SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

Udenrigsudvalget 2023-24, 2023-24
URU Alm.del Bilag 260, Alm.del Bilag 10
Offentligt

GLOBAL IMPACTS

OF PROJECT 2025

How the blueprint for the next Republican administration

may impact US foreign and development policy

on SRHR and gender equality.

By Malayah Harper

Commissioned by the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU)

September 2024

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

acronyms

ADF

Alliance Defending Freedom

AFPI

America First Policy Institute

C-Fam

Center for Family and Human Rights

CSOs

Civil Society Organisations

EMCP

Expanded Mexico City Policy

fNGOs

foreign Non-Governmental Organisations

GPAHE

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism

GCD

Geneva Consensus Declaration

GFF

Global Financing Facility

The Global Fund

The Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria

GGR

Global Gag Rule

IWH

Institute for Women’s Health

INGOs

International Non-Governmental Organisations

LGBTQ+

Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer +

MCP

Mexico City Policy

NGOs

Non-Governmental Organisations

ODA

Official Development Assistance

PPFA

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Principal Recipients

PIOs

Public International Organisations

PLGHA

Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance

PLFA

Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance

Sida

Swedish International Development Agency

RFSU

The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education

United Nations

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNAIDS

United Nations Joint Program on HIV and AIDS

UNFPA

United Nations Population Fund

UNRWA

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the near East

United States

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USA

United States of America

GPC

White House Gender Policy Council

WHO

The World Health Organisation

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................4

2. WHAT IS PROJECT 2025?......................................................................................5

2.1 Project 2025 – an overview....................................................................5

2.2 Project 2025’s Approach...........................................................................8

2.3 What are the main provisions within Project 2025 relevant to work

on Gender, Human Rights and SRHR in global spaces?...............................9

2.4 Project 2025 is already here....................................................................13

3. WHY SHOULD PROJECT 2025 CONCERN EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS,

CSOs AND LIKEMINDED ALLIES?.................................................................15

3.1 Geopolitical context and solidarity.........................................................15

3.2 The Effect on UN Agencies and the UN system.........................................15

3.3 Impact on health and SRHR outcomes...................................................15

4. PREVIOUS U.S. POLICIES RESTRICTING ACCESS TO

SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTION.................................................................................17

4.1 The Mexico City Policy.............................................................................17

5. SPECIAL SECTION: PROPOSED FURTHER EXPANSIONS

OF THE MEXICO CITY POLICY.................................................................................19

Expansion 1

.....................................................................................................19

Expansion 2 ....................................................................................................20

Expansion 3

...................................................................................................22

Expansion 4 .........................................................................................................24

6. SUMMARY IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW EXPANDED GLOBAL GAG RULE

......................................................................................................................................25

7. OVERALL CONCLUSION......................................................................................26

8. RECOMMENDATIONS – FOR EUROPEAN CIVIL SOCIETY AND

GOVERNMENTS........................................................................................................27

ANNEX 1. KEY INFORMANTS...................................................................................30

FOOTNOTES..............................................................................................................31

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

1. introduction

This rapid study focuses on how the implementation of “Project 2025” and its po-

licy platform ‘The

Mandate for Leadership’

(hereafter referred to as The Mandate)

would impact United States (US) Official Development Assistance (ODA), enga-

gement with the multilateral system and foreign policy should Donald Trump win

the next US Presidential election.

The report aims to ‘unpack,’ and analyse Project 2025, to make it more easily

accessible to policymakers and provide an analysis of the potential impacts and

risks¹. The study provides an initial look at how some US-based International

Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) and selected United Nations (UN)

agencies are preparing. It also provides recommendations for European civil so-

ciety organisations (CSOs) and governments. The central methodology has been

a review of documents and media and 13 semi-structured key informant inter-

views (Annex 1).

This report focuses on the devastating impact the Project’s implementation would

have on international support for Gender Equality and Sexual and Reproductive

Health and Rights (SRHR), while making the case that these agendas need to be

seen through a ‘bigger lens’. The inter-linkages in organisations pushing against

gender equality and SRHR and those focused on climate change denialism and

‘anti-vaccination’, are now better understood as part of larger wider movements

designed to threaten democratic governance, human rights and multilateralism.

Countering this situation and preserving and advancing human rights requires

broader entry points and greater collective action.

Project 2025’s policy proposals outlined in The Mandate are positioned as a blue-

print and roadmap for the next ‘conservative’ administration. While Donald Trump

has recently attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, his close ties with

its architect and authors, the ideological similarity of many of his positions and

the selection of JD Vance as his Vice President candidate, make this distancing

unconvincing. Project 2025 is widely understood to be the platform for a future

Trump Administration. Project 2025 should not be seen as a ‘stand-alone’ initiati-

ve but rather an integral part of the wider global anti-gender and anti-SRHR mo-

vements that have been growing in force. While Project 2025 covers a huge range

of issues, attacks on gender equality, gender and SRHR (in particular abortion) are

at its heart.

The study was commissioned by the Swedish Association for Sexuality Education

(RFSU) in July 2024. As part of its work to promote SRHR in Sweden, Europe and

globally, RFSU follows and monitors shifts in foreign and international develop-

ment corporation policies and official development assistance (ODA) in the US.

Changes in policy and political landscape related to SRHR and gender equality

in the US have huge implications for the foreign policy and development coo-

peration agenda of the European Union and European governments, including

Sweden. This report’s insights, analyses, and recommendations inform RFSUs

policy and programmatic response and are shared with other civil society organi-

sations and policymakers.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

2. what is project 2025?

The next conservative President must make the institutions of

American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors.

This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender

identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender,

gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive,

abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other

term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights

out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant,

regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.

The Mandate for Leadership, page 4

2.1 Project 2025 – an overview

The

Heritage Foundation²,

an influential American right-wing think tank, working

with a broad coalition of ultra-conservative and Christian nationalist groups has

made public policy plans and a road map for 2025 should Donald Trump win the

next Presidential election in November 2024. This is titled

The Mandate for Le-

adership: The Presidential Transition Plan.

The Mandate is the policy arm of an

initiative commonly known as

Project 2025³.

The Heritage Foundation has crea-

ted similar presidential roadmaps most notably the first ‘Mandate for Leadership’

which heavily influenced Ronald Reagan’s administration in 1981.

However, the current Mandate is markedly different. It is the most detailed and far

right of previous proposals and the authors and contributors have strong links to

the previous Trump administration. For many, Republicans and Democrats alike,

Trump’s win in 2016 came as a surprise and President Trump lacked a policy, tran-

sition and staffing plan that would allow him to swiftly deliver on his agenda. The

Heritage Foundation was determined not to let this happen again. They establis-

hed Project 2025 so that he could begin his term with a policy roadmap, executive

orders and pre-vetted and trained political appointees, that could be put in place

from day one.

At over 920 pages, The Mandate was drafted over two years and brought together

34 authors and over 420 contributors. The 54-member advisory board has many

familiar Christian Right Nationalist organisations such as Center for Family and

Human Rights (C-Fam), the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Institute

for Women’s Health (IWH).

This Mandate maps out sweeping reforms that are anti-democratic, with detai-

led plans for partisan courts, potential withdrawal from the United Nations (UN),

removing the apolitical career civil service and putting far-right political parti-

sans in their place across all federal government agencies, and centralising more

power in the hands of the president⁴. The Mandate overall has a central focus

on “fetal-personhood” and “hetero-normative family structure” and proposes to

remove rights and protections from transgender people referring to ‘transgender

extremists’ and ‘transgender ideology’ as pornography⁵. Proposed measures for

USAID include a significant restructuring, and reduction of budget, the removal

of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, and dismantling of the apparatus that

supports gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights⁶. With respect to safe abortion care,

information and services, The Mandate, mentions abortion 199 times and lays out

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

plans for a massive expansion of the

Mexico City Policy (MCP),

also known as the

Global Gag Rule (GGR).

Under President Trump’s first administration, the MCP

was already extended to cover all ODA in global health, known as

Protecting Life

in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA).

Project 2025 goes further, proposing to

make ‘protecting life’ a cornerstone of US foreign policy work and extending the

MCP to

all

U.S. foreign assistance (including humanitarian), known as

Protecting

Life in Foreign Assistance (PLFA)

and put in place other measures to remove

what the Mandate authors refer to as ‘loopholes’.

The Mandate for Leadership proposes to use a range of channels to achieve its

aims - ODA, multilateral engagement, and foreign policy - making this a cross-go-

vernment concern for Sweden and other European countries. As the world’s

largest contributor of development assistance ($66 billion in FY23), the U.S. has

a huge influence in partner countries.⁷ The implementation of the PLFA, cou-

pled with the removal of evidence-based, human-rights and gender-sensitive

approaches to development programming would have a huge impact not just on

SRHR, health outcomes and progress towards Universal Health Coverage, but

would also severely curtail civic voice, human rights, and democracy.

