Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks during the annual March for Life rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23, 2026. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to expand a policy that blocks foreign aid dollars from going to organizations that discuss, refer or perform abortions to also include groups that address transgender health care or have policies on diversity, equity and inclusion, Vice President JD Vance said Friday.

“We’re expanding this policy to protect life, to combat DEI and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children. And with these additions, the rule will now cover every non-military foreign assistance that America sends,” Vance announced at the March for Life anti-abortion rally on the National Mall.  

“All in all, we have expanded the Mexico City Policy about three times as big as it was before,” he added. “And we’re proud of it, because we believe in fighting for life.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom for more details on the policy expansion or when it would be implemented. 

Defending administration’s record

Vance said during the rally he needed to “address an elephant in the room” that President Donald Trump and others in the administration have not made enough progress on anti-abortion initiatives during the first year of unified Republican control of the federal government.  

“I want you to know that I hear you and that I understand,” he said. “There will inevitably be debates within this movement. We love each other. But we’re going to have open conversations about how best to use our political system to advance life, how prudential we must be in the cause of advancing human life. I think these are good, natural and honest debates.”

Vance mentioned that Trump nominated some of the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. 

He also noted that Republicans in Congress included a provision in the “big, beautiful” law that blocks Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year for any type of health care. Federal law had already barred funding from going to abortions, with limited exceptions.

Vance argued that in addition to judicial rulings and federal laws, members of the anti-abortion movement must strive to change hearts and minds as well. 

“We’re not trying to argue to the Supreme Court anymore,” he said. “We’re trying to argue to our fellow citizens that we must build up that culture of life. And as you know, that effort is going to take a lot of time, it’s going to take a lot of energy and it’s going to take a little bit of money.”

Later in his speech, Vance sought to discourage people from concentrating on professional lives and instead called on them to focus more on getting married and having children. 

“You’re never going to find great meaning in a cubicle or in front of a computer screen,” he said. “But you will find great meaning if you dedicate yourself to the creation and sustenance of human life.”

Trump didn’t attend the rally in person but recorded a video message that was played just before Vance spoke, telling attendees he “was proud to be the first president in history to attend this march in person” six years ago. 

“In my first term I was honored to appoint judges and justices who believed in interpreting the Constitution as written. That was a big deal. And because of that, the pro-life movement won the greatest victory in its history,” Trump said. “Now the work to rebuild a culture that supports life continues in every state, every community and every part of our beautiful land.”

Calls for action on medication abortion

Trump and some in his administration have come under scrutiny lately for not moving faster to complete a safety review of mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, which is approved for up to 10 weeks gestation. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, both released statements in December calling on Trump to fire Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over the pace of that review.

Anti-abortion organizations want the administration to end the ability of doctors or other qualified health care providers to prescribe mifepristone and the second pharmaceutical used in medication abortion, misoprostol, via telehealth and have it shipped to patients. 

Several Republicans in Congress have joined their call, with Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., holding a hearing on mifepristone earlier this month. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected efforts from anti-abortion organizations to limit access to mifepristone in a June 2024 ruling, writing they never had standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. 

Trump told House Republicans during a policy retreat at the Kennedy Center earlier this month they must be “flexible” about the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for abortion with limited exceptions, in order to broker a health care deal that can reach his desk. 

Dannenfelser rebuked Trump for the comment, writing in a statement that to “suggest Republicans should be ‘flexible’ is an abandonment of this decades-long commitment. If Republicans abandon Hyde, they are sure to lose this November.”

GOP leaders tout major law

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., also spoke at the March for Life rally, touting the “big, beautiful” law as “the most pro-life and pro-family legislation that has been signed into law in decades.”

“For the first time since Roe v. Wade was reversed, we have the White House, the Senate and the House all working together to deliver meaningful and historic pro-life victories,” he said. 

The law included several policies that Johnson said will aid Americans in having children, including an expansion of the child tax credit and the adoption tax credit as well as the investment accounts for babies. 

Johnson said the provision that blocks Medicaid patients from going to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion health care services, depriving the organization of that income, was a massive policy victory for Republicans. 

“We stand here today with one united voice to affirm the federal government should not be subsidizing any industry that profits from the elimination of human life,” Johnson said. 

New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith, speaking just after Johnson while other GOP lawmakers stood on the stage, said eliminating access to mifepristone must be accomplished. 

