Credit: Ryan Brown/UN Women
By Inés M. Pousadela and Samuel King
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay / BRUSSELS, Belgium, Mar 30 2026 (IPS)
On 19 March, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) did something unprecedented in its eight-decade history: it held a vote. The Trump administration, having spent two weeks attempting to defer, amend and ultimately block the session’s main outcome document, known as the agreed conclusions, cast the only vote against its adoption. That dissenting vote said a lot, as it came from the world’s most powerful government, backed by financial leverage, bilateral reach and a network of anti-rights states and organisations that are making inroads at many levels.
Established in 1946, the CSW brings together 45 states each year to negotiate commitments that, while not legally binding, shape domestic legislation, set international norms and signal the direction of political will. Civil society plays an important role in it: the NGO Committee on the Status of Women coordinates thousands of organisations, from large international bodies to grassroots groups, with the aim of ensuring those most affected by policy have a seat at the table. For several decades, this has been the closest thing the world has to a dedicated annual intergovernmental negotiation on women’s rights.
The assault on gender equality
The Trump administration arrived at CSW70 having withdrawn from UN Women in January and from its Executive Board in February, citing opposition to what it calls ‘gender ideology’. It submitted eight amendments targeting language on reproductive health. When these didn’t succeed, it attempted to defer or withdraw the conclusions entirely. When that too failed, it voted against adoption and tabled a separate resolution seeking to impose a restrictive definition of gender, effectively attempting to rewrite 30 years of carefully negotiated commitments. Its resolution was blocked.
At the Munich Security Conference in February, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defined western civilisation as bound together by Christian faith, shared ancestry and cultural heritage, an ideological approach that treats women’s equality, reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ rights not as human rights but ideological impositions to be rejected. The Trump administration’s financial muscle is now the delivery mechanism for this worldview.
Defunding as a weapon
The immediate material crisis at CSW70 was the collapse of funding. The elimination of 90 per cent of USAID contracts wiped out US$60 billion in foreign aid. The USA is instead negotiating bilateral deals with 71 countries under its ‘America First’ global health strategy, extending its global gag rule not just to civil society organisations but to recipient governments. This means any institution that receives US health funding must certify that neither it nor any organisation it works with promotes or provides abortion.
Funding will now flow through faith-based groups, with ultra-conservative Christian organisations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Watch International set to benefit, having spent years building networks across Africa, Asia and Latin America. They use the language of family values, parental rights and national sovereignty to consolidate conservative influence over laws affecting women, LGBTQI+ people and young people. In many countries, they already have direct access to governments while progressive organisations are routinely excluded.
With threats intensifying, the UN is signalling retreat. A proposal under the UN80 cost-cutting initiative to merge UN Women with the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has alarmed civil society worldwide. The stated rationale is efficiency, but there’s little overlap between the two agencies and their combined budgets make up a small part of the UN’s overall spending, suggesting savings would be modest. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the targeting of these organisations reflects the increasing contestation of their rights-based mandates rather than any logic of organisational efficiency.
Over 500 civil society organisations signed an open letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres warning that, when sexual and reproductive health rights are absorbed into broader mandates, they risk ‘being deprioritised, underfunded, or rendered politically invisible’. Some states have urged caution but so far none has committed to blocking the merger.
Civil society holds the line
In difficult times, over 4,600 civil society delegates attended CSW70 and made their presence count. They took the floor to name structural barriers and demand accountability: youth representatives challenged the normalisation of online violence, Pacific Island delegates described how geography compounds the denial of justice for survivors, and activists from Haiti documented the labour exploitation of migrant domestic workers. They all emphasised that when women’s rights organisations are restricted or defunded, survivors lose their primary pathway to justice.
The NGO CSW Forum hosted over 750 events alongside the official session. But not everyone could participate. US visa restrictions meant several women’s rights activists, particularly from the global south, couldn’t enter the country. This is a worsening problem that limits civil society’s ability to engage.
CIVICUS’s newly released 2026 State of Civil Society Report documents exactly what civil society has been up against: institutions built to protect women’s rights under sustained, coordinated attack, their funding cut, their mandates targeted and the human rights values they are built on reopened for revision. CSW70’s agreed conclusions offer hope, committing states to action on AI governance, discriminatory laws, digital justice, labour rights, legal aid and the formal recognition of care workers. But as the contest over them made plain, political will is running low and the anti-rights community is emboldened. Civil society left CSW70 without losing ground – and this seems to be the measure of success in the regressive times we live in.
Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.
Samuel King is a researcher with the Horizon Europe-funded research project ENSURED: Shaping Cooperation for a World in Transition at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
La grève des transporteurs en commun, initialement prévue les 30 et 31 mars, a été annulée à Kinshasa après un accord trouvé entre la Police nationale congolaise et les représentants des associations de chauffeurs le weekend.
