The U.S. government has blocked the adoption of a new UN document from the Population Commission over its inclusion of “gender ideology.”
The U.S. government has blocked the adoption of the final agreement of the just-concluded UN population commission over “gender ideology.” This is seen as a loss for the left at the UN, including the European Union. Traditional countries were grateful.
Spencer Chretien, a Trump administration official at the U.S. State Department, expressed frustration that U.S. positions were not incorporated in the final draft. As a result, the Dutch chairman of the commission withdrew the draft agreement from consideration.
In his official statement, Chretien emphasized that the U.S. government rejected “gender ideology extremism” and had rejoined the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which states that “abortion is not an international right” and that the family is the “natural and fundamental group unit of society.” He said the U.S. was committed to “population issues that unite us, not divide us,” including improving maternal health and supporting families.
Chretien said that the U.S. “rejected and denounced” the 2030 Agenda for Development, a fifteen-year agreement of the General Assembly that enshrines a vast set of social, environmental, and climate goals as priorities for all governments. While past UN cooperation schemes adopted broad commitments for international cooperation, the 2030 Agenda proposed a universal political agenda with concrete goals and targets to be pursued by all governments. It has been criticized repeatedly as a creeping towards global government.
European Support for UN Document
European countries, who are most invested in the 2030 agenda, complained bitterly that the Trump administration and the government of Argentina under Javier Milei are no longer willing to reaffirm the 2030 Agenda. Some countries that attacked the Trump administration said that they interpreted the 2030 agreement as including abortion rights and gender ideology under the rubric of “sexual and reproductive health.”
A German delegate complained about the U.S. position calling it an “attempt to erode our vision for future.” He said protecting “bodily autonomy”, including through “sexual and reproductive health and rights” was central to this vision and pledged to continue to promote abortion and gender ideology through government funding for non-governmental organizations.
A Danish delegate said Denmark would continue to promote “sexual and reproductive health and rights for adolescents”, clarifying further that “this includes access to abortion” as well as “comprehensive sexuality education.”
A delegate from France expressly said that sexual and reproductive health language “includes a right to abortion” and that it was foundational for development. He also promised to continue a feminist foreign policy.
Delegates from several traditional countries, thanked the chairman of the commission for withdrawing the draft agreement with the controversial language. They expressed opposition to gender ideology and abortion rights.
Nigeria said these were “major red lines.” Burundi lamented that the final draft of the agreement did not mention the family at all. The delegate said this was not acceptable because, “the future of our societies and our ability to develop depends above all on strong families.”
A Holy See official blamed the failure of the commission to reach an agreement on the “inordinate focus” on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights issues, explaining that they have always been controversial. He encouraged “true respect for sovereign states with regard to sensitive issues.” He also responded directly to the delegations who claimed abortion was an international right, explaining that such statements “explicitly violated” previous UN population agreements.
By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.
C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.
