Gag Reflex: Legislative Responses to Trump’s Expanded Global Gag Rules as House Approves FY 2027 Foreign Aid Bill

Gag Reflex: Legislative Responses to Trump’s Expanded Global Gag Rules as House Approves FY 2027 Foreign Aid Bill

Whenever a Republican president comes into office and imposes an iteration of the Global Gag Rule (GGR) or a Democratic president rescinds the policy that that has been in place during the outgoing Republican administration, activists in Congress and outside advocates seek to legislatively codify their preferred position on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) with regard to conditions placed on eligibility to receive U.S. foreign assistance. 2026 is no different. It is as inevitable as it is reflexive.

Since Donald Trump was inaugurated and announced a reinstatement of the GGR on global health assistance 18 long months ago, it is only recently that such legislative initiatives have begun to take shape because it has taken over a year for the State Department to finally begin the process of implementing a dramatic expansion of the reach of the restrictions to all “non-military” foreign assistance, to new types of funding recipients, and to programs beyond abortion to those promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and protecting LGBTQI+ rights.

A chronological summary of the legislative initiatives that have been launched by SRHR proponents and opponents in Congress—whether by incorporation of statutory language in appropriations bills or by introduction of freestanding bills or offering amendments to a bill working its way through the legislative process—follows below.

INCORPORATION OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS

As has been the case in the past whenever Republicans have had the majority in one or both houses of
Congress, Republican appropriators incorporated a legislative codification of the expanded Trump GGR by prohibiting the use of funds appropriated in the bill “in contravention” of the three new rules that restrict providing or promoting abortion, “gender ideology,” or “discriminatory equity ideology” in the fiscal year (FY) 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs (NSRP) appropriations bill at the end of April.

Nothing new here. Likewise, when Democrats hold the majority, language has been included in past foreign assistance appropriations bills that sought to legislatively codify a GGR repeal by amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the permanent foreign aid authorizing statute, to prevent a president, hostile to SRHR, from unilaterally imposing the GGR through executive action, thereby ending the use of the policy as a political football tossed back and forth between the parties every four or eight years.

FREESTANDING BILL NULLIFYING TRUMP’S DRAMATIC GGR EXPANSION

Moving on a parallel track with the ultimately unsuccessful efforts by Democratic SRHR champions to strike the codification of the three GGR rules from the Republican’s draft NSRP bill during full Appropriations Committee markup, bicameral legislation called the “Protecting Human Rights and Public Heath in Foreign Assistance Act” (H.R. 8582, S. 4436) was introduced on April 29 to nullify the Trump administration’s radical expansion of the GGR under the three final rules published in the Federal Register on January 27 and collectively referred to by the administration as the “Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance” (PHFFA) policy. (An early strategy contemplated to block implementation of the expanded GGR rules utilizing the Congressional Review Act mechanism was abandoned due to procedural and political complexities and complications.)

Lead co-sponsors in the Senate are Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV), joined by 20 original co-sponsors. The lead original co-sponsors in the House are Representatives Grace Meng (D-NY), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). In addition, nearly 90 organizations have endorsed the bill.

The text of the legislation nullifies the three final rules restricting the provision of “non-military” foreign assistance by the Department of State—specifically ‘Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance,” “Combating Discriminatory Equity Ideology in Foreign Assistance Rules,’’ and “Combating Gender Ideology in Foreign Assistance’’— :

• declaring that the three final rules and “any successor or substantially similar rules shall have no force or effect;”
• prohibiting any other federal department or agency from taking “any action to implement, administer, or enforce” such rules or to “propose, finalize, implement, administer, or enforce any successor or substantially similar rules or policies;” and
• deeming retroactively that the three Department of State rules “shall be treated as though they had never taken effect.”

It is important to remember that the three final rules referenced in the bill currently apply only to the State Department. Significantly, the text of the legislation is forward looking and would, if enacted, preemptively prohibit other U.S. cabinet departments and agencies that dispense U.S. foreign assistance, such as the Department of Health and Human Services (including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health), the Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, and the Department of Defense, from ever issuing their own “substantially similar rules or policies.”

If the bill were to be enacted, as written, it would be as if the three rules never existed. Unfortunately, it won’t be enacted. With Republican majorities in both chambers, the legislation will not advance beyond introduction but will serve as an important vehicle for education of members of the House and Senate on the harmful impacts of Trump’s dramatically expanded GGR, demonstrate congressional opposition to legislative codification of the GGR, and provide momentum to potential opportunities to block its implementation during the appropriations process in the Senate and later in the endgame negotiations between the House and Senate to produce a final FY 2027 spending agreement.