The architects of Project 2025 are intimately linked with transnational anti-rights

movements. The Alliance Defending Freedom (working through their interna-

tional arm), are members of (and have provided support to) far-right, anti-rights

movements in Europe such as ‘Agenda Europe’ (now called VisionLink). Other

contributors to The Mandate, such as the Institute for Women’s Health, run by

Valerie Huber, are leading efforts to roll out the Geneva Consensus Declaration,

GCD (Box 1 and Figure”/Map” 1

⁸

)

Box 1:

The Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD), signed on

October 22, 2020, under the Trump administration, is an anti-

abortion manifesto currently endorsed by a coalition of 37 countries.

The US, Brazil and Colombia were original signatories which have

currently withdrawn. Efforts to cultivate signatories have continued

and been led by Valerie Huber, a former senior staffer in the Trump

Administration and founder of the Institute for Women’s Health.

The GCD is currently hosted by the Government of Hungary which

serves as the secretariat of the GCD coalition. The GCD extensively

co-opts human rights language -

human rights of women are an

inalienable, integral part of all human rights and fundamental

freedoms,

and it commits to Universal Health Coverage, while at the

same time seeking to deny access to abortion, stating that there is no

international right to abortion or any international obligation.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

Project 2025 has four pillars. The first outlines the policy promise and the other

three are structured to operationalise the policy mandate from day one of the ad-

ministration. The Pillars are:

1.The Mandate for Leadership, which is the 920-page policy promise.

2. A Presidential Personnel Database of vetted loyal conservatives that can

be drawn on and put in place from day one in key offices.

3. The Presidential Administrative Academy provides a variety of master

classes in public service to ensure that the conservative administration is

trained (videos leaked in August 2024).

4. A 180-day Transition Playbook (not yet publicly available).

How much of the Mandate will be implemented, should Donald Trump win the

election remains an open question. Some analysts point to inconsistencies within

The Mandate as evidence of fractures within the ultra-right movement and note

that Project 2025 is not the only conservative organisation developing a policy

playbook⁹. The American First Policy Institute (AFPI) has a similar mission and also

engages former senior Trump staffers.

Donald Trump’s campaign has been careful to distance itself from Project 2025

and has denied any knowledge of Project 2025 and who is behind it, calling many

of the ideas ‘extreme’. However, most media outlets and the key informants for

this report see his new positioning as ”electioneering” given the microscope the

Democrats have placed on the Project’s extreme policy proposals and their imple-

mentation. There is in fact, ample evidence of Donald Trump’s close relationship

with the President of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts and in April 2022

he praised the work of the Heritage Foundation saying they are “going

to lay the

groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your

movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save

America”

A large number of well-funded, influential organisations have also been

involved, as well as a huge number of former senior staffers loyal to Donald Trump.

According to an analysis by CNN “In total at least 140 people who worked in the

Trump administration have had a hand in drafting Project 2025”.

A review of the

14 hours of leaked training video for the Presidential Academy shows that 29 of

the 36 speakers worked for Donald Trump in some capacity

His efforts to publicly disavow Project 2025 are further compromised by the

selection of Senator J.D. Vance as his VP running mate, given Mr. Vance’s close

alliance with the Heritage Foundation President. Senator Vance has written the

foreword to the President of the Heritage Foundation’s forthcoming book,

Dawn’s

Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America.

The book was originally

scheduled for release in September but given the scrutiny that Project 2025 is

under it has been pushed back until a week after the US election. Senator Vance’s

public positions on abortion and traditional family, immigration and ideology are

closely aligned to the Project

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

2.2 Project 2025’s Approach

The Project uses a myriad of tactics to dismantle the existing international and

foreign policy system with proposals on how it should function in the future. Four

key strategies stand out, and their impact is even greater when considered along-

side other global anti-gender and anti-SRHR movements. These strategies can

be broadly described as:

1. Dismantling the administrative state and politicising the civil service.

One of the central promises of the Project is to “dismantle the administrati-

ve state and return self-governance to the American people

”. This promi-

se is outlined in every chapter of the Mandate along with details of politici-

sing senior positions throughout the government

. The Mandate document

argues that a large state is both wasteful and not in the spirit of the original

intent of the Constitution and that it interferes with the free will of the

American people by imposing ‘woke’ ideals on them. One of many examp-

les cited is that

“bureaucrats at the State Department infuse US foreign aid

programs with woke extremism about ‘intersectionality’ and abortion.”

The

Mandate lays out which tools can be used to

‘fire the supposedly unfireable

federal bureaucrats and how to muzzle woke propaganda at every level of

government”.

2. Co-opting the narrative and misinformation on human rights.

What

is notable about this, and other transnational ultra-conservative and anti-

rights agendas and movements is how they have understood the tools of

human rights progress and used those same tools, strategies, and tactics

to undermine human rights, whether globally in multilateral UN settings,

through diplomacy or in programmatic work.

For example, the Manda-

te positions the promotion of the right to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights as

countering the right to religious freedoms and ‘anathema to the traditional

societies’ were USAID works. It positions protections on the basis of gender,

LGBTQ+ status and race as ‘discrimination’ and it speaks about the need to

create a healthy culture of respect for life, the family, sovereignty and

‘authentic human rights’ in international organisations and agencies.

Furthermore, in 2019 under the Trump administration, then Secretary of

State, Mike Pompeo established the US Commission on Unalienable

Human Rights which focused on the primacy of civil and political rights

grounded in the nation’s founding principle and the broader tradition of

natural law and natural rights. In doing so, the Commission co-opted

terminology and framing inherent in the Universal Declaration on Human

Rights and other Human Rights agreements.

3. Breaking down the rules based multilateral order, the architecture

that supports the channelling of official development assistance and the

silencing of dissenting voices.

Proposed measures include using the multilateral systems as an extension

of US foreign policy, withdrawing from agencies that do not comply and

creating obstructions that stall international agreements (an approach

known as norm spoiling). These approaches would have a significant

negative impact on the rules based multilateral order. As the final section

of the report shows, the proposed additional expansions of the Mexico

City Policy (MCP) will significantly affect people’s access to comprehen-

sive SRHR considerably hamper the delivery of all foreign assistance (not

just US foreign assistance). Thousands of local partners risk being mired in

bureaucracy and “gagged”. The impact would lead to a dramatic shrinking

civic space and an erosion of human rights and democracy.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

4. Building a new international system with faith-based and private sector

approaches at its core.

The final strategy rests on what the authors propose

can fill the gaps and where money can be reprogrammed. The Mandate calls

consistently for the integration of faith-based approaches and religious

freedoms into all USAID country cooperation strategies, the implementa-

tion of the Geneva Consensus Declaration and the transfer of financing

to faith-based actors and the private sector.

2.3 What are the main provisions within Project 2025 relevant to

work on Gender, Human Rights and SRHR in global spaces?

The solution to all of the above problems is not to tinker with this

or that government program, to replace this or that bureaucrat.

These are problems not of technocratic efficiency but of national

sovereignty and constitutional governance. We solve them not by

trimming and reshaping the leaves but by ripping out the trees—root

and branch. International organisations and agreements that erode

our Constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty should not be

reformed: They should be abandoned.

The Mandate for Leadership, page 12

This section focuses on analysis of the Mandate Chapter 2 (the Executive Office),

written by Russ Vought, the former Director of the Office of Management and

Budget during the Trump administration; Chapter 6 (the Department of State),

written by Kiron Skinner who served as the Director of Policy Planning at the State

Department under Donald Trump and Chapter 9 (the Agency for International

Development), written by Max Primorac, who served as the senior advisor to the

USAID administrator during the Donald Trump’s administration. The Heritage

Foundation claims that 64% of their policy recommendations were used in the

first Trump Presidency This section provides a brief overview and analysis of a few

key areas. The aim is to make the Mandate more accessible and to provide context

for this report’s recommendations. Project 2025 proposes:

Centralising additional power in the hands of the President.

Some of

the key strategies to achieve this are through direct partisan appointments,

a stronger focus on executive actions that do not require congressional

oversight and the restructuring of federal agencies. Frustrated by activities

of senior career executives, a few months before Donald Trump left office

in 2021, he issued Executive Order 13957

known as schedule F. Schedule

F meant that federal civil servants, who previously had protections from

political influence, could be fired and replaced by political appointees.

Schedule F was revoked by President Biden two days after taking office.

To slow down the reinstatement of schedule F by any future administration,

President Biden’s Office of Personnel Management has passed a new rule

to protect federal employees and make it more difficult to reinstate

schedule F. Key informants indicated it would now be cumbersome for

a new Trump administration to reinstate schedule F but not impossible.

Within the Mandate, they indicate their intention to reinstate schedule F

and USAID has been identified as one of the agencies to pilot-test this

executive order.

ii)

International Organisations

. The Project plans to fundamentally alter

American diplomacy, using its voice in the UN and other international bo-

dies to push anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ agendas, and adopt an alter-

native narrative on “human rights’’ distinct from the Universal Declaration

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

of Human Rights, the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights,

the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights etc.

