02-03-2025

The Mexico City Policy

MemorandumView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: This Presidential Memorandum reinstates and expands the "Mexico City Policy," which prohibits U.S. funding for any foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning. This applies even if the organization uses its own non-U.S. funds for these activities.

Money: The policy applies to all U.S. global health assistance, estimated at approximately $8.8 billion annually. NGOs that do not certify compliance will lose U.S. funding, which may then be reprogrammed to other compliant organizations. A 2020 GAO report found that NGOs had declined $153 million in U.S. funding due to the policy in its first two years.

Your Impact: The policy does not directly affect the average American citizen in their daily life. Its primary impact is on foreign NGOs that receive U.S. global health funding and the populations they serve, potentially reducing access to family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention, maternal health, and other health services in developing countries.

Status: Reinstated by Presidential Memorandum on January 24, 2025. This executive action became effective immediately.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Presidential Memorandum from January 24, 2025, revokes a previous 2021 memorandum titled "Protecting Women's Health at Home and Abroad" and reinstates the "Mexico City Policy" as it was structured during the Trump administration's first term. The policy, also known as "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance," attaches conditions to U.S. global health funding.

Core Provisions:

  • Restricts Funding: Foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) must certify that they will not "perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning" to be eligible for U.S. global health assistance. This restriction applies to all of the organization's funds, not just the U.S. contribution.
  • Expanded Scope: The policy extends beyond family planning assistance to cover all global health aid furnished by U.S. departments and agencies, including funding for HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, malaria, and infectious diseases.
  • Coercive Practices: The memorandum directs the Secretary of State to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
  • Implementation: The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, is directed to implement a plan to apply these requirements across all relevant government departments.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The stated purpose of the policy is to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money does not support foreign organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. Supporters argue it aligns American foreign aid with the views of a majority of Americans who oppose public funding for abortion.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: Healthcare, specifically global health, including family planning, maternal and child health, and infectious disease prevention (e.g., HIV/AIDS, malaria).
Timeline: The policy was reinstated on January 24, 2025, and is in effect for all new and, where applicable, existing funding agreements.
Scope: The policy applies to foreign NGOs receiving U.S. global health assistance worldwide. It does not apply to national or local governments, or multilateral international organizations.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Reagan-Clinton Era (1984-2001):

The policy originated in 1984 at the U.N. International Conference on Population in Mexico City, hence its name. The Reagan administration first instituted it in 1985. Since then, its implementation has followed partisan lines: Democratic presidents have rescinded it, while Republican presidents have reinstated it. President Bill Clinton revoked the policy upon taking office in 1993, calling it "excessively broad."

The Bush-Obama Era (2001-2017):

President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, stating his conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for or promote abortion. In 2009, President Barack Obama rescinded it again, arguing the conditions undermined efforts to promote safe and effective family planning programs. During these periods, the policy primarily applied to U.S. family planning funds, a sum of around $575-$600 million.

The Trump-Biden Era (2017-Present):

In 2017, President Donald Trump reinstated the policy and significantly expanded it, renaming it "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance." This expansion applied the restrictions to all U.S. global health assistance, an estimated $8.8 billion, affecting programs for HIV, maternal and child health, and more. In 2021, President Joe Biden issued the "Memorandum on Protecting Women's Health at Home and Abroad," revoking the expanded policy. The January 24, 2025, memorandum reverses the Biden administration's action, bringing the expanded version of the policy back into effect.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • The reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy is a consistent action for Republican administrations, reflecting a core position of the party platform and fulfilling a promise to its socially conservative base.
  • The timing, immediately following a change in administration, is typical for this policy, demonstrating its high priority for anti-abortion constituencies.
  • The action serves to distinguish the current administration's stance on abortion and foreign aid from that of the previous administration, making a clear statement on its values regarding life and the use of taxpayer funds internationally.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects foreign organizations providing healthcare in developing nations and the vulnerable populations they serve.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • For Americans who oppose abortion, this policy provides assurance that their federal tax dollars are not indirectly funding abortion-related services or advocacy overseas.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-2 years):

  • Some foreign health clinics that offer a comprehensive range of reproductive health services may be forced to choose between closing programs, including those unrelated to abortion like HIV testing and contraceptive distribution, or refusing U.S. funding. This can create immediate gaps in healthcare for communities.
  • Studies from past implementations suggest a "chilling effect," where confusion about the rules leads to over-implementation and disruption of partnerships between NGOs.