SRHR OPPONENTS ATTEMPT TO LEGISLATIVELY CODIFY TRUMP’S EXPANDED GGR

Just as SRHR champions in Congress have sought to advance their opposing viewpoint, congressional supporters of the expanded GGR rule attempted to legislatively codify the PHFFA rules on at least two occasions in June.

To commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs case that ended a federal constitutional right to abortion, anti-abortion Republicans went to the Senate floor seeking “unanimous consent” to bring up and pass a series of bills restricting reproductive rights, both at home and abroad. Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) introduced with seven original cosponsors a bill unoriginally titled the “Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance Act” (S. 4873) to codify the three GGR rules restricting U.S. foreign assistance programs. After briefly explaining the provisions of his bill on the evening of June 23, Sen. Budd made his unanimous consent request that his bill be adopted by the Senate, to which Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) objected, which is all that was needed to block its adoption.

On the House side, the Foreign Affairs Committee marked up H.R. 9087, “a bill to direct the Secretary of State to take actions with respect to certain foreign affairs matters,” basically a catchall bill that a bunch of culture war “riders,” including, among other things, a ban on flying pride flags, “any map that inaccurately depicts the Gulf of America,” and codification of the expanded GGR rules, were shoved into. After considering a host of amendments in committee during a marathon markup on June 22, the bill stalled in committee and is unlikely to be reported out.

HOUSE FLOOR ACTION ON THE FOREIGN AID APPROPRIATIONS BILL

Last week, the full House approved the partisan, committee-passed FY 2027 NSRP appropriations bill (H.R. 8595) on July 15 on a virtually straight party-line vote after two previous failed attempts by the Republican leadership to bring the bill to the floor. The expanded GGR played a small, but not insignificant, supporting role in the drama.

GOP leaders had originally scheduled House floor action of the NSRP bill for the weeks of June 22 and June 29 but were stymied by an ultimatum from conservative caucus members led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) that the so-called SAVE America Act—described by critics as a voter suppression bill, and the enactment of which was demanded by President Trump in his prime-time address—be attached to “must-pass” legislation to force Senate approval of the bill. The first time that the rule governing consideration of the bill was brought to the floor it was tabled when Republican leaders realized that the rule would fail a rollcall vote. On the second try, when the NSRP bill was part of a package with the usually popular National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the rule was defeated outright when 14 Republicans defected, an embarrassing loss for the GOP leadership. On both occasions, House proceedings were brought to a standstill, and the chamber was recessed early for the remainder of those weeks.

During Rules Committee deliberations on June 23, Democratic committee members offered three motions to make in order amendments to the NSRP bill—which, if adopted, would allow the amendments to be offered during floor consideration of the bill—two of which sought to strike the legislative codification of the expanded GGRs contained in the committee-approved bill. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) offered motions to make in order a Jayapal amendment striking anti-equality provisions in the bill, including the three GGR rules, and an amendment filed by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) striking codification of the three GGR rules. Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-MA) offered a motion to make his own amendment in order prohibiting U.S. withdrawal from three international human rights treaties. All three motions failed on straight 8 to 4 party-line votes.

When the NSRP bill finally reached the House floor on July 15, there were no fireworks on international family planning/reproductive health (FP/RH) funding and policy issues as no pro-SRHR Democratic amendments were made in order for consideration, and no hostile Republican amendments on the subject were filed, probably because the underlying committee-approved bill was so bad that it could not be amended to make it any worse short of zeroing out all bilateral funding. Nevertheless, SRHR issues played a prominent part in the general debate.

Subcommittee Chair Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) rose to provide his usual reassurance to House Republicans that no accommodations would be given to SRHR programs and their supporters, emphasizing that “the bill maintains all longstanding pro-life provisions. It prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund and upholds the President’s policy on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance [sic]. These measures, . . .  alongside enhanced oversight and transparency, ensure American taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions, a policy that Americans overwhelmingly support.” Actually, a new national poll commissioned by PAI and conducted by YouGov found that 78% of Americans agree that access to reproductive health care—including birth control, safe abortion services, and menstrual health information—is a basic part of personal freedom and 70% support maintaining or increasing U.S. government investment in global reproductive health assistance.

