Over the past 10 years, College of Arts and Sciences Associate Dean Denise Horn, Ph.D., has noticed a shift in the international community: There’s less concern over human rights and more interest in creating isolationist policies.

“This is kind of terrifying to see,” says Horn, an international relations scholar whose research focuses on women’s transnational activism and trends in global development strategies.

As countries strategize how to deal with one another, Horn notes that foreign policy can directly and indirectly affect the rights of women globally — whether it be through healthcare access, wartime decision-making, or providing a path so more women can have a seat at the table.

“When it comes to foreign policymaking, it's not just about who’s the president. How certain issues bubble up in Congress can impact what happens in foreign U.S. policies,” Horn says. “Right now, we’re in a period of backlash against rights, not just in the U.S., but around the world.”

Inconsistent healthcare access

According to Horn, one U.S. policy that’s directly impacted women’s rights internationally since the 1980s is the Mexico City Policy, also referred to as the global gag rule. Instituted under the Reagan administration, the global gag rule blocks foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from using American money — most often used for health assistance — for funding abortions. Instead, the money can be used for women's healthcare, pregnancy care, prenatal care, and fighting diseases such as HIV, AIDS, and tuberculosis.

“The interesting thing about the global gag rule is that its use depends on the administration. If it's a Republican administration, the global gag rule is put into effect; when a Democratic administration comes in, the global gag rule is ended. This is all done by executive order,” Horn says.

In 2017, the Trump administration strengthened the global gag rule with an update that made it so any international health organization receiving American funding toward health would have their funding suspended if they used money from another country to support abortions. The rule was then taken a step further in 2019 by making it so subsidiary organizations could not engage in abortion activities; otherwise, the larger organization they worked with would have their funding cut.

“It caused a big problem in terms of maternal healthcare and providing any kind of care for women and children internationally,” Horn says.

Ultimately, the strengthened policy contributed to an increase in unintended and high-risk pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and maternal deaths. Horn notes that the rule was rescinded upon the Biden administration coming into power.

“That's something that's on the table in the upcoming election. Should the Trump administration come back, you're going to see the global gag rule in its strongest form yet,” Horn says.

Varying UN and NATO support

With major wars going on in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza, Horn says an administration that’s more supportive of efforts of the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are likely to be supportive of peace agreements and ceasefire efforts that would be more inclusive and include women in those negotiations. Having women present in ceasefire negotiations is vital since they are instrumental in rebuilding and restructuring societies as well as peacebuilding and peacekeeping.

War, for women, can lead to wartime sexual violence, disruption of livelihoods and family, and death. In the case of the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban reinstated power after the U.S. pulled out forces and left a power vacuum. The Taliban enforced draconian anti-women rules where, currently, women have no rights, cannot leave the house by themselves, are no longer allowed to receive education, and cannot work outside the home.

“Given the fact that Harris has been in the Biden administration and her foreign policy talking points, she'll probably continue with many of the policies that the Biden administration enacted,” Horn says, noting Biden’s support of the UN and NATO. “In the case of the Trump administration, Trump was very cynical about the United Nations. John Bolton, long-time critic of the UN and former UN Ambassador under George W. Bush, was appointed as Trump’s National Security Advisor. Along with Trump’s UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, the Trump administration’s whole goal was to undermine anything the UN was going to do; same thing with NATO.”

Finding room at the table

The U.S. is one of the leading global powers, yet the country lags the rest of the industrialized world in terms of women’s leadership within politics. Does that affect U.S. policy? Probably, says Horn.

“It's interesting that the U.S., which sees itself as the arbiter of freedom and rights, has been so behind in having women in various levels of leadership,” she says.

She notes that in the early 2000s, Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, helped create an organization called Vital Voices, which built up women's leadership capacity in the former Soviet states. Today, Horn emphasizes that funding associated with supporting women’s rights and building women’s political capacity has dwindled; however, there’s been a movement from the Nordic states to develop a feminist foreign policy that would be more inclusive and takes families into account.

“Canada at one point said they were going to pursue a feminist foreign policy too. Does it work when push comes to shove? That's still being debated. I think we are at a point now where women in power is not as farfetched as everyone's believed, which is so refreshing,” Horn says. “You can't have policies made around women's rights and women's place in society without women at the table. The bottom line is no decisions about us without us.”