Stripping women of their rights in times of crisis is not just policy—it’s violence.
The United States’ decision to withdraw $377 million in funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is more than a budgetary reallocation—it is a devastating indictment of global commitments to gender equity and humanitarian principles. With the termination of 48 critical grants, this abrupt withdrawal will have catastrophic consequences for women and girls in some of the world’s most fragile regions, depriving them of essential reproductive healthcare, maternal services, and protection against gender-based violence.
For decades, UNFPA has played a crucial role in mitigating the structural inequities that disproportionately endanger women and girls in conflict zones and humanitarian crises. Operating across 150 countries, the agency has provided a lifeline through interventions such as safe childbirth assistance, post-rape medical care, and emergency contraception—services that are neither ideological nor discretionary but fundamental to human dignity and survival. The sudden cessation of US support now threatens these efforts in Afghanistan, Sudan, Ukraine, Syria, Haiti, and beyond, effectively abandoning millions of vulnerable women to the ravages of war, displacement, and systemic violence.
UNFPA’s mission has been clear: to end preventable maternal deaths, unmet family planning needs, and gender-based violence by 2030. These goals are not mere aspirations; they represent an urgent and tangible roadmap to reducing suffering and ensuring fundamental rights for women and girls. The withdrawal of funding undermines this vision, ensuring that progress toward these targets will be not only stalled but actively reversed.
These cuts transcend financial considerations; they embody a troubling retreat from the foundational precepts of human rights and international responsibility. The repercussions will be immediate and severe—rising maternal mortality rates, an escalation in gender-based violence, and a resurgence of child marriage and female genital mutilation. The humanitarian waivers previously granted to these programs underscored their lifesaving nature, yet they have now been rescinded with callous disregard for the devastation they will precipitate.
The justification for this decision is steeped in ideological disputes over reproductive rights, yet its impact extends far beyond political posturing. This is not a question of policy preference but of moral accountability. UNFPA’s mandate has never been about advancing partisan agendas—it has been about ensuring that no woman dies needlessly in childbirth, that no girl is forced into marriage due to economic desperation, and that no survivor of sexual violence is left without medical care and psychosocial support.
The international community cannot simply watch as millions of women and girls are cast aside. If the United States is willing to abandon them, others must step up—not just to fill the funding gap but to reaffirm that their lives are not expendable. This decision reflects what feminist theorists have long argued: that structural violence against women is embedded in global power dynamics, where their bodies and rights are continually deprioritized in times of crisis. When a handful of powerful decision-makers dictate the fate of those who are already suffering, what does that say about the world we have built? If reproductive justice—the right to control one’s body, health, and future—is a fundamental human right, then will we allow it to be reduced to a political bargaining chip? And more importantly, what will we do to change it?