Democratic SRHR champions voiced strong opposition to the Republican majority’s bill before them. Several Democratic leaders and SRHR champions devoted part of their statements to decrying the bill’s attack on women’s health and rights, including full committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), subcommittee Ranking Member Frankel and Reps. Meng and Wasserman Schultz, who pointedly stated:  

“Instead of addressing real threats to our security, our interests, and our values abroad, this bill doubles down on petty, partisan culture war riders. This Republican bill includes a provision to suppress reproductive freedom abroad by boycotting humanitarian groups that provide lifesaving care to women and girls. Is anyone surprised the same party that rips away Americans’ reproductive rights and guts our healthcare is running the same anti-choice playbook worldwide? Experts predict tens of thousands more unsafe abortions and maternal deaths. No part of this is pro-life. When I filed an amendment to strike this expanded global gag rule, Republicans refused to even allow a vote.” 

If the floor debate on the NSRP bill had occurred the first week in which it was originally scheduled—during the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision on June 24—Rep. Wasserman Schultz would have offered her amendment to strike the three GGR rules in the NSRP bill as the subject of the “motion to recommit with instructions,” a last-ditch parliamentary tool available to the party in the minority to amend the majority party’s bill prior to final passage.

Due to the delay in bringing the bill to the floor, Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s intention was overtaken by events. But the fact that the House Democratic leadership again considered making international FP/RH funding and policy the focus of their “motion to recommit” for the third time in four years signals the high priority that Democrats are attaching to the protection of women’s reproductive rights—at home and abroad—and their perception of the issue’s political salience in an election year.

On July 15, the NSRP bill was adopted by the House on a vote of 217 to 209, a straight party-line tally with the exception one Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, and one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. With House adoption of the bill, the anti-SRHR provisions in the committee bill remain intact—a 24% cut to bilateral FP/RH funding, prohibition on funding for UNFPA from any account, a legislative codification of the expanded GGR rules, and assorted other hostile provisions in the bill and report—with the SAVE Act now being attached under a self-executing provision in the rule. SRHR advocates are depending once again on Senate Democratic appropriators to ensure that the House position does not prevail in the endgame negotiations to reach a final FY 2027 spending agreement in whatever form it takes.

WHAT’S NEXT

At the moment, the appropriations process in the Senate has completely broken down with the parties pointing the finger of responsibility at each other. Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) have been unable to agree on topline funding allocations for defense and non-defense discretionary spending with Democrats rightly insisting on some degree of parity between any increases in defense spending and the amount available for domestic programs and needs. Reaching an agreement on the topline is tremendously complicated by the massive 44% increase in the regular Pentagon budget requested by the Trump administration to $1.5 trillion—that’s trillion with “T”—and a recent $88 billion supplemental request, composed largely of additional funds to pay the cost of launching a war with Iran.

The unexpected death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the Chair of the State-foreign operations subcommittee, and the continuing absence and uncertain fate of Sen. Mitch McConnnell (R-KY), the Chair of the defense subcommittee, further complicates figuring out a way forward on FY 2027 appropriations bills in the Senate. Even before Sen. Graham’s demise, informed observers did not expect a State-foreign operations bill to be marked up in full committee this year. It is not even clear whether Republican appropriators will introduce a partisan “Chairman’s mark,” done without consultation with their Democratic counterparts. (No subcommittee bill was introduced by Chair Graham last year either.)

With the mid-term elections looming, passage of a continuing resolution (CR) will be necessary before the end of the fiscal year to keep the federal government running until sometime after the November election, the outcome of which may change the dynamics of the negotiation between the House and the Senate on a final FY 2027 spending agreement.

Late Tuesday evening, the House-passed a largely “clean” CR extending current federal program funding levels and policies through December 4, labeled by House Democratic leaders as premature with several months remaining to negotiate a bipartisan agreement before the start of new fiscal year on October 1. It is too soon to know how Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) will respond to the House-approved CR and whether he and Chair Collins can strike a bipartisan deal with Democrats on a Senate version of a stopgap bill that accommodates anomalies requested by the White House before the Senate leaves for its planned summer recess on August 7.

Regardless, at the end of the process—no matter how chaotic it may become in the coming months—advocates have every expectation that a continuation of the status quo on international FP/RH issues—level funding and no new policy “riders,” either positive or negative—will be achieved for the 17th year in a row.  Stay tuned.