In the initial weeks of his presidency, Donald Trump and his administration have embarked on various initiatives that influence abortion rights and access to reproductive healthcare, both within the U.S. and globally. This has sparked apprehension among advocates for reproductive rights regarding the potential for more restrictive actions in the future.
While Trump has openly expressed his anti-abortion beliefs, he has often sidestepped specific policy discussions during his campaign, notably refraining from answering questions about a possible nationwide abortion ban. Nevertheless, those in the reproductive rights sphere—healthcare professionals, legislators, and legal experts—anticipated that his administration would take steps to limit access to abortion and related healthcare services.
Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who focuses on abortion-related issues, observes that the administration’s actions align with traditional Republican tactics. She notes that political climates often change with the party in the White House. However, Ziegler points out that Trump has amplified some of these strategies, such as the Justice Department’s decision to ease prosecutions against anti-abortion protesters blocking clinic access. Despite the significant measures already taken, Ziegler comments, “we’re still in a wait-and-see mode” regarding what’s next.
Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, stresses that just because Trump hasn’t immediately called on Congress for a national abortion ban doesn’t mean he lacks intention. She insists, “This administration is poised to be the most anti-abortion in U.S. history, especially in the absence of federal constitutional protections. The initiatives launched so far indicate a strong anti-abortion agenda.”
Here are some pivotal actions taken by the Trump administration that affect access to reproductive healthcare.
What domestic actions has the Trump Administration undertaken?
In his first week as president, Trump granted pardons to several anti-abortion activists convicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law from 1994 designed to protect abortion clinics and their patients by prohibiting violent obstruction or threats. The following day, a senior Justice Department official distributed a memo indicating that prosecutions under the FACE Act would now only occur in “extraordinary circumstances” or when “significant aggravating factors” were present, effectively instructing a reduction in such prosecutions.
Under the previous Biden administration, the Justice Department actively pursued many cases involving violations of the FACE Act. While Ziegler expects enforcement to wane under a Republican president, this new directive clearly signals a diminished focus on these cases.
Read More: The Impact of Trump’s Appointees on Abortion Policy
Northup highlights that six individuals pardoned by Trump had been convicted for obstructing access to a reproductive healthcare facility in Michigan, which her organization represents. She asserts, “This sends a strong message to anti-abortion extremists that the Trump administration will turn a blind eye to the blockades, violence, and threats faced by women accessing clinics, as well as the daily struggles of clinic staff.”
Additionally, Trump signed an Executive Order during his first week that pledged to enforce the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions. This order revoked two Executive Orders issued by Biden, one of which aimed to expand access to reproductive healthcare and the other recognized abortion as a form of healthcare.
Northup notes that Trump has embedded anti-abortion principles into various policies during his first month. She points out an Executive Order declaring that the U.S. will recognize only “two sexes, male and female.” Northup argues that this order undermines access to gender-affirming care and incorporates personhood language, implying that personhood begins at conception. “They are subtly integrating the concept of personhood from fertilization into all federal policies, rather than recognizing rights beginning at birth,” she underscores.
Advocates for reproductive rights assert that Trump and his administration have made their anti-abortion agenda unmistakably clear. Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, reproductiverights.gov—a federal website that provided information on abortion and reproductive healthcare—was taken down. That same week, Vice President J.D. Vance spoke at the March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., praising Trump as “the most pro-life president in our history” and commending his actions on abortion during his first term, attributing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, to Trump’s efforts. Although Trump did not attend the event, he sent a pre-recorded message expressing his support for anti-abortion activists.
What international actions has the Administration initiated?
Experts point out that one of the most significant actions taken by Trump in his first month regarding global reproductive healthcare access is the suspension of foreign aid. Historically, the U.S. government has contributed over 40% of humanitarian aid tracked by the United Nations and is the largest single donor worldwide. For the 2024 fiscal year, Congress allocated $575 million for family planning and $32.5 million for the United Nations Population Fund, which focuses on sexual and reproductive health, as reported by the Guttmacher Institute, known for its research and advocacy on sexual and reproductive health and rights. Elizabeth Sully, a principal research scientist at the Institute, notes that this funding level has typically received bipartisan support and has remained consistent for nearly a decade. Due to the Helms Amendment, which prohibits foreign assistance funds from being used for abortions, this financial support had not been directed toward abortion services.
An analysis by Guttmacher reveals that these funds can provide contraceptive care for 47.6 million women and couples each year and can prevent 17.1 million unintended pregnancies, potentially saving the lives of around 34,000 women and girls who could die from pregnancy-related complications without such care. “Family planning is a crucial life-saving measure,” Sully emphasizes.
