Many researchers have documented the impact of the Global Gag Rule (GGR) around the world—and what happens when the policy is in place. “But we don’t know enough about what happens when the policy is revoked,” said Bergen Cooper, Director of Policy Research at Fòs Feminista at the launch of the organization’s new report, Chaos Continues: The 2021 Revocation of the Global Gag Rule and The Need for Permanent Repeal.

The on-and-off status of the GGR, also known as the Mexico City Policy (MCP), makes this a crucial question. The rule was first enacted in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, and the policy mandates that foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who receive certain categories of U.S. foreign assistance cannot perform, refer, or provide counseling on abortions as a method of family planning. Historically, the GGR has been enacted by Republican administrations and revoked by Democratic administrations – with the latest iteration of the policy revoked in 2021 by President Joseph Biden.

“We know that prior iterations of the GGR caused significant harm,” said Cooper. ”What we also know is that some of that harm is lasting into the time after the policy is revoked.”

When the GGR was enacted again by President Donald Trump in 2017, observed Rouzeh Eghtessadi, Executive Director of SAfAIDS, “there were speedy processes put in place at mission level, and it really left many partners, especially civil society like us, pretty dizzy with shock and confusion.” She added that the rapid reimplementation also heightened “anxieties of what this meant for the efforts that had already been invested in HIV, SRHR [sexual and reproductive health and rights], and women and girls’ rights interventions.” 

When the policy was rescinded in 2021, however, communications and actions from the new administration did not take place at the same rapid tempo. Eghtessadi said partners received formal communication from the U.S. government a full two months after the revocation of GGR.

The authors of Fòs Feminista’s report conducted 57 in-depth interviews with U.S. government staff, international NGOs, and civil society organizations to track the communication of the GGR’s revocation from the U.S. government to implementing partners globally. These interviews confirmed Eghtessadi’s observations. Many implementing partners and advocates felt that communication from the U.S. government related to the revocation of the GGR was insufficient and inconsistent.

Furthermore, while NGOs with dedicated policy staff were able to track the revocation of the GGR through social media platforms, some partners remained unaware that the policy had been revoked until they were interviewed for the new report.

The GGR hinders countries’ ability to make progress, said Dr. Mahesh Puri, Co-Director of the Center for Research on Environmental Health and Population Activities in Nepal. Since 2000, Nepal made significant progress towards decreasing the maternal mortality ratio and increasing the number of antenatal care visits and births in health facilities. In his view, the funding lost since the 2017 reimplementation of the GGR undermined the country’s ability to maintain its achievements towards the Sustainable Development Goals. While Dr. Puri sees the 2021 revocation of the policy as a “ray of hope,” the communication gap between the U.S. government and partners on the ground makes the full impact unclear.

The cycles of implementation and revocation in the changing political landscape in the United States make the future of the GGR unclear. Thus, the authors of the report echo the desires of global implementing partners who are advocating for the permanent repeal of the GGR through Congressional action. Without such a permanent repeal, observed Eghtessadi, there is always a risk of a new administration reinstating the GGR.

Cooper also called for action. “We can permanently repeal this policy,” she said. Failing that, Cooper argued that the U.S. government could—at the very least—ensure that stakeholders know that it is revoked.