The project also plans to abandon international organisations and traditio-

nal diplomatic and security alliances.

To pursue this alternative agenda

The Mandate includes designating a political appointee to help coordinate

cross agency efforts to hold

“the US government’s multilateral partners

(U.N. and WHO agencies and other international organisations) to a higher

level of financial and programmatic accountability, including assurances

that language promoting abortion will be removed from U.N. documents,

policy statements, and technical literature”

. It is clear from the Mandate

that international organisations, are expected to support the US foreign po-

licy interests and if they do not the US should give serious consideration to

withdrawing from them as the previous Trump Administration did with the

Human Rights Council or terminate/reduce funding for them as in the case

of UNESCO, UNRWA and WHO. The Mandate further lays out proposals

to transition from large awards to ‘corrupt’ UN agencies and global NGOs

to local, especially faith-based entities and unleash the power of America’s

private sector.

iii)

Agency for International Development (USAID)

. The chapter on USAID

proposes a comprehensive restructuring of the Agency. A number of areas

are highlighted which if implemented in their entirety would substantially

reshape the nature of US official development assistance and all but elimi-

nate its gender and human rights work. It would also give rise to substantial

increases in funding to private sector and faith-based groups. Overall, the

Mandate proposes cuts in USAID’s global footprint and budget and it de-

cries how USAID programs are “infused with woke extremisms about ‘inter-

sectionality’ and abortion.”

It proposes the rapid deployment of political

appointees in key positions including senior attorneys, human resources,

and the appointment of a senior officer to report on adherence to the ad-

ministration’s policy priority including protecting life in foreign assistance

(PLFA) critical race theory, climate change, gender and diversity and inclu-

sion.

iv) Refocusing Gender Equality on Women, Children and Families

Democratic Administrations have nearly erased what females are and

what femininity is through ‘gender’ policies and practices.

The Mandate for Leadership, page 259

Significant changes affecting foreign policy and international assistance

related to gender would be undertaken. This includes shutting down the

White House Gender Policy Council (GPC), which advances gender equity

and equality in both domestic and foreign policy development and takes an

intersectional, whole of government, approach.

Large-scale adjustments

to USAID are proposed, such as restructuring the USAID Office of Gender

Equality and Women’s Empowerment and positioning it as USAID’s Office

of Women, Children, and Families. This would include eliminating the more

than 180 gender advisors across USAID and the position of Senior Gender

Coordinator. This post would be renamed the Senior Coordinator of the

Office of Women, Children, and Families and be explicitly pro-life and poli-

tically appointed. The approach to ”Integrating Gender Equality and Fema-

le Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle” will be modified to align with

the new focus. It is proposed to remove all references and language such

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

as gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-

sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and anything

inclusive of diverse gender identities from all programming material, USAID

communications and outreach materials

. President Biden’s memorandum

on “Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad,” issued on January

28, 2021 would also be revoked.

Eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).

USAID currently pla-

ces importance on DEI . Within The Mandate this is seen as racializing the

agency and creating a hostile work environment and it recommends that

the next conservative administration should issue a directive that ceases

the promotion of the DEI agenda and the ‘bullying LGBTQ+ agenda’. It

should dismantle USAID’s DEI apparatus by eliminating the Chief Diversity

Officer position along with DEI advisers and committees, cancelling mo-

nitoring mechanisms and removing requirements in contracts and grants.

Furthermore, the Mandate aims to rescind employer regulations ‘prohibi-

ting discrimination’ (sic) on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity,

transgender status, and sex characteristics.

Ending diplomatic support and assistance for the LGBTQ+ community

The Mandate dramatically erodes support for the LGBTQ+ community do-

mestically and abroad calling for the removal of policies and programs that

respect and protect the community to be replaced by policies that advoca-

te for stable, married, nuclear families (by which is meant heterosexual uni-

ons).

It also calls for an end to using US diplomatic soft power in Africa to

protect the rights of LGBTQ+ communities, and refers to this diplomacy as

‘imposing pro-LGBT initiatives’. This call almost certainly refers to the pas-

sage of the anti-homosexuality Act in Uganda

. In response to its passage

US President Biden issued a statement calling the Act a tragic violation of

universal human rights and in response to it he put in place visa restrictions,

some sanctions, and signalled a decrease in aid and trade engagement.

The signposting from the Mandate is clear - a new Republican government

is being asked not to stand up for the rights of LGBTQ+ populations around

the world. This grave situation calls for strengthening the interconnected-

ness of the movements that erode LGBTQ+ human rights, the right to bodi-

ly autonomy, abortion, and democracy.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

v) Restrictions on access to Safe Abortion

The next Administration should ensure that USAID’s goal in service

of its mission is to help protect and propel all members of society—

women, children, and men—from conception to natural death

The Mandate for Leadership, page 260

The Mandate similarly proposes a number of foreign policy, multilateral and ODA

modalities to limit access globally to safe abortion and it applauds the efforts

during the Trump presidency that resulted in the Geneva Consensus Declaration.

It calls on any future Republic administration to ensure that abortion is not ‘fun-

ded or promoted’ in international programs or multilateral organisations and calls

on the US government to create a coalition of like minded nations to shape “the

work of international agencies by functioning as a united front”.

The intention of

this call can be seen as a commitment to engage more concertedly in norm spoil-

ing through multilateral processes and to influence other ‘public interest organi-

sations’ such as the Global Fund, the Global Financing Facility (GFF) etc through

collective action.

At a minimum the Mandate calls on the reinstatement of the expanded MCP

(applied to all foreign NGO health recipients and subrecipients) and the defun-

ding of UNFPA. However, the central proposal of the Mandate is to dramatically

expand the MCP by extending it in four key areas:

1. Remove exemptions for US International NGOs. This expansion also app-

ly to contracts (which are often awarded to private sector organisations).

2. Extend the MCP to Protect Life in

all Foreign Assistance

(PLFA),

including humanitarian assistance (covering about $66 billion of

and thousands of partners).

3. Remove exemptions for Public International Organisations (PIOs) and

Multilateral organisations (this includes Gavi, the Global Fund, the Global

Financing Facility and UN entities).

4. Apply the policy to bilateral government-to-government agreements

These proposals and their implications are discussed in a special section later in

the report given the scope, scale, and magnitude of impact their implementation

would have.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

2.4 Project 2025 is already here

Project 2025 lays out a policy mandate for the next Republican President that

would have severe implications for human rights and international cooperation.

However, it is important for policymakers to realise that many of the significant

elements of Project 2025 are already here. The policy proposals are being rolled

out and they will continue to be rolled out even if President Trump loses the

election in November 2024.

One example of how Project 2025 is already having an impact is the rollout of the

Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD)

and the development of its operational

arm

Protego.

Work cultivating national signatories did not cease with President

Trump’s departure from office in 2021. The GCD’s continued influence has been

spearheaded by Valerie Huber, a former Trump official who went on to form the In-

stitute of Women’s Health (IWH) in 2021

. The GCD is currently being hosted by

the government of Hungary with support from IWH. The IWH, is a US anti-abor-

tion, anti-comprehensive sexuality education US INGO. It is listed among those

organisations on Project 2025’s Advisory Board and Valerie Huber is a contribu-

ting author to the Project. As a multi-country political declaration, the GCD lack-

ed an implementing modality. In response to this, the IWH created their ‘Holistic

Framework for Women’s Health, known as

Protego.

Research by Ipas has shown

that Protego’s core aim is the operationalization of the GCD. A key component

of Protego is “International Engagement’’ which is dedicated to discrediting the

work of the multilateral system and their promotion of the human rights of women,

girls, and LGBTQ+ people

. Protego is envisaged as an agreement at the highest

level of government. Guatemala is piloting Protego, and it was recently launched

in Uganda by First Lady Janet Museveni. Fifteen countries are said by the IWH to

be considering launching the approach in their country.

Figure 1: Current Geneva Consensus Declaration Signatories

GDC Member States

Former GDC Member States

While Protego is not mentioned by name in The Mandate, it is implied in a recom-

mendation for launching a new approach that focuses on ‘Holistic Health Care

and Support for Women, Children, and Families’. It asks that the next leadership

at USAID focus attention on women’s and children’s health (including unborn

children) as well as health risks across the lifespan

A second example of the operationalisation of Project 2025 is the large funding

flows and influence from US evangelical Christian groups to influence and remove

the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in Africa. These groups were directly enga-

ged in influencing the recently passed anti-homosexuality Act in Uganda. Orga-

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

nisations such as the Fellowship Foundation are thought to have spent over $20

million in Uganda, to bolster local support for anti-LGBTQ+ laws between 2008

and 2018

and evangelical Christian influence has been instrumental in drafting

and promoting the legislation

. The US Supreme Court’s anti-abortion decision

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health organisation, (which overturned Roe v. Wade),

was also cited by the Ugandan Constitutional Court as part of its justification to

pass the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act in March 2023. Specifically, Uganda’s

court stated that it is within a nation’s sovereignty to define and regulate rights

according to its ”history and traditions”, similar to how the U.S. reconsidered abor-

tion rights.