“I’ve been here since Ronald Reagan’s first election, 1981,” Smith said. “And I can tell you, this leadership is the most pro-life, so committed. And behind me are just absolute heroes. Men and women who take up the fight every single day.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., didn’t attend the rally in person but submitted a video that touted the Planned Parenthood defunding provision. 

“Thanks to that landmark legislation, this year, some of the nation’s largest abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, are prohibited from receiving Medicaid funding,” Thune said. 

Other Republicans attending the rally included Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt, Arkansas Rep. French Hill, Florida Rep. Kat Cammack, Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, Michigan Reps. Bill Huizenga and Tim Walberg, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach, Missouri Rep. Bob Onder, Pennsylvania Rep. Dan Meuser, South Carolina Rep. William Timmons, Texas Reps. Michael Cloud and Dan Crenshaw, Utah Rep. Mike Kennedy, Virginia Rep. John McGuire and Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman.

Dr. Margaret Baum (second from left), chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, stands with attorneys from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America on the steps of the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri, on Jan. 12, 2026, the first day of a two-week trial over abortion restrictions. (Photo by Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent)

The outcome of two trials in the coming weeks could shape what it will look like when voters overturn state abortion bans through future ballot initiatives.

Arizona and Missouri voters in November 2024 struck down their respective near-total abortion bans. Both states added abortion access up to fetal viability as a right in their constitutions, although Arizonans approved the amendment by a much wider margin than Missouri voters.

That was just the beginning of protracted legal battles.

Amy Myrick, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said ballot measures are a powerful and important step in returning abortion access to a state, but success on Election Day doesn’t mean the fight is over.

“State constitutions don’t automatically repeal laws,” Myrick said. “Sometimes, even if the state isn’t doing it, other groups or legislators will jump in to try to retain these restrictions.” 

The trial over Arizona’s abortion restrictions wrapped up this week, Arizona Mirror reported. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como seemed unconvinced of the argument that certain laws around how abortion medication can be prescribed, waiting periods and bans on abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities should remain enforceable.

A similar trial in Missouri will wrap up on Jan. 26 after hours of testimony about more than a dozen abortion restrictions state officials are seeking to preserve. The Republican supermajority state legislature is also putting a countermeasure to reinstate the abortion ban on the ballot in November, paired with a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. 

Arizona and Missouri have what are known by abortion-rights advocates as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP, laws passed by legislatures before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022. Even states without bans, like Connecticut, Maryland and Rhode Island, have statutes in place that the Guttmacher Institute considers TRAP laws. Abortion providers are subject to state licensing and other medical requirements, but as of December, 25 states still have laws that impose additional regulations for clinics, according to Guttmacher, such as facility size and transfer agreement requirements, or admitting privileges at local hospitals within 30 miles.

Officials and legislators usually argue in the statehouse and in court that the extra parameters increase the safety of abortion procedures, but the safety record is strong under existing medical requirements and is safer than childbirth, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Studies show the risk of maternal death associated with childbirth is about 14 times higher than the risk associated with abortion.

But there are also other laws that advocates say are meant to discourage or frustrate those seeking abortion care, such as mandatory vaginal exams, waiting periods, or a requirement that the same physician must see an abortion medication patient over two subsequent visits. Some of those laws were passed over decades and helped drive abortion providers away, including in Missouri.

As a result, even though Missourians overturned the ban, abortion care remains difficult to obtain, and many are still leaving the state to get it, according to Missouri Independent.

“Because constitutional amendments don’t overturn conflicting laws, people can still experience injuries under these laws,” said Prachi Dave, senior managing legal and policy director at If/When/How, a reproductive rights legal services and advocacy organization. “For example, if a waiting period is interfering with my ability to access the care I am guaranteed under the newly passed amendment, then I would ask a judge to affirm that the law is getting in the way of my right. In doing so, lawsuits give practical effect to constitutional amendments.”

In a Michigan lawsuit led by advocacy groups, a judge ruled in May that a mandatory waiting period was unconstitutional after voters approved an initiative codifying reproductive rights.  

Wendy Heipt, attorney for advocacy organization Legal Voice in Washington, said even if some laws were ruled unconstitutional, they may have to be litigated again because the basis for the unconstitutional argument relied on the Roe v. Wade case that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned almost four years ago.

Heipt frequently works on cases in Idaho, where many lawsuits over the state’s near-total abortion ban have taken place in the past three years. Though still in effect, there is an effort to overturn the ban via ballot in November. 

