Donald Trump’s presidency, both past and prospective, has left an indelible mark on women’s rights and representation in American politics and policy.
From reshaping reproductive healthcare access to influencing judicial decisions that alter the landscape of gender equity, his administration has sparked lasting debates about the role of women in leadership, education and public life.
Under Trump’s earlier administration, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, effectively ending federal protections for abortion rights.
This ruling shifted the authority to regulate abortion to the states, resulting in widespread disparities in access across the country. States with restrictive laws limit not only abortion access but also women’s opportunities in education and the workforce, particularly affecting those in low-income and rural areas.
Kelsy Kretschmer, a sociology professor at Oregon State University with a PhD in sociology, said “The national policy context before meant that experiences in Texas wouldn’t have been that different from experiences in Oregon. Now we live in a fragmented reality.”
For women in states like Texas and Georgia, the landscape is shifting.
“Women now have to think very seriously about the risks of pregnancy in states with limited access to abortion, even when the pregnancy is wanted but poses health risks,” Kretschmer said.
Conversely, Kretschmer said “In some ways, the stakes are higher now for everyone. This has fostered a stronger sense of linked fate and collective action among women who recognize the national implications of these restrictions.”
The Trump administration introduced changes to Title X funding, barring clinics that provide abortion services or referrals from receiving federal funds. This policy led to a significant reduction in clinics participating in the program, as noted by KFF, and curtailed contraceptive access for millions of women.
Although the Biden administration reversed these changes, ongoing lawsuits could potentially reinstate these restrictions. Similarly, the Comstock Act, an anti-obscenity law from 1873, has resurfaced as a tool for anti-abortion advocates, potentially curtailing the availability of abortion medication nationwide, even in states where it remains legal.
Access to reproductive healthcare plays a pivotal role in women’s economic empowerment and political representation.
“Every time you make it harder for a woman to have bodily autonomy, you risk constraining some part of her future,” Kretschmer said.
According to Kretschmer, restrictive policies not only undermine individual freedoms but reinforce traditional gender roles, limiting women’s capacity to advocate for their rights effectively.
“These dynamics raise broader questions about women’s long-term leadership and representation in public life,” Kretschmer said.
Under the Trump administration, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos implemented significant changes to Title IX policies regarding sexual harassment and assault in educational institutions.
These revisions, introduced in 2020, narrowed the definition of sexual harassment, required live hearings with cross-examination in college cases, and limited schools’ obligations to address incidents that occurred off campus.
The lingering effects of these policies are evident in how institutions handle sexual misconduct cases, often leading to perceptions of inequity and challenges for women in education and professional settings.
While the Biden administration has proposed updates to restore broader protections within the last few months of their administration’s work in the White House, debates around the balance between due process and survivor support continue to influence the conversation on gender equity and discrimination in educational environments.
Trump’s judicial appointments have solidified conservative dominance in federal courts, influencing decisions on gender equity policies. This dynamic extends to broader societal structures, including women’s representation in political and policymaking spaces.
These appointments have been notably less diverse compared to those of his predecessors. According to a study conducted by OSU professors, Petar Jeknic, Rorie Spill Solberg, Eric Waltenburg and Christopher Stout, Trump’s judicial picks included fewer women and minority judges, which could have long-term implications for gender representation and equity within the judiciary.
As these judges influence legal decisions, the lack of diversity may affect the legitimacy of the courts and the fairness of rulings on gender-related issues. This trend reflects a broader societal challenge in achieving gender equity and fostering inclusive leadership in key political and policy-making spaces.
Kretschmer expressed concerns about Trump’s broader impact, noting that his presidency could either represent an anomaly or signify a global right-wave wing undermining liberal democratic ideals.
“Women’s representation and power risk being pulled under this same wave,” Kretschmer said. “Collective organizing remains one of the most effective tools for addressing these inequities. Whether through protesting, advocating, or supporting women in leadership roles, these actions make a tangible difference.”