These decisions are important because of the emphasis on cultural

and societal norms over democracy and rule of law and international human rights

standards. The linkage illustrates how international judicial decisions, particularly

from influential courts like the US Supreme Court (and backed by US money and

advocacy) can influence legal arguments in other countries.

Other examples include attempts by Republican congressmen to pass legislation

aimed at restricting funding for international non-governmental organisations

that support gender-affirming care, surgeries, or promote transgender rights. The-

se efforts have been part of a broader strategy to embed anti-LGBTQ+ provisions

into various must-pass appropriations bills

. While these measures have not yet

been successfully passed into law, their inclusion in significant funding bills high-

lights ongoing legislative efforts to curtail transgender rights domestically and

internationally.

This bill came after the publication of Project 2025 so it is not specifically mentio-

ned within it, but it raises concern that a transgender “gag-rule” may be unilateral-

ly enacted should Donald Trump become the next US President.

These cases show that even if Vice President Kamala Harris wins the election,

Project 2025 will still be with us. It will just be delivered through different mecha-

nisms. Furthermore, if Kamala Harris wins the election but loses one or other of

the houses it will have a significant impact on whether budgets or legislation can

pass.

With this in mind, Project 2025 should not be seen as a Mandate for the next four

years, but as a plan for decades and European partners should be planning accor-

dingly with a mix of long and short term coordinated strategies.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

3. WHY SHOULD PROJECT 2025 CONCERN EUROPEAN

GOVERNMENTS, CSOs AND LIKEMINDED ALLIES?

3.1 Geopolitical context and solidarity

Project 2025 has significant geopolitical implications. The alignment of US fo-

reign policy with ultra-conservative or populistic agendas, as proposed by Project

2025, risks undermining human rights values globally. This is particularly con-

cerning in the global south, where as a result of new US positioning they may by

default - ally to authoritarian regimes that also undermine human rights globally

such as Russia. This shift has significant implications for the geopolitical landsca-

pe potentially diminishing Europe’s ability to work in support of local civil society

actors in human rights and democratic governance. As an example, in the African

context, the Lusaka Agenda emphasises the importance of maintaining solidarity

and support for human rights, gender equality, and SRHR, which could be severely

compromised under Project 2025. Strong support for local agendas like Lusaka

and stronger integration of SRHR, climate, human rights, democratic governance

and security may help position countries in the global south to resist the rolling

back of human rights standards, but that will only prevail if there is space for a

strong civil society voice at the table.

3.2 The Effect on UN agencies and the UN system

Project 2025’s proposals to defund or reshape international organisations like the

UN agencies and the WHO will disrupt the global aid architecture, global solidari-

ty and foreign policy. European donors often work through these multilateral or-

ganisations and rely on them for global solidarity and norms and standards setting.

This in turn helps provide principles for ODA and allows for it to be delivered ef-

fectively. US withdrawal, conditional funding to the UN and/or continued norms

spoiling in multilateral negotiations based on ultraconservative agendas compro-

mises the UN’s ability to function, and also changes how European partners work

with and through them.

The U.S is the largest contributor to overseas development assistance, with $66

billion allocated in 2023

and their assistance in health is approximately $12.9

billion (see below). Changes in US policy, such as the proposed implementation

of the Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance (PLFA) and other measures outlined

earlier in this report will severely affect global SRHR, health and development

outcomes and progress towards Universal Health Coverage. It will seriously dis-

rupt European development assistance by limiting the number of collaborating

partners in countries as well as restraining their activities. In addition, this shift

towards ideological approaches over evidence and human rights-sensitive would

curtail civic voice, human rights, and democracy in partner countries, directly im-

pacting the effectiveness of European official development assistance and results.

Countries with a large dependence on US ODA will likely be impacted the most.

Estimates need to be generated to understand where, when and how the biggest

impacts will materialise so that partners can prepare.

3.3 Impact on health and SRHR outcomes

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

The US is by far the largest donor government to global health,

SRHR, HIV-programming and Family Planning (figures in USD, actual):

• ODA total:

66 billion (2023).

• Global health:

12.9 billion (2023).

• Family Planning:

583 million. Followed by the Netherlands at 217

million, U.K: 175 million, Sweden: 121 million (2022).

• SRHR 9.35 billion:

Followed by the UK: 734 million, Germany: 651 million,

France 531 million (2022).

More than half of US' SRHR disbursements and a large part of its Family Planning

and RMNCH disbursements came from its support to STD control including HIV

& AIDS

. The US continues to be the largest donor to HIV programs at 6.1 billion,

providing 74% of all donor government HIV funding

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

4. PREVIOUS US POLICIES RESTRICTING ACCESS

TO SAFE AND LEGAL ABORTION

The Mexico City Policy is not just an abortion restriction. It’s called

a gag rule because it’s about speech. It’s a way for Republican

Administrations and their supporters to buy out the ideological

composition of governments and organisations around the world.

The moment we are in today with anti-gender movements globally

is because the first Trump administration bought or forced the

silence of civil society and muffled the advocacy movement.

That is the point of the Global Gag Rule.

Beirne Roose-Snyder, senior director, Perclusion Project, Key Informant

4.1 The Mexico City Policy (MCP)

In 1984 the administration of US President Reagan was the first to implement the

Mexico City Policy (MCP)

which is also known as ‘the

Global Gag Rule’ (GGR).

The original MCP prohibited foreign Non-Governmental Organisations (fNGOs)

that received US government family planning monies from using US funds or their

own funds for performing, providing counselling, referring, or advocating for safe

abortion as a method of family planning.

53 54

That meant that even if a local organisation was providing information and ser-

vice on abortion paid for by another donor, or their own funds, they would not be

eligible for family planning money from the US government. To remain eligible for

US Government (USG) family planning funds they would need to certify compli-

ance with the policy. Essentially agreeing to be ‘gagged’. They would stop all work

on abortion-related information, referral, or services in exchange for USG family

planning funding. The policy at the time applied to $300-600 million in family

planning monies per annum. The GGR has since been implemented with every

republican administration and repealed with every democratic one.

In 2017, President Trump reinstated and radically expanded the Global Gag Rule

applying this policy to all health assistance in what became known as

Protecting

Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA).

This increased the level of funding

affected to an estimated $12 billion per annum in fiscal year 2018 and affected

over 1,300 global health projects.

These figures do not include how much of

other donors’ money or domestic money was gagged. Historically the MCP was

limited to only USAID funding. Under the expansion the restrictions applied to

all US global health awards, affecting numerous US government agencies with

programs abroad. It also extended to programs awarded through the State

Department. This meant that for the first time the President’s Emergency Plan

for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was bound by the MCP. Given the integrated nature of

health sector responses, over 2/3 rds of health funds were linked in some way to

supporting HIV and AIDS programming and 2/3 were linked to Africa.

In 2019 in

an unprecedented move further guidance was issued stating that the GGR would

now apply to sub-recipients of “gagged” organisations even if they do not receive

any US foreign assistance. Overnight, local organisations with no programs

supported by the US government became subject to the policy simply because

they were subgrantees of an organisation that did

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

The explanation of how this works to gag other donors’ projects can be explai-

ned in Figure 2 using a hypothetical situation of a project funded by Sida. In this

situation, a local community Youth SRHR NGO (at the bottom, second from

left), is 100% supported by Sida to provide comprehensive SRHR information to

young people, inclusive of information on safe abortion care. Sida passes its funds

through the Ethiopia Public Health Foundation (EPHF) who is primarily respon-

sible for the overall project. This local Youth SRHR NGO becomes gagged even

though it does not receive a single dollar in USAID funds and it has not signed the

gag rule. It becomes gagged because it is sub-granted by the EPHF to deliver the

project. The EPHF decided to sign the gag rule so it can continue to receive funds

from the US. The consequence of being gagged is that the Youth SRHR NGO

can not provide comprehensive SRHR programs and must remove any reference

to abortion or safe abortion in its materials. To provide for comprehensive SRHR

for youth in communities, Sida will need to find another partner providing youth

friendly information and services. In the geographic area where the project ope-

rates there may not be another partner. This is the system that existed under the

2019 expansions. Under future scenarios this may expand to all US foreign assis-

tance.

Figure 2: How expanded MCP (2019) Gags Local Organizations includning

those with no US funding

A significant amount of research has been done since the MCP has been

implemented to show the devastating impacts of the policy expansion, not just

on access to abortion information and services, but on overseas assistance during

Covid, maternal health programming and to HIV services. Organisations suppor-

ted by PEPFAR to support integrated HIV prevention, treatment and care with

comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights have been among the

hardest hit.

The irony is that the GGR applies even in countries where abortion is legal.

