President Donald Trump issued an executive order in early 2025 requiring that all mentions of “gender ideology” be eliminated from all U.S. government publications and establishments. Despite being purely symbolic, this action led to a real policy change that had a ripple effect on civil liberties, educational systems, and the enforcement of equality in multiple states. It severely damaged decades of effort by portraying gender-inclusive language as ideological rather than factual. This was not an isolated episode; rather, it was a component of a well orchestrated decline that was felt by increasingly authoritarian administrations in Argentina, Hungary, and other places.
Javier Milei, the president of Argentina, intended to remove femicide from the country’s legal code in a move that many saw as both backward and purposefully provocative. He characterized gender-specific legal safeguards as the result of extreme feminism, arguing that they are polarizing and harmful to social harmony. This mentality purposefully twists equality into a zero-sum game and reframes protections as partiality, resembling far-right rhetoric in sections of the United States and Europe. The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary, meantime, approved laws that not only outlawed the Budapest Pride celebration but also gave police the ability to trace participants using facial recognition, transforming peaceful assembly into a cover for surveillance.
Factors Contributing to Continued Equality Struggles in 2025
| Key Area | Description |
|---|---|
| Legislative Rollbacks | Executive orders and legal restrictions targeting gender, LGBTQ+, and minority rights |
| Political Climate | Rise of right-wing populism reinforcing traditionalist and exclusionary policies |
| Religious Conservatism | Transnational religious networks pushing anti-gender agendas globally |
| Cultural Resistance | Framing equality efforts as threats to national identity and family values |
| Educational Suppression | Bills restricting discussions of gender, race, and identity in schools |
| Global Alliances | Cooperation among nationalist governments to oppose international gender norms |
| Grassroots Movements | Civil society efforts growing stronger in response to legislative stagnation |
| Public Support vs. Policy Gap | Majority public support (75%+ for Equality Act) contrasted with political inaction |
| UN and International Forums | Shift from progressive frameworks to battlegrounds of cultural and ideological resistance |
| Influential Leaders | Donald Trump, Javier Milei, Viktor Orbán as figureheads of the anti-gender movement |
Legislative sessions in many U.S. states, especially those with Republican majorities, have witnessed a rapid increase in measures that try to criminalize gender-affirming care, restrict gender conversations in classrooms, and outlaw drag shows. These actions have the clearly strategic objective of limiting identity expression and controlling narratives, but they are justified under the pretense of safeguarding children or upholding parental rights. For instance, several conservative states have used Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Act as a model for similar legislation. Through these legislative processes, equality has been significantly diminished from a constitutionally guaranteed ideal to one that is determined by majority authority.
There has been a strikingly uniform pattern on a global scale. Traditional family values have become a rallying cry for populist leaders and illiberal regimes. Political actors have revived the “natural family” discourse to undermine inclusive policies from Latin America to Southeast Europe. Leaders appeal to nationalistic fears and cultural pride by portraying feminism and LGBTQ+ rights as foreign imports associated with globalism or Western liberalism. This framing works incredibly well at making equality seem like a cultural threat, especially in nations that are experiencing fast social change or economic instability.
Institutions of higher learning have been crucial. Ultra-conservative Christian networks, frequently supported by U.S.-based groups, have partnered with politicians to stop the growth of women rights, especially in Latin America and Africa. Relatively tiny groups are able to influence national policy thanks to the financial and rhetorical assistance that foreign players provide to their campaigns, which are frequently disguised in terms of morality and tradition. In East Asia, on the other hand, local issues—specifically, demographic decline—are the main cause of the backlash rather than foreign alliances. Despite evidence to the contrary, anti-feminist civil society organizations in nations such as South Korea and Japan contend that gender equality deters marriage and childbirth.
Battles to create progressive frameworks are being revived at international organizations like the United Nations. Conservative blocs that aim to modify or reinterpret the gender language now in use oppose agreements such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the 1995 Beijing Declaration. These players are promoting a different worldview based on faith, family, and national sovereignty rather than merely obstructing new commitments. It’s a deliberate reversal: instead of avoiding gender conversations, they want to control and reroute them.
Civil society has proven remarkably resilient in the face of these challenges. In the US, the Equality Act, which aims to give uniform federal protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, has twice passed the House with bipartisan support. However, the bill has stagnated because of Trump’s overt hostility and Republican control of Congress. Nevertheless, progress is being made. More than 75% of Americans, including a startling majority of Republicans and Independents, support the Equality Act, according to a report released earlier this year by the Public Religion Research Institute. It has received public support from more than 650 groups, including those in the fields of education, health, civil rights, and religion.
Activation at the grassroots level has had a particularly significant influence. More than 30,000 constituents have called members of Congress in 2025 alone to urge them to support the Equality Act. These figures highlight a gap between public opinion and political leadership. Although frustrating, this gap also offers a chance. The purpose of each legislative reintroduction is to raise awareness of the importance and advantages of equality protections. Advocacy groups are steadily changing the narrative by continuing to interact with politicians, moving it away from fear and false information.
These difficulties have a profoundly personal impact on society. Accessing healthcare is becoming much more difficult for transgender people in jurisdictions where safeguards are repealed or banned. Administrative restrictions are forcing LGBTQ+ students to remain silent. In conservative areas, women who disclose domestic abuse or discrimination at work face increased institutional and social dangers. The resistance is as strong as the emotional cost.
Activists are not the only ones who resist. For example, the ruling party’s anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric in Poland’s recent elections caused a youth-driven turnout that aided progressive parties in gaining ground. Some suburban school boards in the United States have started to disregard laws prohibiting inclusive curricula. These local acts of rebellion show that change may still be sown in courtrooms, municipal councils, and schools even while state-level policy may stall or regress.
Inequality in 2025 is not a result of a lack of knowledge or assistance. Instead, it’s the result of concerted efforts by individuals who believe that open societies conflict with their idea of authority. But as history has demonstrated, movements based on justice, truth, and dignity typically outlast those based on fear. Converting widespread public support into long-lasting institutional and legal safeguards is currently the difficult part.
