Trump’s Version of the ‘Global Gag Rule’ Threatens Global Health and Free Speech
The Trump administration announced earlier this week a massive expansion of the so-called “global gag rule,” a policy that cuts off U.S. support from nongovernmental organizations abroad if they so much as provide information about abortion to women who might want to hear it. This expansion will have a devastating impact on global health — particularly for women and families — as well as on free speech.
The global gag rule stops foreign NGOs from using their own money to provide abortions, information about abortion, or referrals for abortion to women who want them. In addition, it prohibits groups receiving U.S. funding from engaging in legal and political advocacy to promote changes to a country’s laws or policies related to abortion. It also bans NGOs from running public education campaigns to provide people with truthful information about abortion.
The president’s announcement came just one day after he issued a statement marking the start of Women’s Health Week, calling for affordable, accessible, and quality healthcare for women. Yet this policy does exactly the opposite, and its unprecedented expansion makes things worse.
Previous administrations that have imposed the global gag rule have made it a condition of receiving grants from a pool of some $600 million in family planning funding. The Trump administration has drastically expanded the reach of the policy to apply to all global health assistance furnished by the U.S. — to the tune of $8.8 billion. That means that money intended for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, or for combating malaria and Zika, is now conditioned on compliance with a rule that is inherently devastating to women and families the world over.
When the global gag rule has been imposed in the past, the health consequences have been severe: Clinics that provided reproductive, maternal, and child health care services were shuttered Access to contraception was restricted And the number of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions increased — factors that lead to more women and children dying.
The expansion of this dangerous policy means that not only will women lose access to critical reproductive health care, counseling, and information, but there will be ramifications across an even broader range of global health programs. If organizations refuse to stop providing truthful and often life-saving information about abortion that their clients want and need, they may have to shut down critical programs that prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, fight infectious diseases, and improve nutrition, hygiene, and maternal and child health throughout the world. Simply put, it will devastate health care access in some of the world’s neediest communities.
Let’s be clear: The Trump administration is essentially coercing groups by telling them that if they want to continue to receive aid that their community desperately needs — to prevent maternal mortality, to stop the spread of malaria, to provide health care for children — they must give up their right to engage in truthful speech that the U.S. government doesn’t like.
For the communities that cannot afford to lose U.S. health aid, the administration is ensuring the silence of the very experts who can provide a unique perspective on reproductive health and is stopping the free flow of information. The limits on advocacy and public education mean that parts of the world that are heavily dependent on U.S. global health aid will not hear from the full range of local groups and medical experts on legal and policy debates about abortion. The rule expansion will also make it very difficult or impossible for U.S. groups and individuals to partner with foreign groups to engage in legal advocacy and education, and it will stymie research into abortion-related health outcomes — thereby hampering the advancement of medical science.
The government should not be able to do to foreign organizations what would be unconstitutional were it imposed on domestic groups, which cannot be forced to censor their private speech as a condition of government funding. There is no doubt that with this policy, the administration is not only trying to control the flow of information — an unworthy goal for the U.S. government and contrary to the values of the First Amendment — but also threatening the health and lives of women and families across the globe.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.