The majority of countries that receive US global health funding allow for legal

abortion in at least one case not permissible by the exemptions of the gag rule

(rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother). By applying the gag rule in these

instances, the United States is attempting to override or disregard local laws

The GGR was rescinded in early 2021 when President Biden took office.

Should Trump win the next Presidential election he will almost certainly re-apply

the MCP and it is assumed that he will take guidance for its expansion from the

Mandate for Leadership outlined in Project 2025.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

5. SPECIAL SECTION: PROPOSED FURTHER EXPANSIONS

OF THE MEXICO CITY POLICY AND OTHER MEASURES

TO CURTAIL ACCESS TO SAFE ABORTION

Should it be implemented, Project 2025 seeks at a minimum to reinstate the PLG-

HA and block funding to the United Nations Population Fund UNFPA by reinsta-

ting the

Kemp-Kasten Amendment

. However, the proposals cut much deeper,

recommending four areas of significant expansions

. The implication of four ex-

pansions of the PLGHA and how US-based NGOs are preparing and responding

are outlined below.

Expansion 1

– Apply the MCP to US-based International NGOs and their

recipients and sub recipients

In the US the 1973

Helms Amendment,

prohibits US NGOs from using US foreign

assistance to fund abortion as a “method of family planning” and is in place even

during Democratic administrations

. However, under Helms, US-based INGOs

are not ‘gagged’ and they

can

receive funding to provide abortion information

or services through other sources such as the Swedish, British, Canadian funders

and foundations. Under Project 2025 there are proposals to expand the GGR

to cover US-based INGOs and that this would be applied to contracts as well as

cooperative agreements. This would mean that US-based INGOs that receive

non-USG monies for comprehensive SRHR inclusive of abortion information or

services

would no longer be eligible for USG funding.

Under this expansion

US-based INGOs would need to make a choice whether or not to be gagged.

For organisations that agree to be gagged it would mean forgoing important

funding for safe abortion programs that are supported through other donors.

Since the MCP was first applied in 1984 there was a long-held belief that US

based NGOs

could not

be gagged. This was formed from three main points i)

existing case law, ii) a constitutional right to free speech under the First Amend-

ment and iii) up until 2 years ago Constitutional Rights to Abortion domestically.

After the proposals in Project 2025 emerged, US based INGOs have been me-

eting and their legal counsels have been reviewing provisions. After discussions

with many US based INGOs, it remains uncertain whether or not they could legal-

ly be subject to the policy or not. It seems however the larger question would be

whether and how they would fight any attempted gag order which would likely

end up in the courts on the basis of the First Amendment. However, this might

ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, which (with the exception of the recent

ruling on mifepristone access) has not been favourable to these issues and the

court has not relied on precedent as much as previous courts

The implications for large US-based INGOs if subjected to the policy would be

immense. If a US INGO refused to be ‘gagged’ they would be ineligible for

any

USAID money. One INGO key informant indicated that USG money is about

50% of the budget for their organisation and for others, it is higher. Some INGOs

do not take US Government money for their overseas work such as Planned Pa-

renthood Foundation America (PPFA). Six organisations are specifically called out

in Project2025 and would likely be the first to be targeted. These are PSI, Pathfin-

der, PATH, Population Council, EngenderHealth, Women Care International, but

the policy would undoubtedly be

applied uniformly.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

US INGOs are currently organising to understand the impacts of these potential

events. They are ‘running the financial numbers’ to see if they could continue to

operate and some are looking at alternate structures. They are sharing information

through spaces such as the US based International Community of Family Planning

organisations and the network of CEOs working in Reproductive Health.

The implications for comprehensive health and SRHR programs and services

would be significant. US based NGOs have some of the most advanced infra-

structure, policies and systems and provide high quality technical support in

many areas and they have an ability to work at scale. A loss of them as partners for

European governments and communities might be significant. An analysis could

be done with major European donors to gain a fuller picture of which US INGOs

they work with to provide comprehensive SRHR programming and the impact

should they no longer be available. Similarly, analysis could be undertaken to

understand how much funding US INGOs are receiving from the US government

and the impact of this loss in funding on unintended pregnancies, unsafe abor-

tions and SRHR service delivery.

Expansion 2

– Extension of the Mexico City Policy to Protect Life in

all Foreign

Assistance (PLFA), including humanitarian assistance.

This expansion of the MCP to all foreign assistance was initially proposed in a

bill in January 2021, which was unsuccessful. It is re-proposed in Project 2025

If it was passed by a future Trump administration it would mean applying the ex-

panded MCP to

all

foreign assistance and all US and non-US recipients. It would

cover

$66 billion

of US foreign assistance (FY2023) of which

$51.5 billion

is esti-

matedto be provided to non-USG prime recipients.This is tens of billions of dollars

greater than the previous policy of PLHA which affected

$12 billion

of health

assistance. It would also cover 178 countries (an increase from 93 under PLGHA)

and approximately 2,400 non-USG prime recipients and thousands more sub-re-

cipients, including sub-recipients who do not have any USG funding and may be

supported by European donors and partners.

64 65

The majority of this funding in FY 22 was provided to multilateral organisations

($29.8 billion) which under proposed expansion 3 (outlined below) would be

newly subject to the policy. US based INGO recipients received $15.1 billion

and would be newly subject to the policy as outlined under Expansion 1 (above).

Foreign governments received $862 million and there are proposals to subject

them to the policy under expansion 4 (outlined below).

However, the greatest concern rests with the application of the MCP to the hu-

manitarian sector which currently receives $16.4 billion in assistance each year.

Project 2025 specifically cites the inclusion of medication abortion on the essen-

tial drugs list in the Covid-19 Humanitarian Response Plan as one of the reasons

to justify the expansion to humanitarian organisations. Safe Abortion Care is also

included in the Minimum Initial Service Package for humanitarian responses.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

The GGR would apply to local organisations even if they do not receive USG

funds. In this way, even a single dollar of U.S. money taints an entire organisation’s

operating budget from all sources and who they partner with.

The impacts are

enormous:

Impact on Broad-based community organisations

that work on education or

women’s agriculture, might also have SRHR programs inclusive of information,

referrals and services for abortion. Their work on abortion (even if funded from

non-USG sources) would make them ineligible to receive ANY USG funds. A loss

of USAID funding, results in a loss of staff, operating capability, and overheads

which can hamper Sida/other donor programs even if those programs are unrela-

ted to abortion.

Impacts on the Integration of services-

health services have become more in-

tegrated in the last decade, particularly with moves to strengthen primary health

care. The expansion of the PLGHA interrupts service integration and health sys-

tems strengthening, affecting services and patient referrals in a variety of health

areas.

Localisation

- Moreover, the US government is currently pursuing a policy of loca-

lisation and is actively looking to engage more local organisations across a range

of programming. In the future, the GGR is applied to these local organisations. It

will limit the range of partners that other donors could work with on comprehensi-

ve SRHR.

Punitive and pre-emptive selection bias

is a risk for local organisations. Using

the Global Fund as an example, Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCMs) have

the responsibility to select Principal Recipients for the Global Fund grants. CCMs

may have a selection bias against certain Principal Recipients based on whether

they provide comprehensive SRHR. CCMs may decide not to choose those orga-

nisations as principal recipients for fear that all their sub-recipient systems will be

gagged.

Many other sectors would be affected as described above as would the programs

and partnerships of non-US donors

. Due to the expansion to sub-recipients

(even those with no USG funding) other bilateral government investments in

essence become gagged (figure 2 previously). This raises an important question

concerning interferance with the sovereignty and democratic functioning of

other

countries if US policy restrictions are attached to a foreign government’s own

appropriations and expenditure.

Many settings lack a wide array of NGOs to work with. This is particularly prono-

unced in the humanitarian ecosystem. If some organizations are gagged, they are

unavailable to extend life-saving comprehensive SRHR in these environments,

where GBV is very high, and rape is often used as a weapon of war. If organisations

choose not to be gagged, they will not be able to receive USAID funds. The sheer

scale and complications of the bureaucracy and compliance in fast moving set-

tings is hard to fathom. There is reason for concern that a vacuum may be left in

these settings and with the complexity of implementing the rule.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

Expansion 3

–

International Organisations - Remove any exemptions for Public

International Organisations and Multilateral Organisations (Box 2)

In the past, organisations and agencies categorised by USAID as “Public Interna-

tional Organisations”(PIO), like the Global Fund or Gavi, have not had to certify

compliance with the expanded MCP when they have entered into new agre-

ements for US funding. However, Project 2025 proposes to change that and ask

PIOs and the United Nations to certify compliance.

Box 2. Public International Organisation

According to USAID, Public International Organisation (PIOs) include

but is not limited to:

• A selection of UN organisations, funds and programmes and related

organisations, including UNFPA, UNAIDS, WHO and UNWOMEN.

• The category “Other International Organisations”, that is GAVI, the

Global Fund to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis (the Global Fund).