Alors que la gestation pour autrui s'impose comme un marché international en plein essor, les failles juridiques et les circuits transfrontaliers soulèvent de nombreuses inquiétudes. Entre Turquie, Géorgie et Chypre du Nord, des enquêtes révèlent les zones d'ombre d'un secteur où se croisent désir de parentalité, intérêts économiques et risques d'exploitation.
- Articles / Courrier des Balkans, Turquie, Santé, GratuitParce que TF1 avait eu des images "exclusives" de la réorientation de la navigation du Charles-de-
Plus d'infos »Written by Kamil Baraník.
European political parties (‘europarties’) emerged in the 1970s, preceding the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 granted them legal recognition; however, it was only in 2004 that EU law defined their status, set establishment criteria, and provided independent funding. The most recent regulatory change in 2025 emphasised protecting EU values, strengthening safeguards against foreign interference, and updating transparency and financing requirements. Europarties’ influence depends on balancing European and national interests. Ongoing deliberations seek to enhance europarties’ resilience, and their independence from national politics, reflecting the broader debate on the balance of power between Member States and EU institutions. This search for equilibrium continues to drive significant academic and political discussion.
Read the complete briefing on ‘European political parties‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.
Az 1980-as évek közepén a lassan kiöregedő Kamov Ka-26-os mezőgazdasági helikopterek pótlására - akkoriban szokatlan módon - nyugati irányba indultak meg a tapogatózások. Több forgószárnyas is bemutatkozott Budaörsön és közülük egy amerikai típus, az MD 500-as lett a befutó. A gazdasági helyzet nem tette lehetővé a teljes Kamov flotta cseréjét, és az MD 500-asokból mindössze tizenegy példány repült a Repülőgépes Szolgálat sárga-fekete színeiben. A típussal kapcsolatos élményeket felidézve, folytatjuk beszélgetésünket László Ferenccel.
Mikor tudtad meg, hogy lehetőséged lesz MD 500-assal repülni?
- Éppen valamilyen rekreációs üdülésen voltunk siófokon, amikor kaptunk egy táviratot – mobiltelefon még nem volt – hogy menjünk fel Budaörsre. Laki Zolival mentem fel és a kocsiban végig azon tanakodtunk, hogy vajon kinek mit mondtunk, mert ha felrendelnek, akkor valami történt. Meglepődtünk, mert Budaörsön Nikolits István főigazgató-helyettes fogadott. Akkor láttam először. Tizenketten voltunk és néztük, hogy mi van itt? Nikolits elmondta, hogy jönnek az MD 500-asok. A beszerzésre rábólintott a pártszervezet is, ami hatalmas dolog volt akkoriban, a szocialista táborhoz tartozó Magyarországon. Nagyjából akkora, mint amikor a MÁV-nak beszerezték a svéd Nohab mozdonyokat, vagyis a csoda kategóriába tartozott abban az időben. A pilótákkal szemben két követelmény volt: kétezer óra repült idő és eseménymentesség. Így kerülhettem be a tizenkét fős csoportba. Elmondták, hogy az MD 500-asok pilótaüzemeltetésben lesznek, két pilótával, szerelő nélkül. Átlagfizetést fogunk kapni, hogy ne legyünk korlátozva, hogy egy új géppel kell dolgozni. A Matyikó Feri kért egy kis szünetet. - Gondoljatok bele, egész nap dolgozunk, aztán még gépmosás (az MD 500-ast nem kellett naponta szerelni) és csak utána autózhatunk haza – mondta. A másik nyomós érv az volt, hogy megtudta, hogy azokat a szerelőket, akikkel mi dolgoztunk, ki fogják rúgni vagy hangárba teszik, ami akkoriban egy visszaminősítés volt. Ezt nem akartuk, visszamentünk és azt mondtuk, hogy ragaszkodunk a szerelőkhöz. Ezáltal a műszaki kollégákkal a hagyományos módon dolgoztunk együtt ezen a típuson is. Azután következett az, hogy ki hova kerül. Az egyik MD 500-asnak Pápát jelölték ki, engem is oda tettek volna, ahol egyszer már voltam egy évet. Egy nagyatádi kollégával gondolkodási időt kértünk és huszonnégy órát kaptunk. Hazajöttem, kiterítettem a térképet, és kiszámoltam hogyan járok anyagilag jobban. Abban az évben költöztünk be a családommal Kutasról Kaposvárra, a lakótelepre és én megtapasztaltam, hogy milyen könnyebbség, ha nem kell egy órát utazni naponta. Másnap mondtam, hogy mivel a következő évben jön a többi gép, inkább akkor kezdenék. Belementek azzal, hogy akkor számolnak velem.