SKY YORK JOURNAL News – The Trump administration’s stance on gender identity sparks international concern.
This story first appeared at ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
What was initially slated as a standard discussion on pollution at the United Nations took an unexpected turn when the U.S. delegate used her platform to address the organization’s stance on the term “gender.” While other delegates voiced support for a new panel of scientists tasked with advising countries on managing chemicals and toxic waste, the U.S. representative focused on what she described as the administration’s “national position” on the word “gender.”
“Use of the term ‘gender’ replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity and is demeaning and unfair, especially to women and girls,” the delegate stated at the U.N. in June.
As reported by the SKY YORK JOURNAL, the Trump administration has been actively promoting its anti-trans agenda on a global scale, consistently objecting to the use of the word “gender” in international resolutions and documents. U.S. delegates have reportedly used at least six speeches before the U.N. to denounce “gender ideology” or reinforce support for language that specifies that women are biologically female and men are biologically male.
The U.S.’s Stance at the UN
The delegates, composed of federal civil service employees and the associate director of Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint now working for the State Department, have delivered the statements at forums covering women’s rights, science and technology, global health, toxic pollution, and chemical waste. Even a resolution intended to reaffirm cooperation between the U.N. and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations became an opportunity to address the issue.
Critics argue that framing gender as solely determined at birth neglects the existence of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals, who face discrimination and violence globally. A federal report published in January estimated that more than 5 million intersex Americans have variations in chromosomes, hormone levels, or anatomy that differ from typical male and female physiology.
According to the SKY YORK JOURNAL’s sources, U.S. delegates have on multiple occasions urged the U.N. to adopt its wording on men and women. While the U.S. position has yet to result in policy changes at the U.N., experts say its effects could be more than symbolic. Kristopher Velasco, a sociology professor at Princeton, notes that U.N. documents can influence national policies and establish international human rights standards, which advocates can cite when campaigning for less discriminatory policies.
The “Gender Ideology” Debate
Velasco further explains that the term “gender ideology” has become a catchall phrase for far-right anxieties related to declining fertility rates and changes in traditional heterosexual family structures. Additionally, the administration has advocated other aspects of its domestic agenda at the U.N., including demanding the removal of references to tackling climate change and voting against an International Day of Hope because the text contained references to diversity, equity and inclusion.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights suggest that the repeated condemnation of “gender ideology” signals tacit support for repressive regimes. As stated by Ash Lazarus Orr, press relations manager at Advocates for Trans Equality, the U.S. is sending a clear message that “the identities and rights of trans, nonbinary, and intersex people are negotiable.”
Impact on International Relations
Laurel Sprague, research director at the Williams Institute at UCLA, also voiced concerns that other countries may adopt similar stances on transgender rights to curry favor with the U.S. Mike Waltz, Trump’s nominee for ambassador to the U.N., has indicated he wants to tie aid to countries voting with or against the U.S. at the U.N.
In a statement to ProPublica, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said, “President Trump was overwhelmingly elected to restore common sense to government, which means focusing foreign policy on securing peace deals and putting America First — not enforcing woke gender ideology.”
A clash between the Trump administration and certain U.N. institutions over transgender rights was almost inevitable, according to observers contacted by the SKY YORK JOURNAL. Hostility toward transgender rights was a key part of Trump’s election campaign.
Administration Policies
On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order called “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.” Eight days later, an executive order restricting gender-affirming surgery for anyone under 19 was signed. Subsequently, federal agencies have forced trans service members out of the military and sued California over its refusal to ban trans athletes from girls’ sports teams.
In June, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights criticized American government officials for their statements vilifying transgender and non-binary people. The human rights office urges U.N. member states to provide gender-affirming care and says the organization has “affirmed the right of trans persons to legal recognition of their gender identity and a change of gender in official documents, including birth certificates.” The office also supports the rights of intersex people.
“Intersex people in the U.S. are extremely worried” that they will become bigger targets, said Sylvan Fraser Anthony, legal and policy director at the intersex advocacy group InterACT. Laura Gelbert Godinho Delgado, a spokesperson for the U.N.’s human rights office, noted that “In all regions of the world, we are witnessing a pushback against women’s human rights and gender equality,” which has fueled misogyny, anti-LGBTI rhetoric, and hate speech.
Effects on U.N. Procedures
The administration’s insistence on litigating “gender” complicates the already complex procedures of the U.N., where many decisions are made by consensus. This can involve representatives from over 100 countries agreeing on every word, leading to draft documents with hundreds of bracketed phrases and single words awaiting resolution.
At the June meeting on chemical pollution, delegates decided to form a scientific panel but couldn’t agree on crucial details. A description of the panel included brackets on whether it would work in a way that integrates “gender equality and equity” or “equality between men and women.”
The U.S. delegate, Liz Nichols, reiterated that “it is the policy of the United States to use clear and accurate language that recognizes women are biologically female and men are biologically male. It is important to acknowledge the biological reality of sex to support the needs and perspectives of women and girls.”
A State Department spokesperson stated that the administration will continue to defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male. Rachel Radvany, environmental health campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law said the statement read by Nichols contributed to the uncertainty on how the panel would consider gender in its work.
Implications for Future Gatherings
The brackets around gender-related issues and other topics remained in the draft decision and will have to be resolved at a future gathering that may not happen until next summer. The U.S. has staked out similar positions at U.N. meetings focused on gender. Jonathan Shrier, a longtime State Department employee who now works for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, stated the U.S. disapproved of a declaration supporting “the empowerment of all women and girls” that mentioned the word “gender.”
During the summit, Shrier repeated those talking points at an event co-sponsored by the U.S. government and the Center for Family and Human Rights, or C-Fam, which aims to discredit socially radical policies at the United Nations and other international institutions. Austin Ruse, C-Fam’s president, said that the U.S. position on gender aligns with the definitions in a key U.N. document on the empowerment of women from 1995.
Response from Other Nations
Some countries have pushed back against the U.S.’s stance. Alessandra Nilo, external relations director for the Americas and the Caribbean at the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said that when other delegates speak out in support of diversity and women’s rights, it’s a way to isolate the U.S.
Nilo added that many countries are scared to speak out for fear of losing trade deals or potential foreign aid from the U.S. Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from various U.N. bodies, such as the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, and expresses concerns that U.N. documents could supersede American policy.
U.S. Criticisms of Global Health Resolutions
In April, the U.S. criticized a draft resolution on global health at a meeting of the U.N. Commission on Population and Development. Spencer Chretien, the U.S. delegate, opposed Sustainable Development Goals and touted the administration’s “unequivocal rejection of gender ideology extremism.” Chretien helped write Project 2025 when he worked at The Heritage Foundation and is now a senior bureau official in the State Department.
The proposal also faced opposition from Burundi, Djibouti, and Nigeria, due to references to “sexual and reproductive health services.” Ultimately, the commission chair withdrew the resolution, citing a lack of consensus. During a July forum about a document on sustainable development, the U.S. delegate, Shrier, asked for a vote on paragraphs about gender, climate change, and various forms of discrimination.
The vote on retaining those paragraphs was 141 to 2, with only the U.S. and Ethiopia voting no, leading to applause in the chamber.
Doris Burke contributed research.