• International finance institutions such as the World Bank Group.

In total in FY 22 the US government provided $29.8 billion to multilateral organi-

sations and PIOs of which $18 billion was for the UN. According to the Council on

Foreign Relations, the United States remains the largest donor to the UN accoun-

ting for one-third of the funding for the body’s collective budget.

According to

key informants, the mechanism used to defund the UN may be the 1981

Siljander

Amendment

which forbids US funding from being used to lobby for or against

abortion, though it may also be applied through the GGR. Some elements of

this expansion could take effect quite quickly, such as removing voluntary

contributions for UN organisations, but full defunding would likely take more

time. The table below, covers only health focused funds and helps to clarify

the scale of US Government contributions in 2022, in USD:

• The Global Fund:

2 billion

• Gavi:

271 million

• WHO assessed contributions:

349 million

• UNFPA (2023):

161.7 million, which represents 11% of UNFPA’s total bud-

get, 30 million was for core and 131 for humanitarian action (representing ¼

of their entire humanitarian budget).

The expanded MCP and Public International Organisations -

The Global Fund example

Traditionally the MCP has not applied to PIOs and therefore the Global Fund

has not had to comply with the GGR institutionally at the global Secretariat level.

However previous gag rules did significantly affect its programs as can be seen in

figure 3 below.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

Figure 3: How the expanded Mexico City Policy (2019)

Gagged Global Fund NGO Principal Recipiuents and Sub-recipients

Under the expanded MCP in 2019, many Global Fund Civil Society Principal Re-

cipients (PRs) had to take a decision on whether to comply with the GGR or not,

which also directly impacted on their sub-grantees

. Analysis by amfAR (2019)

suggests up to 12% of Global Fund resources (over $1 billion) might have been

subjected to the GGR- with Nigeria, South Africa, and Tanzania among the most

affected countries in terms of the dollar amount. Importantly, the highest propor-

tion of Global Fund programming affected by the expanded MCP (PLGHA) was

for the most vulnerable populations – prevention programming for men who have

sex with men (at 49%) and prevention programs for adolescents and youth in and

out of school (at 39%) and removing Human Rights barriers to HIV services. These

high percentages are a factor of having relatively few partners working in these

areas and a large degree of overlap between the partners that USAID works with

and the global fund.

Most Global Fund principal recipients are still governments, and in crisis situations

the UN is responsible for a significant amount of delivery.

As a result, in the past

the MCP has not applied to them. However, the Mandate for Leadership proposes

‘closing the loopholes’ and gagging governments and the UN. In addition, the

Mandate proposes to gag PIOs directly which could mean directly gagging all glo-

bal health organisations.

The implications are enormous

. This harms relationships with other donors and

recipients, as it is an imposition of regressive US policies on the taxpayer resources

of other nations and infringes on the sovereignty of host countries.

The Mandate does not provide details on how Public International Organisations

such as Gavi, the Global Fund, the Global Financing Facility would be asked to

comply with an expanded MCP. In the Global Fund’s case it is not straightforward

as the funds are administered at country level through Principal Recipients, and

not managed by the Secretariat. If the Global Fund Secretariat was asked to ‘cer-

tify’ compliance with the MCP before entering into new agreements with the US

government, this would be contentious and would presumably need to be agreed

by the Global Fund Board and Technical Review Panel, posing considerable

challenges for an organisation that prides itself on evidence informed interven-

tions and as a leader on human rights. It will be important to proactively look at the

possible implications of a gag for the main ‘health’ PIOs, the GFATM, GFF

and Gavi.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

Expansion 4

Apply restriction to government-to-government bilateral

agreements.

The fourth area of expansion calls on a future Republican Administration to use

the

Geneva Consensus Declaration

as a cornerstone for its foreign policy and

international assistance strategies. It proposes aligning all US foreign policy

engagements with the GCD’s principles, which include protecting life, promoting

women's health, supporting the family as the basic unit of society and defending

national sovereignty' (sic). This alignment is seen as a means to ‘build a coalition of

nations’ that share these values and to shape the policies of international organi-

sations accordingly by functioning as a united front and limiting bilateral assistan-

ce to those countries who are signatories.

This proposal is a political tool, and while legally it may be difficult to put this in

place, key informants suggested that pressure could be exerted on countries,

particularly if those countries receive significant amounts of ODA and have

progressive abortion laws (e.g. Mozambique). Most of these countries are those

in Southern Africa that also receive large amounts of support for HIV. Once again

suggesting that potentially HIV programming would be hit harder than other

areas. There is a lot that could be done to support and prepare countries from a

legal as well as financing perspective.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

6. SUMMARY IMPLICATIONS FOR

A NEW EXPANDED GLOBAL GAG RULE

IN LINE WITH PROJECT 2025’s PROPOSAL

The full implications of such a massive expansion need to be fully worked out, but

much has been learned from the MCP expansion in Donald Trump’s first Adminis-

tration. The new proposals in Project 2025 would be an order of magnitude grea-

ter than those implemented in 2017-2021. Six areas of impact are highlighted:

• Weaken and silence civil society in countries at a time when they are

countering polarisation and civic space is shrinking.

The GGR fractu-

res and polarises civil society and human rights advocacy in countries. A

massive expansion would cause chaos and confusion and divide countries

into two camps. In addition to abortion information and services being im-

pacted, it would affect those organisations working on maternal and child

health, adolescent SRHR, HIV and human rights the hardest. Decades of

work bringing governments and civil society together may be replaced by

a reluctance to do joint projects due to uncertainty on whether the part-

ner will be gagged or ineligible for US government funding. The expanded

MCP, also silences civil society involved in policy, legal, governance, and

accountability in health. This would be happening at the same time that

anti-human rights, anti-gender movements are emboldened and when fai-

th based groups are anticipated to receive additional funding (for example

for Protego).

• Substantially lower funds for SRHR will also directly impact the pro-

grams of European donors.

Analysis needs to be undertaken to understand

the full scale and scope and in which the gag rule would impact on the

programs supported by European partners.

• Significant impact on the delivery of essential services.

Disruptions

would create unacceptable service delays and a breakdown in integrated

services and primary health care. In many settings there aren’t many local

organisations to work with. For example, if a local partner is no longer avai-

lable to support adolescent SRHR because they are gagged it is not easy to

find another. Many local actors are effective because they have built trust

with communities and can not be easily replaced. When applied across all

ODA this may have the effect of breaking down the system so substantially

that it cannot be rebuilt.

• Impacts vulnerable groups the hardest.

Earlier implementation of the

GGR shows that vulnerable groups were hit hardest, for example in areas

like youth-friendly services where trusted community relationships are pa-

ramount or in a context of a limited number of providers, such as in humani-

tarian settings.

• Break down institutional structures.

Evidence from the application of

the MCP has shown that the legacy of the gag rule lives on long after it is

rescinded. Infrastructure and skills are lost and CSOs who have been gag-

ged under previous administrations need to re-establish their systems and

re-compete for projects and funding once the gag rule is lifted.

• Have a ‘chilling effect’ on local organisations and country govern-

ments.

– The sheer complexity and misinterpretation of the MCP has led to

many cases of over-implementation by organisations who fear falling foul

of the rules. This is referred to as the chilling effect. If the MCP is expanded

beyond health to all foreign assistance, the task of explaining it to partners

with no background in health is enormous.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

7. OVERALL CONCLUSION

Project 2025 is not a short-term plan but rather a strategy for decades. When it

is combined with other strands of the anti-gender movements it is increasingly

becoming a Gordian knot.

The implementation of Project 2025 poses significant challenges for global

SRHR, human rights, and democratic values. In its new iteration the proposed

further expansions to the MCP (while immensely damaging to SRHR) dismantles

the international aid architecture well beyond health and weakens the fabric of

societies.

Should Project 2025 and the expanded MCP be implemented it will have

profound impacts on global official development assistance, foreign policy and

human rights, well beyond the 4-year term of any Trump Presidency (should that

come to pass).

Should Donald Trump take office in 2025, it will be impossible to stop the appli-

cation of many of the policy proposals within the Mandate. With this in mind,

perhaps the strategy is to come to collective agreement on the areas where part-

ners can limit its impact, or slow down its implementation. This entails working

with key partners in the US (including political partners) and entering into diplo-

matic negotiations. Collective agreement among progressive European and other

partners will be essential.

European partners working on SRHR and gender equality globally need to consi-

der developing long-term, proactive, coordinated ‘big-tent’ strategies to counter

the effects of Project 2025. This includes raising awareness among like-minded

governments in the global north and south, countering misinformation, leveraging

influence through the multilateral systems to support comprehensive SRHR and

human rights programs as well as funding the immediate gaps. An emergency

fund or emergency response plan could be considered.

In terms of the MCP specifically, the tap-on and tap-off approach of the MCP is

immensely damaging, and it is time for the world (led by countries in the global

south) to consider long-term strategies that allow partners to stop being held

hostage to it and to stop the imposition of this foreign policy impacting on local

sovereignty.

