US President Donald Trump’s second term may have an even greater impact on women’s rights than his first. During his first 100 days the President has issued an executive order bolstering the Hyde Amendment. This provision prevents the use of federal funding – such as Medicaid – to pay for abortion procedures, except in narrow circumstances, such as to save a woman’s life. 

President Trump has also pardoned a number of those convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act on the grounds that, in his words, ‘they should not have been prosecuted’. Freya Riedlin, Senior Federal Policy Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, says such moves demonstrate the administration’s hostility towards abortion rights. The Trump administration has also directed federal prosecutors to limit enforcement of the FACE Act. 

The Trump administration has reinstated the federal ‘Mexico City Policy’ – otherwise known as the ‘global gag rule’. This prevents foreign non-governmental organisations from receiving US federal funding if they provide counselling or referrals in relation to abortion procedures. Olufunmi Oluyede, Co-Chair of the IBA Diversity and Inclusion Council, says that ‘so far, every Republican administration has implemented this rule, and every Democrat one has rescinded it.’ During his first term, President Trump expanded the rule to apply to all global health assistance, rather than being limited to family planning programmes and policy.

Riedlin says that if the Court rules in Medina’s favour, it could have a significant impact on access to health services, particularly for low-income and communities of colour, ‘many of whom rely on both Medicaid and Planned Parenthood for a range of healthcare services from cancer screenings to contraceptive care.’ 

Since returning to the White House, President Trump has also withdrawn his country from the World Health Organization (WHO), in part because of its ‘mishandling’ of the Covid-19 pandemic. Further, the Trump administration has frozen funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), part of its efforts to limit overseas spending. In early March, a federal district judge ruled that the Trump administration couldn’t withhold the billions of dollars Congress had already approved for foreign aid, ordering it to pay USAID partners for work already completed. 

The judgment came after the Supreme Court cleared the way for a lower court to rule on the aid freeze. D’Arcy Kemnitz, a Member of the IBA LGBTQI+ Law Committee Advisory Board, says ‘there’s still money that is frozen today, and it is nothing short of an outrage that the courts can’t move more quickly to save lives because […] the president has no powers of the purse.’

The resulting gap in health services particularly affects women in sub-Saharan African countries who suffer from high rates of HIV/AIDs. It also provides a glimpse of the impact that America’s departure from the WHO will have in 2026. ‘The US withdrawal also sends a dangerous message that global health, including maternal health, HIV and STI [sexually transmitted infection] treatment, and access to basic services and information related to sexual and reproductive health, are not a priority’, says Riedlin.  

The President has issued various executive orders seeking to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices, which the administration views as wasteful. One such order directs the Secretary of State to remove the ‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility’ core precept from US Foreign Service tenure and promotion criteria, for example. 

Such executive orders are set to affect women’s rights by leaving them vulnerable to workplace discrimination for example, say commentators. ‘[Removing these initiatives] is bound to expose federal workers and contractors to persecution, oppression and various kinds of maltreatment and harassment based on race, gender and other features of their individualities,’ says Oluyede.

Jocelyn Frye, President of the National Partnership for Women and Families, said of the current administration’s trajectory that ‘the challenge here is that the [President] has an aggressive agenda and he has aggressive people to drive the agenda.’ 

There is, however, the potential for recourse. ‘Anybody can sign two hundred executive orders a day,’ says Kemnitz, who was formerly the Executive Director of the US National LGBT Bar Association. ‘It doesn’t mean they’re constitutional. It doesn’t mean they’re going to be law.’ 

Legal action is being taken to counter these executive orders. The non-profit Chicago Women in Trades has filed a lawsuit challenging orders that severely restrict DEI, for instance. In late March, a US District Court judge in Illinois temporarily blocked some parts of the Trump administration’s executive orders on DEI. ‘Challenging the Trump administration in the courts is going to be a big piece of pushing back,’ says Riedlin. ‘And then of course, whatever states can do to hold the line and protect access to reproductive health care, I think is going to be really important.’

The IBA launched a Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit in 2023. The Toolkit, a set of free, comprehensive guidelines designed to help law firms embed diversity and inclusion in their organisations, is available here.

Image credit: SaturnO_27/AdobeStock.com