Long-term:

  • Research suggests that by cutting funding to established family planning providers, the policy may lead to a decrease in contraceptive use, resulting in an increase in unintended pregnancies and, paradoxically, higher abortion rates.
  • It could weaken overall health systems in some countries by defunding some of the most experienced and effective local healthcare providers.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Foreign NGOs providing a wide range of global health services, women and families in low- and middle-income countries who rely on these services for contraception, maternal care, and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment.
Secondary Groups: U.S.-based NGOs that must ensure their foreign sub-grantees comply with the policy.
Regional Impact: The impact is most significant in regions with high reliance on U.S. global health aid, particularly countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Bottom Line: While this executive action has no direct, immediate impact on most Americans, it significantly alters U.S. foreign policy on global health, with potentially life-or-death consequences for people in developing nations who depend on U.S.-supported health programs.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Protecting Life with Taxpayer Dollars"

Core Stance: Generally supports the Mexico City Policy as a necessary guardrail to ensure taxpayer funds do not promote or provide abortions abroad.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ Prevents U.S. funds from being used by organizations that perform or promote abortion, which they see as a moral imperative.
  • ✓ Ensures U.S. aid respects the laws and cultural values of other nations, many of which have more restrictive abortion laws than the U.S.
  • ✓ The policy does not reduce the overall amount of global health funding, but rather redirects it to organizations willing to comply with the pro-life restrictions.

Legislative Strategy: Reinstate the policy via presidential memorandum upon taking office and defend it against legislative attempts to repeal it. The January 24, 2025, memorandum is the direct execution of this strategy.

Democratic Position: "The Global Gag Rule"

Core Stance: Generally opposes the Mexico City Policy, arguing it restricts access to essential healthcare and undermines U.S. global health goals.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The policy is harmful because it forces clinics to cut a wide range of health services—including for HIV, maternal health, and contraception—if they refuse to comply.
  • ⚠️ Critics, who call it the "Global Gag Rule," argue it infringes on the free speech of health providers and prevents them from offering patients complete and accurate medical information.
  • ✗ They argue the policy is counterproductive, leading to more unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions by cutting access to contraception.

Legislative Strategy: Rescind the policy via presidential memorandum upon taking office. They have also supported and introduced legislation like the Global HER Act to permanently repeal the policy, preventing its reinstatement by future administrations.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ✓ Constitutional

Basis of Authority:

The President's authority to set these conditions on foreign aid is generally understood to derive from the executive power to conduct foreign affairs and from authority granted by Congress in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

Relevant Portion of the Constitution: The President's broad executive and foreign policy powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution are often cited as the foundation for such directives.

Constitutional Implications:

[Legal Principle]: The policy is structured as a condition on receiving federal funding, not a direct prohibition. The Supreme Court has generally held that the government can attach conditions to the funds it disburses, even if those conditions influence activities it could not directly regulate. This was challenged in court, but the policy was largely upheld for foreign NGOs.
[Precedent]: Past legal challenges against the policy, such as DKT Memorial Fund Ltd. v. USAID (1989), have been unsuccessful in striking it down on constitutional grounds.
[Federalism]: This policy concerns foreign assistance and international organizations, so it does not directly implicate the balance of power between the federal government and U.S. states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

Opponents have historically challenged the policy on First Amendment free speech grounds, arguing it "gags" organizations by preventing them from using their own funds to counsel on or advocate for abortion. While past challenges have failed to overturn the policy as it applies to foreign NGOs, the expanded scope under "Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance" could lead to new legal arguments and challenges from affected organizations.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support the President's reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, also known as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to express your support.
  • Join an Organization: Groups that have historically supported the policy include the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Population Research Institute, and other pro-life advocacy organizations.

TO OPPOSE THIS BILL

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the 'Global Gag Rule' and support legislation to permanently repeal the Mexico City Policy."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining the negative impacts of the policy on global health outcomes.
  • Join an Organization: Advocacy groups opposing the policy include Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Human Rights Watch, PAI, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.