Large-scale efforts to support and amplify the voice and leadership of countries

and communities in the global south should be a priority. Some organising enti-

ties already exist and could be considered or repurposed as a convenor to bring

countries in the global south together (for example there is a global coordinating

body of CEOs for the National AIDS Commissions) to share information, influence

governments and reach civil society.

Countries themselves need to identify the

principles of any strategy. Identifying entry points, such as through the Lusaka

Agenda could allow partners to support global health and human rights agendas

in a way that can permanently and positively reshape the power dynamics of

international assistance.

This is ultimately a foreign policy issue. While it needs strong vocal support from

actors in SRHR, it needs to be elevated to a higher level of diplomacy and have

leadership from civil society organisations working in the area of human rights

and democracy.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

8. RECOMMENDATIONS – FOR EUROPEAN

CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENTS

At global, regional, and country level and across sectors – what is at

stake is the years and years of infrastructure work that the human

rights community has done to bring the indivisibility and the inter-

dependence of human rights together. For women, when we’re talking

about human rights, there is almost always an element of SRHR that’s

relevant. That is why the opposition is targeting all aspects of coopera-

tion and human rights. They know as a community that we have done

a really great job of integrating SRHR services across all sorts of deve-

lopment assistance programs.

Rebecca Brown, Vice President Global Advocacy, Center for

Reproductive Rights, Key Informant

The following recommendations were informed by the key informants.

Recommendation 1 - Meet the moment

A. Break down silos.

Address the fragmented nature of the movement responding

to global polarisation and Project 2025 and bring communities together under a

‘Big-Tent’ approach to ensure comprehensive and inclusive engagement across

communities focused on access to safe abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and even clima-

B. Urgent Coordination.

There is an urgent need for a stronger coordination

infrastructure for analytical work, information sharing and action. European

governments and CSOs should consider establishing and funding a time-limited

umbrella coordinating structure or repurposing an existing forum to facilitate

coordinated action. Some suggested that this should be housed in a platform

focused on democracy or human rights rather than SRHR in order to elevate

these issues in foreign policy circles. Or it could be situated as a consultancy.

A coordinator could be hired on a time-limited basis.

C. Develop the Action Agenda.

Map out which coalitions have formed, what

action is taking place and where the gaps are. This could be organised by con-

stituencies, to understand what action European governments are taking and

through which fora and what action civil society are prioritising. Work with others

to set up a tracking and monitoring system in advance so that the effects of MCP

and other measures can be monitored and mitigated in real time, the impacts

known and information shared quickly.

Recommendation 2 – Raise awareness of Project 2025 among European

governments and amplify this to be a foreign policy priority

Elevate Project 2025 as a foreign policy issue that impacts democracy, human

rights and sovereignty. Recognize and mitigate the financial, programmatic,

and policy implications of Project 2025 and an expanded Global Gag Rule (GGR).

Develop diplomatic, programmatic and community strategies to counter its influ-

ence, ensuring coordinated actions among like-minded donor countries. Recog-

nize that the extension to gagging ODA from other countries is an imposition of

regressive US policies on the taxpayer resources of other nations.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

Note that Project 2025 does not plan to create a vacuum, but rather to create a

space to fill with faith based and private sector responses. The starting point for

action is to look at the countries that are most likely to be affected (such as those

with a higher dependence on US funding).

Recommendation 3 – Counter Mis-Information

Implement proactive, systematic, and large-scale plans to counter misinformation

at country, regional, and global levels, including misinformation on human rights

provisions. Should the MCP policy be re-applied, ensure that clear and transpa-

rent information is provided to local organisations, governments and PIOs, along

with mitigating strategies to limit the ‘chilling effect’.

Recommendations 4 – Work closely with Global Public International

Organisations (such as the Global Fund, Gavi and the Global Financing Facility)

supporting them to prepare and be vocal in defence of human rights and the

impacts for these policies.

Encourage PIOs (starting with the health-related ones, Global Fund, Gavi, GFF)

to prepare, defend and raise awareness of the human rights impacts associated

with the implementation of Project 2025. This should include conducting organi-

sational legal assessments on the application of MCP and regressive anti-

LGBTQ+ policies. Support PIOs to issue proactive statements ensuring non-

discrimination against SRHR and LGBTQ+ organisations, principal recipients,

and sub-recipients. PIOs should conduct and release public impact analyses on

the effects of past MCP implementation and document future impacts

82 83

European governments and CSOs should use their positions on global boards

and technical review panels, program policy committees, etc to assist PIOs in

these efforts. Similar action should be taken in support of UNFPA and UNAIDS

given that analysis shows that local actors engaged in SRHR and HIV program-

ming have been hit the hardest.

Recommendation 5 – European and other partners should establish an

emergency fund (or enhance an existing mechanism).

This is necessary to

protect and grow civic space and expand gender responsive and human right

programs in support of LGBTQ+ and other CSOs in partner countries who will lose

US funding because they refuse to be gagged. Map and quantify the potential

gaps and impacts before the gaps occur. Have unified multi-donor discussions.

Recommendation 6 – Humanitarian

– Undertake analysis and be prepared to

fill the gaps for humanitarian action, the impacts in this area would be immense

and hit the most vulnerable populations the hardest. Consider the impacts on

UNFPA’s humanitarian program and cover the defunded portion of UNFPA’s bud-

get. Without this the overall humanitarian response with local actors will

be significantly weakened.

Recommendation 7 - Redouble efforts to build and support the infrastructure

for a progressive Gender and SRHR movement with governments and other

actors leading from the Global South

– The funding and political support of Eu-

ropean Governments is critical but substantial support is also needed for coordi-

nated voice and actions from governments and civil society in the global south.

Partners in Europe can work hand in hand with key allies, while letting them lead.

Mexico, Columbia, Sierra Leone, Nepal, Thailand, Cabo Verde, South Africa for

example – can be further supported to have a global voice to disrupt the incorrect

narrative and link with other countries in the global south. Find the existing spa-

ces in the global south where coordinated action is already happening. In terms of

the MCP specifically, the tap-on and tap-off approach of the MCP is immensely

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

damaging. It is time for the world (led by countries in the global south) to consider

long-term strategies that allow partners to stop being held hostage to it. Countri-

es where abortion is legal in some circumstances and where the gag rule is at odds

with the legal provisions, should be supported to speak out about the US, disre-

gard for local sovereignty. Encourage organisations not to accept to be gagged,

and help them organise locally.

Recommendation 8 – Leverage the influence of European governments

through multilateral systems, International Financial Institutions etc.

This helps

position positive coordinated voices for human rights and dignity on multilateral

platforms and provides a platform to leverage additional funding.

By implementing these recommendations European civil society and govern-

ments can help proactively address the challenges posed by Project 2025,

support global human rights and SRHR initiatives, and ensure that local voices

are empowered and at the forefront of shaping the laws, policies and programs

that affect their communities.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

ANNEX 1: 13 KEY INFORMANTS

1. Center for Reproductive Rights

Rebecca Brown, Vice President, Global Advocacy

2. EngenderHealth

Traci Baird, President and CEO

3. European Parliamentary Forum

Neil Datta, Executive Director and Founder

4. FosFeminista

Kemi Akinfaderin, Chief Global Advocacy Officer / Shiphrah Belonguel

5. The Global Fund

Dianne Stewart, Deputy Director and Head Donor Relations

6. The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE)

Heidi Beirich, Chief Strategy Officer and Co-Founder

7. IPAS

Gillian Kane, Senior Technical Manager for Policy and Advocacy /

Jennifer Davies, IPAS UK Director

8. Planned Parenthood Foundation of America (PPFA)

Caitlin Horrigan, Senior Director Global Advocacy/ Christina Krysinki,

Associate Director Global Advocacy

9. Preclusion Project

Beirne Roose-Snyder, Senior Director

10. UNFPA

Klaus Simoni Pederson – Chief Resource mobilisation

11. WHO/HRP

Aasa Hanna Mari Nihlen, Human Rights Advisor

*Other People / agencies were not in a position to be cited in the report.

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

FOoTNOTES

This report by drawing heavily on the expertise and analysis of key informants and

organisations

The Heritage Foundation

The Project 2025

What is project 2025? The Council for Global Equality, February 2024 and

The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, Fact Sheet, Project 2025 A Primer.

“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology

and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding

up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual iberation, and child welfare.

It has no claim to First Amendment protection” Project 2025, page 5

The Mandate for Leadership

Chapter 9.

