A dramatic break from decades of consensus exposed U.S. efforts to weaken global women’s rights—but also revealed a powerful international resistance determined to defend them.
This piece was originally published by PassBlue, a women-led nonprofit newsroom that covers the U.N. and global women’s rights.
The United States set a new precedent at the United Nations annual women’s rights meeting by requesting a recorded vote on the draft conclusions. The U.S. action culminated after weeks-long negotiations on this year’s theme, “Ensuring and Strengthening Access to Justice for All Women and Girls.”
The U.S. move—which failed drastically—reflects the continuing assault of the Trump administration on gender equality worldwide, yet resistance from across the world couldn’t be more profound.
It was the first time in the 70-year history of the yearly Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) global gathering at the U.N. that its “agreed conclusions”—a member-state driven, negotiated text—were put to a vote by the 45 elected CSW members rather than adopted by consensus. But despite the dramatic move by Washington, member states attending the opening session on March 9 in the packed General Assembly Hall erupted into a loud, standing applause after adopting the conclusions by a majority.
The event marked the first day of the CSW session, running through 19 and celebrating Women’s History Month and International Women’s Day (March 8). The main “justice for all” actions embedded in the outcome document focused on, among other challenges, enforcing the laws and holding perpetrators accountable and removing discriminatory laws that treat women and girls unequally.
The commission adopted the document with 37 votes in favor and six abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia). The lone no vote was cast by the U.S., reflecting a rising international tide riding against the Americans’ actions on the opening day of the CSW. Hundreds of participants representing national capitals and civil society groups worldwide arrived at the U.N. in New York City for the nine-day conference.
The step by the U.S. to call for a vote on the draft document was Washington’s final attempt to dissociate itself from the agreement after failing to amend certain language from the text, including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the effects of climate change on women, the definition of gender and the reproductive health rights of women and girls.
“Regressive amendments targeting sexual and reproductive health and rights, human rights and fundamental freedoms, intersectionality, and reparations were rejected from the final draft,” said Jen Rauch, the global advocacy officer at Fòs Feminista, a reproductive health advocacy organization, in an email to PassBlue.
“At the same time, the outcome document was adopted by a clear majority, despite repeated attempts by at least one member state to delay and derail the process, which itself is a signal worth naming: Multilateralism is not dead,” Rauch added. “The U.N. system is still fighting for gender equality on the global stage.”
The move by the U.S. follows a continuing pattern by the Trump administration since it returned to the White House in January 2025 (and reprised from its first term), as it has attempted across a range of U.N. General Assembly committees to call for a vote on resolutions that were traditionally adopted by consensus. It’s one way the administration has been disagreeing with what the government considers “woke” ideology at the U.N.
The Dramatics Begin
The CSW meeting on March 9 started dramatically after Dan Negrea, an ambassador of the U.S. to the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), proposed an oral amendment to the negotiated document presented by Maritza Chan Valverde, ambassador of Costa Rica and chair of the 70th CSW session.
Negrea had presented eight amendments that were circulated over the past weekend and asked that adopting the agreed conclusion be postponed till the end of the CSW session, March 19, so that fellow member states could keep negotiating the proposed amendments.
The March 9 meeting in the General Assembly Hall, preceded by glittering sound and lighting effects and cheerleading speeches by top U.N. officials and others marking International Women’s Day, quickly devolved into a procedural battle with Chan leaning on a staff of the U.N. Secretariat to explain to member states the provisional rules for procedures that were invoked during the meeting.
The European Union, speaking through the Netherlands, called Washington’s amendments “last-minute,” noting that they “did not enjoy broad support” and moved to have them considered as a single package. The U.S. objected, arguing that the rules required each amendment to be voted on separately.
The EU’s motion was voted on and passed with 26 yes ballots and 11 against. Five countries abstained: Algeria, Bangladesh, China, India and Sri Lanka. (Italy and Mozambique didn’t vote.)
Washington’s amendments, now proposed as a single document, were then put to a vote. It was rejected by 26 member states, while 14 countries abstained. Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, three prominent global South countries that abstained, had all requested more time for negotiations, adding that the draft conclusions still had language that remained unacceptable to some member states.
“We are also concerned that in the amendment,” the representative of Nigeria said, “we have some that are also in line with our views. There are others that are not in line. So, if we resolve to vote on these amendments as a cluster. Unfortunately, Nigeria also will abstain.”
Washington cast the lone yes vote for its package of amendments.
Veronica Brown, a coordinator at the Women’s Major Group, a civil society organization, told PassBlue in an email that adopting the outcome document at the start of the session “is necessary, because prolonging negotiations creates additional space for a small number of Member States to introduce amendments that risk weakening and diluting previously agreed language or derailing the process altogether as was attempted today by the U.S.”
The annual agreed conclusions of the CSW meeting are meant to encapsulate principal guidelines for member states to follow when promoting women’s rights in their own countries. The format was introduced after the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, giving the CSW’s work greater normative and political weight. Since 1996, the texts have been adopted by consensus, meaning member states can register reservations without blocking adoption. No agreed conclusions were adopted at two previous sessions, in 2003 and 2012, yet they have never before been put to a formal vote until this year.
Dozens of U.S. Proposed Amendments
The U.S. machinations in the General Assembly Hall on March 9 started weeks earlier, when Washington joined negotiations for this year’s outcome document almost halfway into the process.
“We wish to underscore that the delegation that presented this request and that subsequently invited the chair to withdraw the text before introducing a series of amendments, did not participate from the beginning of the process, nor did they present proposals that could be considered in good time by all delegations,” the representative of Mexico said on March 9 before the vote, urging a consensus.
Washington made at least 70 proposed amendments during the second revision of the negotiations, sometimes calling for entire paragraphs to be deleted, according to negotiation notes seen by PassBlue. Washington’s objections aligned with the Trump administration’s push against gender equality, language associated with DEI, sexual reproductive health, climate change and digital regulation.
The vote took place just one week after Melania Trump, the first lady, chaired a U.N. Security Council meeting, in another unprecedented move that was considered out of protocol by some member states, given that the role is normally relegated to diplomats and heads of states and government.
At the CSW gathering, Washington proposed deleting an entire paragraph on digital justice and AI regulation, saying that such measures could suppress the freedom of speech of its citizens and allow foreign governments to set global standards. (The U.N. has recently established an international independent scientific panel on AI, which the U.S. has scorned.)
The U.S. also rejected language in the negotiated conclusions on combating misinformation, saying that it does not support any form of “censorship.” The U.S. described language on climate change as a “red line” and requested deleting paragraphs that contain such language.
The Africa group, consisting of 54 countries and by far the largest regional bloc in the U.N., also sought to remove references to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. Russia repeatedly objected to the term “survivors,” preferring to use “victims” instead, placing the onus on women who have suffered undue harm. Saudi Arabia requested dropping references to “broad-based feminist groups” and “LGBTI organizations.”
Some proposed language, however, made it into the adopted document on the theme of “justice,” the CSW theme. For example, it “acknowledges that ensuring and strengthening access to justice for all women and girls across the life course is fundamental for the achievement of gender equality, their empowerment and the full and equal enjoyment of all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
The Young Feminist Caucus, an U.N. system advocacy group, acknowledged the tough work it took at the CSW’s opening day for women’s rights and gender equality to move ahead, despite the power of the world’s richest country to stop progress.
“Feminist civil society organizations and networks worked alongside supportive states to defend the adoption of the Agreed Conclusions and protect hard-won commitments from rollback,” the group said in a statement. “The decision to break consensus and proceed to a vote underscores how deeply contested commitments to gender equality, human rights, and access to justice remain in the current geopolitical moment.”
