye down and rants can rritate aul' wans like meself xEvelyn


'Course all my typos are deliberate! Not!

Terminate US fo...

Terminate foreign US health aid altogether. Not trying to be insensitive, but why isn't this money used to provide more healthcare within the United States?

I have no problem with 100% PRIVATLEY funded healthcare NGOs operating however they wish within the laws of country they are present. However, if one tax dollar is givin then it's wrong. US taxes dollars are for US citizens. That's not to say aid like food is bad; after all the US produces and wastes more food than any other country. We absolutely should share this excess with the struggling world.

However, we are healthcare deficient in this country and that money should be spent here first. There should never be a single story of an American dying from lack of healthcare if we spend that money abroad. America First! For all citizens liberal, conservative and everyone in between.

Michael Bolton

Rich countries should share things to which we have easy access—for instance, education, food, and health care. What we shouldn't be sending is bombs. We wouldn't find ourselves feeling obliged to drop hideously expensive bombs on people if we shared more—which we could do at a fraction of the price.


I'm tired of seeing commercials for discount health coverage that features old, fat people talking about how they want to live to see their grandkids grow up. I support the ideal but not the means. What message does this send? Get fat and get free or almost free healthcare. Bullshit! This is why healthcare companies are going out of business because of your fat ass. I wish congress would outlaw obesity, yup send your fat ass to a work camp!

Fat diseased people don't disgust me, they disappoint me. There is no reason for most people to be "fat" and out of shape other than they don't move enough and eat too much. Yes I understand thyroid problems and related diseases create a condition of imbalance in the body. However, I don't believe this is the cause of outright obesity in our society. I'm sorry, not sorry, but fat shaming should be in full force. I'm not talking about moderately fat people, I'm talking about the 30-40 percent of our population that is outright obese!

Lose weight fatty fat and quit telling me it's your thyroid, big bones or diabetes. It's your mouth you keep wide open dumping processed foods and gallons of sugar soda in. Now I have to pay more for healthcare because you won't workout or try to lose weight by consuming less.

Keep stuffing your mouth fatty. When Armageddon comes ima eat you first!



God bless u. Someone needs to stand up to the people in charge who would plunder and rob us all of our rightful heritage, clean water, unspoiled land and pure air.


That is a fairly brain-dead advertisement you have there. Heritage, clean water, pure have some data entry.


Someone with a Juris Doctorate actually wrote this? Someone who does not understand what an NGO is and that private organizations are not bound by this rule? But, they want the intellectually challenged readers to not be able to make the distinction while they go on to end this teaming pile by declaring that "The government should not be able to do to foreign organizations what would be unconstitutional were it imposed on domestic groups." What is the focus here NGOs? Private Organizations? Foreign Organizations? The only one subject to government rules are NGOs.

Stay Informed