KFF What the Election Could Mean for the Mexico City Policy and U.S. Foreign Aid

May 30

, 2024

The Institute for Women’s Health

Phillips-Fein, Kim, “The Mandate for Leadership, Then and Now”, The Nation, June 4, 2024

Adler-Bell, Sam, “The

Shadow War to Determine the Next Trump Administration”

The New York Times, Jan 10, 2024

Trump took a private flight with Project 2025 Leader in 2022, The Washington Post, Aug

2024

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/08/07/trump-heritage-project-2025-ro-

berts/

downloaded 15th Aug 2024

“Trump claims not to know who is behind Project 2025”. CNN. 11 July 2024. Downloaded

15th Aug 2024

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project-2025/index.

html

An insight into how some authors to the Trump Administration are described further

below in the section on the Geneva Consensus Declaration

“Inside Project 2025’s Secret Training Videos”. Propublica. 10th Aug 2024. Downloaded

20th Aug 2024

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-project-2025-secret-training-vide-

os-trump-election

Alex Shephard. “Read J.D. Vance’s Violent Foreword to Project 2025 Leader’s New Book”.

The New Republic. July 30th 2024.

https://newrepublic.com/article/184393/jd-vance-violent-

foreword-kevin-roberts-project-2025-leader-book

The Heritage Foundation 5

Things You Can Do Right Now to Help Dismantle the Federal

Bureaucracy,

Aug 2023

Smith, David, The Guardian,

Trump’s Project 2025 plot would take ‘wrecking ball’ to US

institutions, key democrats warn

11 June 2024 and key informant Interview Heidi Beirich,

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

The Mandate for Leadership, page 9

An example in programmatic work is the Institute for Women’s Health –

Framework for Holistic Women’s Health.

The Mandate for Leadership, page 262 and Podcast, digital politics, Raising Alarm About

the Mandate for Leadership with Anne Christine Stop the Coup 2025, Jan 22, 2024.

Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights

and The Mandate

The Mandate for Leadership (throughout) but specifically pages 260-265

President Donald J. Trump, Executive Order 13957, “Creating

Schedule F in the Excepted

Service,” October 21, 2020, in Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207

(October 26, 2020), pp.

67631–67635

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

The Mandate for Leadership, page 271,

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism – Project 2025, the road to authoritarianism

A Primer – Fact Sheet 2024

The Mandate for Leadership, page

The Mandate for Leadership, page 191, 265, 268, 269

The Mandate for Leadership, page 8

The Mandate for Leadership, page 62 and the

White House Gender Policy Council

The Mandate for Leadership, page 258, 259

The Mandate for Leadership, page 258 (DEI) 584 (Sex Discrimination)

The Mandate for Leadership, throughout and page 451

The Mandate for Leadership, page 89, 187

The White House Statement December 11 2023

The Mandate for Leadership, page 192

Kane, Gillian IPAS

Project 2025 is Already Here,

In these times, April 2024 and

The Mandate for Leadership

Map from the

Institute for Women’s Health

Protego: Operationalizing the Geneva Consensus, Ipas, 2024

The Institute for Women’s Health

Ibid

Kane, Gillian, IPAS

Project 2025 is Already Here,

In these times, April 2024

The Mandate page 265

2020 Open Democracy

Interactive site exploring US Christian right dark money

Okereke, Caleb, “How

US Evangelicals Helped Homophobia Flourish in Africa,

” Foreign Policy, March 2023

Mcshane, Julianne,

Uganda cited Dobbs in an Anti-LGBTQ Crackdown. Americans should

worry too.

4th April 2024, Mother Jones.

Matsumoto, Rio, The Latest Must-Pass Bill Barreling Through Congress is an Attack

on Gender-Affirming Care, 16 November 2023, ACLU

OECD-DAC

ODA statistics

OECD-DAC

ODA statistics

KFF:

The US Government and Global Health:

28 May, 2024

KFF:

Donor Government Funding for Family Planning in 2022

Donors Delivering for SRHR Report 2024

(2022) DSW

Donors Delivering for SRHR Report 2024

(2022) DSW

KKF

In 2022, Donor Governments Spent US$8.2 billion on Efforts to Fight HIV/AIDS Glo-

bally,

July 2023

Schaaf, Marta et. al, Protecting

Life in Global Health Assistance? Towards a framework for

assessing the health systems impact of the GGR,

BMJ July 2019

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

Under the policies definition “abortion as a method of family planning includes abortions

for any reason other than when the pregnancy arose from rape or incest or if carrying the

pregnancy to term would endanger a woman’s life”. However, in practice, lack of understan-

ding of the policy or fear of falling foul of it meant the policy has been interpreted as a total

ban on abortion. The policy does not provide for exemptions to protect the health of a

woman or pregnant person or for foetal abnormalities. Foreign NGOs are prohibited from

providing, counselling, or referring for abortions in these circumstances while receiving U.S.

GHA. Moreover, expansions of the MCP meant that any fNGO subject to the Policy must

include the same restrictions on any of their sub-recipients of funding, even if those sub-

recipients are not in receipt of US funds AmfAR – Issues Brief November 2019, The

Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund

Ahmed, Zara,

The Unprecedented Expansion of the Global Gag Ruel: Trampling Rights,

Health and Free Speech,

Guttmacher Policy Review Vol 23 2020

amfAR,

The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund, November,

2019

amfAR,

The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund, November

2019, page 47

amfAR,

The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund,

November

2019

The Kemp-Kasten Amendment was first applied in 1985 and states that no U.S. funds may

be made available to any organisation or program which, as determined by the president

of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive

abortion or involuntary sterilisation. Multiple sources including, KFF, Global Health Policy,

UNFPA Funding & Kemp-Kasten: An Explainer, 30 Sept 2022

The Mandate for Leadership, page 261, 190-192

Repealing the Helms Amendment completely is an important advocacy point for US NGOs

Key informant Interview, CRR

S. 137,

Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act,

117th Congress, introduced January 28,

2021, (accessed January 20, 2023), and H.R. 534,

Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Act,

117th Congress, introduced January 28, 2021, (accessed January 20, 2023).

KFF, What the Election Could Mean for the Mexico City Policy and U.S. Foreign Aid

May 30th, 2024

https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/what-the-election-could-

mean-for-the-mexico-city-policy-and-u-s-foreign-aid/?utm_campaign=KFF-Global-Health-Po-

licy&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8VpUYzGSaJKStoK

There are other areas of expansion such as the extension to contracts, potential for

retroactive review under the section ‘righting the ship’ page 174 which are beyond the scope

of this analysis.

Interagency Steering Committee on Reproductive Health in Crisis,

Minimum Intervention

Service Package

Ahmed, Zara,

The Unprecedented Expansion of the Global Gag Rule: Trampling Rights,

Health and Free Speech

Guttmacher Inst. Volume 23,2020

Schaaf,

Marta, Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance’? Towards a framework for as-

sessing the health systems impact of the expanded Global Gag Rule

BMJ Global Health,

13 July 2019

PAI and WaterAID

How the Expanded Global Gag Rule Affects Water, Sanitation and

Hygiene, October 2019

amfAR

The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund,

November 2019

The Mandate for Leadership, pages 190-193, page 261

CFR,

Funding the United Nations, how much does the US pay?

Latest update 29 Feb 2024

Annual pledge

(total three-year pledge 2023-25 is 6 billion).

https://donortracker.org/donor_profiles/united-states

(24th June 2024)

https://donortracker.org/donor_profiles/united-states

(24th June 2024)

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

UNFPA Key Informant Interview

amfAR,

The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund,

2019

amfAR,

The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund,

2019

Exact figures need to be received from the Global Fund.

amfAR,

The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund,

2019

The Mandate for Leadership, page 192, 260

SheDecides, IPPF etc.

Disengaging internationally from work to support the climate crisis is also featured in

Project 2025 but was beyond the scope of this report.

amfAR in 2019 The Expanded Mexico City Policy: Implications for the Global Fund, 2019

“In nominating prime recipients for Global Fund grants, CCMs should be cognizant of

the implications of choosing a prime recipient that is or may become restricted by the

Expanded Mexico City Policy and how that may affect sub-recipients that can be

partnered with to perform grant activities.”

Ibid

SRSR, Alm.del - 2023-24 - Bilag 10: Analyse af Project 2025 og amerikansk politik ift. ligestilling og SRSR

RFSU’s aim, since it was founded in 1933, has been to give people the

means to change their lives for the better.

RFSU is a nonprofit organisation independent of any political party or

religion. We are dedicated to promoting a well-informed, open-minded

attitude about sexuality and relationship issues. RFSU is founded on a

firm belief that sexuality and relationships are central to the individual

and to society. By informing and

educating people and shaping opinion, RFSU aims to break down prej-

udices, overcome ignorance and improve sexual health in

Sweden and abroad. RFSU views sexuality as a matter of individual

liberty and human rights, in which all of us have the freedom to be our-

selves, the freedom to choose and the freedom to enjoy.

When you purchase a product, become a member,

collaborate or support RFSU’s work, you are contributing

to our constant efforts to change people’s lives.

RFSU is a member organisation.

Do you want to become a member? Register at

www.rfsu.se/engagera-dig/stod-oss/bli-medlem-i-rfsu

www.rfsu.se/medlem

rfsu.se • 08-692 07 00 • [email protected]