Here Are Trump’s Major Moves on Reproductive Health Access

In his inaugural month, President Donald Trump and his administration have initiated several actions that impact abortion and reproductive healthcare access, both domestically and internationally. This has raised concerns among reproductive rights advocates about potential further actions in the future.

Although Trump has been vocal about his anti-abortion stance, he has remained ambiguous about specific policies during his presidential campaign, notably avoiding direct queries about whether he would approve a nationwide abortion ban. Despite this, advocates for reproductive rights, healthcare professionals, lawmakers, and legal analysts expected his administration to restrict access to abortion and other reproductive health services.

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, specializing in abortion issues, notes that many actions taken by the Trump administration align with traditional Republican strategies. She suggests that the political landscape tends to shift depending on party leadership in the White House. However, Ziegler highlights that Trump has intensified some of these actions, such as the Justice Department’s announcement to limit prosecutions against anti-abortion demonstrators obstructing access to clinics. While significant actions regarding abortion have already been taken, Ziegler mentions, “we’re still in a wait-and-see phase” regarding future measures.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, emphasizes that despite Trump not immediately pressing Congress for a national abortion ban, it would be unwise to assume this indicates a lack of intent. She asserts, “This administration is shaping up to be the most anti-abortion in U.S. history, without any federal constitutional protections in place. The actions taken thus far suggest a robust anti-abortion agenda.”

Below are the key actions initiated by the Trump administration that impact reproductive healthcare access.

What actions has the Trump Administration taken domestically?

During his first week in office, Trump issued pardons for several anti-abortion protestors who had been convicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law established in 1994 to protect abortion clinics and their patients by prohibiting forceful obstruction or threats against individuals seeking care. The following day, a high-ranking official from Trump’s Justice Department circulated a memo stating that prosecutions for violations of the FACE Act would now be pursued only under “extraordinary circumstances” or when there are “significant aggravating factors,” effectively instructing the department to reduce such prosecutions.

Under the previous Biden administration, the Justice Department actively prosecuted numerous individuals accused of violating the FACE Act. While Ziegler anticipates a reduction in enforcement under a Republican president, this new directive openly signals a lack of prioritization for these cases.

Read More: The Influence of Trump’s Appointees on Abortion Policies

Northup points out that six individuals pardoned by Trump had been convicted for blocking access to a reproductive healthcare facility in Michigan, which the Center for Reproductive Rights represents. She states, “This sends a clear message to anti-abortion extremists that the Trump administration will overlook the blockades, violence, and threats that women encounter when accessing clinics, as well as the daily challenges faced by clinic staff.”

In addition, Trump signed an Executive Order in his first week pledging to enforce the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions. This order rescinded two Executive Orders enacted by Biden, one promoting expanded access to reproductive healthcare and another recognizing abortion as a healthcare service.

Northup asserts that Trump has embedded anti-abortion sentiments into various policies he has enacted in his first month. She highlights an Executive Order stating 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, suggesting that personhood begins at conception. “They are subtly infusing the concept of personhood from fertilization into all federal policies, rather than acknowledging rights beginning at birth,” she explains.

Reproductive rights advocates contend that Trump and his administration have made their anti-abortion stance unmistakably clear. Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, reproductiverights.gov—a federal website launched under the Biden administration that provided information on abortion and reproductive healthcare—was taken offline. That same week, Vice President J.D. Vance spoke at the March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., extolling Trump as “the most pro-life president in our history” and commending his actions on abortion during his initial term, attributing credit for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Although Trump did not attend the rally, he delivered a pre-recorded message, pledging his support to anti-abortion activists.

What international actions has the Administration taken?

Experts indicate that one of the most consequential actions taken by Trump in his first month regarding global reproductive healthcare access is the suspension of foreign aid. The U.S. government has historically provided 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, according to 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, mentions that this funding level has generally enjoyed bipartisan support and has remained stable for nearly a decade. Due to the Helms Amendment, which restricts foreign assistance funds from being used for abortions, this financial support had not been directed toward abortion services.

A Guttmacher analysis reveals that these funds can provide contraceptive care for 47.6 million women and couples annually and prevent 17.1 million unintended pregnancies, potentially saving the lives of approximately 34,000 women and girls who could die from pregnancy-related complications without such care. “Family planning is a critical life-saving measure,” Sully states.