However, due to the aid freeze, international family planning programs that rely on U.S. support have been compelled to cease operations, with the Guttmacher Institute estimating that over 3 million women and girls have already been denied contraceptive services because of this. The Institute anticipates that by the end of a full 90-day review period, around 11.7 million women and girls will miss out on contraceptive care, leading to 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and 8,340 deaths from pregnancy and childbirth-related complications. On February 13, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to temporarily lift the foreign aid suspension; however, the administration’s attorneys are defending the freeze, asserting that the judge’s ruling does not prevent the State Department from halting foreign assistance programs. The future of the judge’s order regarding the resumption of these programs remains uncertain.
“The unpredictability of the situation is particularly challenging,” Sully observes. “You may arrive at a clinic where you previously received injections or contraceptive pills, only to find it closed or lacking necessary supplies, with no indication of when services might resume.”
Dr. Sierra Washington, director of Stony Brook’s Center for Global Health Equity and a member of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics’ Committee on Safe Abortion, works in Mozambique. She indicates that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) plays a vital role in healthcare provision in the country, and the implications of the aid freeze are a major source of concern for her. She fears the freeze may lead to a resurgence of HIV, an increase in unsafe abortions, and higher maternal mortality rates.
“It won’t be long before we see significant shortages of condoms and contraceptives throughout the healthcare system, which will inevitably result in more women suffering from unsafe abortions and complications during childbirth,” Washington warns. “It’s a genuine tragedy.”
“I doubt the officials in the Trump administration fully understand the interconnectedness of global health issues, such as how condoms help prevent HIV transmission, which knows no borders,” she cautions, arguing that an increase in HIV could ultimately “reach the U.S. and impact global health.”
In his first week, Trump also reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing, referring to, or discussing abortion services. This move was widely expected by reproductive health experts, as Republican presidents typically implement it while Democratic presidents reverse it. During his initial term, Trump expanded the policy to cover all global health funding, not just those related to family planning services, resulting in “far-reaching effects” beyond abortion care. The Guttmacher Institute noted that in certain areas of Ethiopia and Uganda, the previously observed increase in contraceptive use halted or even regressed after the implementation of the Global Gag Rule during Trump’s first term.
“While the primary aim of the policy is to restrict abortion, declines in family planning often lead to more unintended pregnancies and a subsequent rise in abortions,” Sully explains.
The Trump administration also announced that the U.S. would rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a non-binding agreement endorsing anti-abortion policies, which the U.S. had supported during the latter part of Trump’s first term. This declaration has received backing from over 30 nations, including Uganda and Hungary. Upon taking office, Biden withdrew the U.S. from the declaration.
What could be next for Trump?
Most experts consulted by TIME anticipate that the Trump administration will continue to pursue measures to restrict abortion and reproductive healthcare access.
One pressing issue experts are closely watching is the administration’s approach to mifepristone, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for abortion more than two decades ago, which is currently facing legal challenges from anti-abortion groups. During his confirmation hearings as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. provided vague responses about mifepristone, mentioning that the President asked him to “study the safety” of the drug but had not taken a definitive stance on its regulation.
Ziegler points out that it remains unclear whether the Trump administration would entirely revoke the FDA’s approval of mifepristone or if it would undo Biden-era policies that made the drug more accessible, such as permitting prescriptions via telehealth and mail. Either decision would significantly impact abortion access nationwide; Northup notes that the ability to obtain medication abortions through telehealth and mail has been a “lifeline” for many patients since the Dobbs ruling.
Read More: How the Biden Administration Protected Access to the Abortion Pill—and What Trump Might Do
Experts are also monitoring whether the Department of Justice will invoke the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law aimed at banning the mailing of abortion-related medications. Looking ahead, Ziegler speculates that Trump will likely continue to appoint conservative judges, as he did in his first term, who will significantly shape abortion legislation, especially as numerous state-level restrictions undergo judicial scrutiny. While appointing judges and securing their confirmations requires time, the long-term implications could be substantial.
“These judges will make critical decisions regarding access to abortion, contraception, and various reproductive health services,” Ziegler states. “As the courts evolve, we could witness increasingly extreme outcomes concerning reproductive issues.”
Some had expected the Trump administration to implement even more drastic measures regarding abortion shortly after the President’s inauguration. However, Ziegler suggests that part of the delay may be due to Trump’s desire to appeal to both his anti-abortion base as well as the majority of Americans who support abortion rights. Sully adds that while Trump took office rapidly, many key department leaders who would oversee abortion-related policy changes, including those regarding mifepristone and the Comstock Act, are still awaiting confirmation.
Read More: Why Abortion Rights Succeeded in Three States That Voted for Trump
Advocates warn that it is essential to remain vigilant about future developments. Northup emphasizes that Roe served as a protective barrier during Trump’s first presidency, limiting the actions his administration could take regarding abortion. With Roe now overturned, the constitutional protections that previously restrained his authority no longer apply, she cautions.
“Anyone who cares about access to abortion services—an overwhelming majority of people in the U.S.—should be on high alert for what this administration may attempt to do to restrict access in states where abortion remains legal,” Northup concludes.