The initiative is different from those approved in Arizona and Missouri because people in Idaho cannot submit constitutional amendments — only proposed state laws — for ballot consideration directly.

Melanie Folwell, lead organizer of the reproductive rights initiative in Idaho, said even if successful, it’s only one leg of a long race in restoring access. The initiative group, Idahoans United for Women and Families, drafted a bill that would have repealed existing abortion laws, but it was too long and legally complicated for the ballot. Instead, what they’ve come up with for voters is meant to establish a right to reproductive health privacy without undue government interference and override existing laws. 

The outcome of Missouri’s trial could be instructive for Idaho abortion-rights advocates, because the political environments are similar. Idaho has a lengthy list of its own waiting periods for abortion care, mandatory counseling and ultrasound requirements, and elected officials in the Republican-led state have repeatedly signaled their opposition to abortion access, including the attorney general. The legislature also has a Republican supermajority.

And since it can’t be a constitutional amendment, any new law may be more vulnerable to legal challenges. 

“There are things to learn from every one of the states that have reproductive access on the ballot, which is 17 states at this point,” Folwell said. “It is always instructive for us to see what plays out in that state’s legislature, what plays out with their courts.”

Myrick said the legal battles can feel discouraging, but voters shouldn’t let it stop them from using their voices to make their policy preferences known.

“Ballot measures are not the silver bullet. We need a lot of follow-up to make these rights real. And the attempts to keep these restrictions after the voters have spoken are blatantly anti-democratic, but they’re still happening,” Myrick said.

The William L. Guy Federal Building in Bismarck. A North Dakota-based Christian employers group filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission a year ago over Biden-era regulations related to abortion and gender identity. (Photo by Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached an agreement this month with a Christian business group to ignore regulations that allowed employees to receive abortion-related accommodations and barred workplace discrimination based on gender identity. 

Christian Employers Alliance President Margaret Iuculano, whose organization sued the EEOC over the two provisions in January 2025, said in a statement Monday that the deal was a “major win” for businesses looking to operate in accordance with their religion. The CEOs of Hobby Lobby, Regent Bank and AllBetter Health are on the board of the North Dakota-based nonprofit, which has more than 22,000 members across the country. 

The regulations, issued under former President Joe Biden’s administration, were already invalidated last year by federal courts, but the deal struck by the EEOC could foreshadow a move to rescind or rewrite rules for enforcing a landmark pregnant workers law. A spokesperson for the EEOC did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday. 

“As attacks on women’s reproductive choice continue to escalate, we are disappointed, but not surprised, that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sided with the Christian Employers Alliance in federal court, relieving many large Christian employers of their obligation to protect employees seeking an abortion,” Inimai Chettiar, president of A Better Balance, said in a statement provided to States Newsroom. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which took effect in 2023, requires employers with 15 or more staff to provide reasonable accommodations — additional restroom breaks, a stool to sit on and time off for doctors’ appointments, for example — as long as the requests don’t place “undue hardship” on the company. 

According to a Jan. 9 court order signed by a North Dakota district judge, the EEOC agreed that current and future members of the alliance will not be penalized for declining to accommodate abortion, making employees follow gender-specific dress codes or directing staff to use private spaces that don’t align with their gender identity. 

Under the stipulations, the agreement will expire if the EEOC issues new regulations for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and revises or rescinds gender identity-related guidance for complying with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which bars workplace discrimination. 

“The agreement does not prevent the EEOC from investigating allegations of unlawful conduct not specifically covered by this agreement, even if they are alleged within the same charge that alleges non-enforcement conduct against CEA or its members,” the order states. 

Andrea Lucas, the chair of the EEOC, has said she supports the pregnant workers law overall but disagrees that abortion should be included in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions” when interpreting the measure. 

She has also said the agency will reconsider regulations for the law once there was a Republican quorum reestablished on the commission. The Senate approved the confirmation of Brittany Bull Panuccio, the newest commissioner, in October during the federal government shutdown. 

Lucas also opposed harassment guidance issued by Biden administration officials that said employers should respect workers’ pronouns and allow staff to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. 

Chettiar, A Better Balance’s president, said the laws’ regulations “clearly cover workers’ ability to receive reasonable accommodations for ‘pregnancy-related conditions,’ which has long been interpreted to include abortion as well as other essential reproductive healthcare like IVF. We will continue to fight to keep the regulations for the PWFA intact and as strong as possible as the EEOC appears poised to reopen them and potentially narrow the scope of the law.”