However, due to the aid freeze, international family planning programs reliant on U.S. support have been forced to halt operations, with the Guttmacher Institute estimating that over 3 million women and girls have already been denied contraceptive services because of this. The Institute predicts that by the end of the full 90-day review period, around 11.7 million women and girls will miss out on contraceptive care, resulting in 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and 8,340 fatalities from pregnancy and childbirth complications. On February 13, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to lift the foreign aid suspension temporarily, yet the administration’s attorneys defend the freeze, asserting that the judge’s ruling does not prevent the State Department from halting foreign assistance programs. The outcome of the judge’s order regarding the resumption of these programs remains uncertain.

“What’s particularly challenging is the unpredictability of the situation,” Sully remarks. “You might arrive at a clinic you’ve previously visited for injections or contraceptive pills, only to find it closed or devoid of 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 notes that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) plays a crucial role in providing healthcare in the country, and the implications of the aid freeze are a source of significant concern for her. She fears the freeze may catalyze a resurgence of HIV, an increase in unsafe abortions, and higher maternal mortality rates.

“It won’t be long before we witness significant shortages of condoms and contraceptives across the healthcare system, which will inevitably lead to more women suffering from unsafe abortions and complications during childbirth,” Washington warns. “It’s a genuine tragedy.”

“I doubt that the officials in the Trump administration grasp the interconnectedness of global health issues, such as how condoms prevent HIV transmission, which knows no borders,” she adds, cautioning that an uptick in HIV could eventually “reach the U.S. and affect global health.”

In his first week, Trump also reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which restricts foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing, referring to, or discussing abortion care. This move was anticipated by many reproductive health experts, given that Republican presidents typically implement it while Democratic presidents reverse it. During his initial term, Trump expanded the policy to encompass all global health funding, not solely those related to family planning services, leading to “far-reaching impacts” beyond abortion care. The Guttmacher Institute noted that, in certain regions 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 policy’s primary aim is to restrict abortion, declines in family planning often lead to more unintended pregnancies and, consequently, an increase in abortions,” Sully explains.

The Trump administration also announced that the U.S. would rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a non-binding agreement supporting anti-abortion policies, which the U.S. had endorsed towards the end of Trump’s first term. This declaration has garnered backing from over 30 nations, including Uganda and Hungary. Biden withdrew the U.S. from the declaration upon taking office.

What might be on the horizon for Trump?

Most experts consulted by TIME predict that the Trump administration will persist in taking measures to limit abortion and reproductive healthcare access.

One pressing concern experts are monitoring is the administration’s stance on mifepristone, a drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for abortion over 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 answers regarding mifepristone, stating that the President asked him to “study the safety” of the drug but had not taken a definitive position on its regulation.

Ziegler notes that it remains uncertain whether the Trump administration would revoke the FDA’s approval of mifepristone entirely or if it would reverse Biden-era policies that made the drug more accessible, such as allowing prescriptions via telehealth and mail. Either decision would significantly impact abortion access across the country; Northup mentions that the ability to obtain medication abortions through telehealth and mail has been a “lifeline” for many patients following the Dobbs ruling.

Read More: How the Biden Administration Safeguarded Access to the Abortion Pill—and What Trump Might Do

Experts are also watching to see if the Department of Justice will invoke the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law aimed at banning the mailing of abortion-related medications. Looking further ahead, Ziegler posits that Trump will likely continue to appoint conservative judges, as he did in his first term, who will greatly influence abortion legislation, especially as numerous state-level restrictions face judicial scrutiny. Although appointing judges and securing their confirmations takes time, the long-term consequences could be significant.

“Those judges will make crucial decisions affecting access to abortion, contraception, and various reproductive health services,” Ziegler states. “As the courts evolve, we could see increasingly extreme outcomes regarding reproductive issues.”

Some anticipated that the Trump administration would enact even more drastic measures regarding abortion shortly after the President’s inauguration. However, Ziegler suggests that part of the delay may stem from Trump’s desire to appeal to both his anti-abortion base and 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 concerning mifepristone and the Comstock Act, are still awaiting confirmation.

Read More: Why Abortion Rights Succeeded in Three States That Voted for Trump

Advocates caution that vigilance is necessary regarding future developments. Northup highlights that Roe was a protective measure during Trump’s first presidency, imposing limitations on the actions his administration could take regarding abortion. With Roe now overturned, the constitutional protections that previously constrained his authority are no longer in effect, she warns.

“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.