
Trump spurs global rollback on the rights of women and girls
For years, most mainstream politicians saw advancing the rights of 'women and girls' as a priority, even if the reality did not always match the rhetoric. Doing so often seemed uncontroversial and bipartisan, including in the UK. Foreign Secretary William Hague and Angelina Jolie in 2014 opened an initiative on sexual violence in armed conflict.
The same year, the UK's coalition government held a 'Girl Summit' promising global leadership to end child marriage and female genital mutilation. In 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that girls' education globally was a top priority. And just last month, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the appointment of Harriet Harman as UK Special Envoy for Women and Girls. Her job: to champion gender equality worldwide.
The 2023 US Agency for International Development (USAID) Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Policy was also unequivocal: 'Gender equality is a human right.' This statement reflects international law – 189 countries, the vast majority of the world, have agreed to be bound by the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
The #MeToo movement went viral in 2017. Women around the world shared experiences of gender-based violence and demanded solutions. No one was naïve about the challenge of dismantling centuries of patriarchy, but there was a feeling that women's legitimate demands could not be denied.
Yet today we are struggling to slow the loss of rights protections. Trump's attack on women's rights within the US has already gravely damaged respect for reproductive rights and is having a much broader impact on the health and economic rights of women and girls inside the United States. Abortion is now illegal in 12 of the 50 US states, according to the Centre for Reproductive Rights.
But his policies' harmful impact stretches far beyond the US. First, there are the aid cuts themselves. The Trump administration has drastically slashed US government funding for international aid, including to programs focused specifically on assisting women. The US had been the world's largest aid donor. Women and girls are dying as a result and many more will die unless these policies are reversed.
The Trump administration has also cut crucial research on women's health. They have dismantled parts of the US government that were responsible for developing aid programming, including teams to end gender inequality. The administration has cut over US$500 million in Labor Department grants to uphold international labour standards in 40 countries, including programs to support gender equity and women's participation in the workforce, and to combat human trafficking – which disproportionately impacts women and girls.
Women and girls will suffer
The Trump administration's broader assault on what it refers to as DEI – efforts to redress inequities based on historical and current forms of racism and other forms of discrimination – is having a deeply chilling impact. Even the word gender seems to be an anathema to the US government, with, for example, the US mission to the UN seeking to remove this word from every UN resolution.
Decades of hard work went into helping the aid sector be more cognisant of and responsive to how inequalities intersect. For example, if a population is facing a famine, donor governments and aid groups need specific strategies to get food to women and girls who, among other obstacles, face greater difficulties in accessing distribution centres.
During conflicts, women and girls face gendered impacts that often include sexual violence, but also affect their livelihoods, access to education, safety, freedom of movement, and care-giving roles. Forced displacement often exposes them to further violence. These gendered impacts are further complicated when they intersect with other forms of marginalisation, including based on race, ethnicity, age, and disability.
The disproportionate impacts that women and girls face exist across the entire range of human rights issues. Trump's crackdown on 'DEI language' makes it harder even to discuss these issues.
During the first Trump administration, some countries, led by the Netherlands, filled gaps in international aid created by the already deeply harmful but far less drastic cuts. This time around, we see the opposite. Even among countries pledging to maintain their aid budgets there is no talk of increases, and often the news is much worse.
Under US pressure to boost military spending and concerned that their security pact with the US is breaking down, European countries that have seen themselves as leaders on women's rights are sharpening their axes. The UK Labour government cut the already reduced aid budget again, a total reduction since 2021 of more than half, alongside a wave of cuts by other European countries. The Netherlands government is among those cutting.
Make no mistake – women and girls suffer as a result. The World Health Organization – one of the UN bodies the US is withdrawing from – warns that the cuts have made the goals on reducing maternal mortality almost unachievable. Funding cuts are closing down some of the few facilities providing emergency medical care to survivors of rape in war zones. Programs around the world that provided life-saving assistance are closing their doors.
Trump is leading the way to a cruel new world order in which women and girls are among the first victims. Governments everywhere have a duty to push back.
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump wants to put Washington DC under full federal control. Can he?
President Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced intentions to place Washington D.C. under complete federal control, citing a need to curb crime. This stance comes despite city officials saying that crime rates are already on the decline. While the president holds some sway over the capital's police force and National Guard, a comprehensive federal takeover would almost certainly face legal challenges and likely be blocked in court. The U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1787, established a federal capital district to serve as the permanent seat of government. It explicitly grants Congress complete legislative authority over the district. However, Congress has historically delegated a degree of day-to-day municipal governance to other bodies. How is DC governed? A federal law passed by Congress in 1973, known as the Home Rule Act, allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council, who have some autonomy to pass their own laws. Congress still has budgetary oversight over D.C., however, and can overturn local legislation. Congress did that most recently in 2023, voting to overturn changes to Washington's laws that lowered penalties for some crimes. Who controls DC law enforcement? The Democratic mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has authority over the city's Metropolitan Police Department. However, the Home Rule Act allows the president to take control of the MPD for federal purposes during emergencies if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' A presidential takeover is limited to 30 days, unless Congress votes to extend it through a joint resolution. Trump invoked this part of the Home Rule Act on Monday, saying in an executive order that there is a "crime emergency" in the city that necessitates federal management of the police department. Bowser has pushed back on Trump's claims of unchecked violence, saying the city is "not experiencing a crime spike" and highlighting that violent crime hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year. Violent crime, including murders, spiked in 2023, turning Washington into one of the nation's deadliest cities, according to city police data. However, violent crime dropped 35 per cent in 2024, according to federal data, and it has fallen an additional 26 per cent in the first seven months of 2025. Trump also has broad control over the D.C. National Guard's 2,700 soldiers and airmen. They report directly to the president, unlike counterparts in other states and territories. Trump said on Monday he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to Washington. Can Trump 'federalize' DC? It is highly unlikely. To exert full federal control of D.C., Trump would need Congress to repeal the Home Rule Act. Such a repeal would require 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, where Trump's Republican Party has a 53-47 advantage. Democrats have been supportive of home rule for DC and are not expected to cross party lines to endorse Trump's vision. But there are ways Trump can exert more influence over the district without fully taking it over. Trump in recent months has directed federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI to increase the police presence in Washington. Trump has broad authority to reallocate FBI personnel, and in recent months, FBI agents around the country have been given temporary assignments to help with immigration enforcement. Trump also signed an executive order in March to make D.C. "safe and beautiful," establishing a task force to increase police presence in public areas, maximize immigration enforcement, and expedite concealed carry licenses. Trump has said homeless people must move out of Washington, without offering specifics of a plan to accomplish this. "I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before," Trump said on Truth Social. "The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital." The federal government owns much of Washington's parkland, so the Trump administration has legal authority to clear homeless encampments in those areas, like President Joe Biden did while in office. But the federal government cannot force people to move out of the city because they lack shelter, legal experts said.


BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
Plaid Cymru's Rhun ap Iorwerth rules out Senedd deal with Tories
Plaid Cymru's leader has ruled out a deal with the Conservatives after next year's Senedd ap Iorwerth had already said his party would not work with party has ever won a majority in Cardiff Bay and changes to the voting system mean it is even less likely that any party will win more than half the Cymru was close to agreeing a so-called rainbow coalition with the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in 2007 but the deal collapsed after it was blocked at a meeting of senior Lib Dems. Speaking to BBC-produced NewyddionS4C, ap Iorwerth insisted such a deal was not on the cards polling suggests Plaid Cymru and Reform are vying to be the biggest party after May's vote, with Labour third and the Conservatives fourth. Asked by NewyddionS4C presenter Bethan Rhys Roberts about the possibility of Plaid Cymru working with the Conservatives, ap Iorwerth said: "No, we're not going to be working with the Conservatives."We don't know if the Conservatives will be there in any numbers - they have their own serious problems at the moment."The Conservatives and Reform are more or less one party, with one trying to go further to the right than the other."UK Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and the party's Senedd leader Darren Millar recently declined to rule out deals with Plaid Cymru and Reform after next year's the prospect of the rainbow coalition disappeared in 2007, Plaid Cymru's leader at the time Ieuan Wyn Jones struck a deal with Rhodri Morgan's Labour to form the One Wales Labour-led coalition with Plaid Cymru as the junior has worked with a minority Labour government on further occasions since then, most recently through the Co-operation Agreement signed by the then Plaid leader Adam Price and the then Labour First Minister Mark Iorwerth, having replaced Price, brought that agreement to an early end in May 2024 amid concerns over the leadership of Vaughan Gething, who by then had succeeded Mark about the possibility of working with Labour again after May 2026, ap Iorwerth pointed out that the SNP had managed to govern alone as a minority government in Scotland in he added that having parties working together was "completely normal"."That can happen formally and informally," he added.


The Sun
7 minutes ago
- The Sun
Man Utd fans cancel Sir Jim Ratcliffe protest due to split in opinion on Ineos chief
A MANCHESTER UNITED fan group has cancelled a scheduled protest against the club's ownership due to split opinion. The 1958 had organised a march to Old Trafford on Sunday before United's Premier League opener against Arsenal to demonstrate against minority owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe. 3 3 3 Ratcliffe's recent and unpopular policies, such as mass redundancies, failed signings and stadium plans, have sparked frustration within Man Utd 's fan base. However, the protest had to be postponed after a survey found the supporters divided regarding the Ineos chief's handling since 2024 when he took over sporting operations. Almost 63 per cent of the near 26,000 respondents said Sir Jim should be held to account for his decisions so far by means of a protest. However, 68 per cent also believe the billionaire businessman and Ineos should be given more time. The 1958 issued the following statement: "Jim Ratcliffe chose to get into bed with the Glazers and, in our opinion, is helping keep them in charge. "With a fanbase as diverse and passionate as ours, finding the right balance isn't always easy. "We've had to consider momentum, timing, fan appetite, broader consequences of protest activity whilst assessing how current and future decisions may impact us as fans "Given the current sentiment within the fanbase and particularly in light of these recent survey results, it's clear there is no unified view on the direction of the club under Ratcliffe. "That split is real, and we believe it would be irresponsible to risk creating a situation that could result in any 'red on red' conflict inside or outside the stadium." This comes after United's worst ever Premier League campaign that saw them finishing 15th last season. However, the Red Devils have completed some impressive signings this summer with the likes of Matheus Cunha, Bryan Mbeumo and Benjamin Sesko joining Ruben Amorim's squad.