The Biden Administration Is Exporting Wokeness  

E xporting American ideals by promoting individual freedoms and fair treatment under the law has been part of U.S. foreign policy for decades. But no longer, it seems. The State Department is under the control of the Biden administration, which is less interested in freedom and fairness than in pushing its fanatical post-liberal progressive agenda.

This ideological shift is particularly bad news for faith-inspired organizations that offer humanitarian assistance beyond our borders. This month, the State Department released its 2023 Equity Plan. According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, “Inequity is a national security challenge with global consequences.” The plan proposes to advance “equity” — one of the administration’s beloved progressive buzzwords — for “members of marginalized groups.” It boasts about its intent to “embed equity in our foreign affairs work through diplomatic engagements, high-level dialogues, multilateral efforts, foreign assistance, public diplomacy programs and messaging, and procurement and contracts.” And, in typically zealous fashion, proposed rules will impose broadly defined “nondiscrimination requirements” for foreign assistance.

These rules — which will apply to award recipients and contractors and their colleagues — forbid discrimination “on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, sex characteristics, pregnancy, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, indigeneity, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran’s status.”

That’s quite a feat of box-ticking, isn’t it? The problem is that we don’t really know what’s in some of the boxes. Rachel Morrison, a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., points out that the proposed assistance rules don’t define terms like “sex,” “gender,” “gender identity or expression,” or “sex characteristics.” Given that gender ideology is so muddled that its proponents can’t tell us what a woman is, this isn’t surprising. Morrison also notes that the rules fail to define “discrimination based on ‘pregnancy’ but, consistent with the Biden administration’s pro-abortion policies, will likely interpret the term to include abortion and contraception.”

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 says, “Congress reaffirms the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renews its commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance.” Under the act, the secretary of state has “broad discretion” to set terms and conditions for the provision of foreign assistance. Of course, this discretion is limited by the Constitution and federal law. But, as so often, the Biden administration doesn’t think it’s bound by constitutional admonitions.

Granted, the proposed rules give the State Department discretion to grant a waiver to an award recipient or a contractor if “it is determined to be in the best interest of the US government.” But given the president’s goal to impose gender ideology across all departments and agencies, this is an empty promise for charitable groups unwilling to embrace gender ideology or celebrate the gruesome practice of abortion.

Faith-inspired organizations, in particular, are likely to find their religious convictions excluding them from participating in government-funded relief work. It’s true that the proposed rules related to contractors allow the State Department to grant a waiver “to allow a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society to employ individuals of a particular religion to carry out the activities under the award in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs.” But that doesn’t mean that religious organizations will be allowed to make hiring and firing decisions based on their beliefs.

Fortunately, the First Amendment’s protections may set things straight. Because the State Department’s proposed rules include mechanisms for granting waivers, it is subject to the most exacting form of judicial review, requiring the government to prove it has a compelling interest in enforcing the regulation without providing an exemption. In the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision after the City of Philadelphia refused to exempt Catholic Social Services from endorsing same-sex married couples as foster parents, Chief Justice John Roberts reminded progressive government bureaucrats, “We have never suggested that the government may discriminate against religion when acting in its managerial role.”

It seems that no one at the State Department was listening. But other people were.

A small group of senators, led by Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), sent Secretary Blinken a letter, warning him, “Anti-American sentiment is on the rise abroad in countries who feel an unwanted ideological agenda is being forced upon them through the vehicle of US foreign policy.” The lawmakers also voiced their concerns that “the nondiscrimination rule would violate the rights and beliefs of faith-based partner organizations and their beneficiaries, undermine relationships with key stakeholders, and threaten U.S. security interests.”

To be clear: Conditioning access to government funds on ignoring religious teaching and embracing gender ideology is offensive to the Constitution and makes a mockery of the country’s commitment to promoting religious freedom as a foreign-policy priority as enshrined in the International Religious Freedom Act.

Put bluntly, these proposed rules will weaponize the “power of the purse” to push gender ideology and abortion on the developing world. It will also limit the number of providers who can partner with the government to offer humanitarian aid abroad by imposing unnecessary and unlawful conditions on faith-inspired organizations. Once again, it’s time to act. Public comment on the rules can be submitted here and here until March 19. In the end, we need to understand how self-defeating this is. If the United States exploits the plight of struggling countries to inflict its latest dogmatic obsessions on them, then we risk stirring up anti-American sentiment around the world, and the achievements of decades of humanitarian assistance will count for nothing.