Beijing+30: The Global Status of Women

As member states convene for the 69th UN Commission on the Status of Women and commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, please join us for a dialogue on the impact of U.S. policy initiatives undertaken by the Gender Policy Council, the current global status of women and girls, and recommendations for priority actions to advance gender equality and women's leadership globally.

This meeting is part of the Council on Foreign Relations Women and Foreign Policy Program Roundtable Series on Women’s Global Leadership.

ROBINSON: We are fortunate today to have two distinguished practitioners joining us for this discussion. They’ve both been instrumental in advancing women’s leadership around the world. The speaker’s remarks, as I mentioned, will be on the record. I’ll have an initial dialog here for about half an hour, and then we’ll open up the floor to your questions and comments. And I’m just so happy to see so many people here. We will be sure to give the full thirty minutes for discussion with you.

So I’d like to begin by introducing the speakers, and we have here today.

Rachel Vogelstein, welcome. She is associate professor and director of the Institute for Global Politics’ Women’s Initiative at Columbia University’s School for International and Public Affairs. Until January she was deputy director and special assistant to the president at the White House Gender Policy Council. She’s also author of the book, Awakening: #MeToo and the Global Fight for Women’s Rights. Not least, she’s the former director of this program. So we are very, very happy to welcome her back.

We also have, joining us by video, Susana Malcorra. She is the president and cofounder of Global Women’s Leaders Voices for Change and Inclusion. She is also the Carnegie distinguished fellow at the Institute for Global Politics at Columbia. She has served as foreign minister of Argentina, chief of staff to the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and she was dean of Spain’s IE School of Global and Public Affairs. So welcome to you, Susana. I know she has just returned on the overnight flight where she was here in New York last night. So we are grateful to have her joining us for today’s conversation.

What I’d like to do is start with Rachel and start with U.S. policy, both the gains and the losses. I’d like to start—Rachel, you were four years in the White House as the deputy director of the Gender Policy Council. Both domestic and foreign policy purview. I’d like to focus on what you consider the main achievements on the global policy front, but you might also just add what you’d like people to know about your work across the U.S. government. So please, without further ado, Rachel.

VOGELSTEIN: Terrific. It is wonderful to be back at the Council. Linda, I want to begin by thanking you for hosting me for this critical discussion and, of course, for your leadership here. And I’m also grateful to be here alongside the terrific Susana Malcorra, an incredible champion for women’s leadership, and to be with so many leaders who are here in the room today.

So you’ve asked about what we worked on and achieved at the White House Gender Policy Council during the four years of the Biden-Harris administration. And just to take a step back, that Gender Policy Council was created by President Biden on International Women’s Day in 2021 by executive order. And while there had been women’s offices in prior administrations, this was the first time that there was a dedicated policy council at the White House, working alongside the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council on the domestic side, and working alongside the National Security Council on the global side. And that meant that, for the first time, there was a dedicated focus on gender equality and women’s rights issues at all of the tables where policy decisions were being made.

And President Biden really believed in this innovation, this new office and council, to help really put a lens on gender equality through both our domestic and foreign policy. And he charged our office not only with coordinating internally in the White House but also with coordinating across the entire set of federal departments and agencies. And the same executive order that created the Gender Policy Council also mandated the development of our country’s first-ever National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality. And there had been other countries that had issued gender strategies that guided the work of government policy, but the U.S. had never had that before.

And the strategy itself articulated ten strategic priorities that really run the range of gender equality issues from women’s economic and political participation to participation in peace and security processes, addressing gender-based violence, and then charged the Gender Policy Council with coordinating to implement that strategy. So that new infrastructure was a really significant step forward. And the rationale, the reason that the president and the vice president chose to elevate gender equality in our foreign and domestic policy, is really because of the recognition that the status of women and girls, both in the U.S. and globally, is inextricably interlinked with prosperity, stability, and security—the chief objectives that we were working on.

And we know that is true from the important research, Linda, that you and others have done here at CFR, but also elsewhere, which really confirms that when women have equal opportunities to participate in the economy that economies grow, that education rates improve, that health outcomes improve, and that political and civilian and violence decline. So that strong evidence explains why the Biden-Harris administration elevated this issue in our domestic and foreign policy, including by doubling our foreign assistance focused on gender equality, from 1.3 to 2.6 billion (dollars). President Biden made that commitment early on in the administration, and then we worked together across the government to reach that ambitious target. And the reason was that doing so really reaps substantial returns for prosperity, stability, and security around the world.

So it was with that strategic imperative in mind that we focused on making progress in a few key areas. The first that we prioritized was women’s economic participation, both to improve economic security for women and their families but also to strengthen entire economies. And there’s really strong evidence, Linda, you know this well, that when women participate in the labor force not only do families prosper, but GDP itself grows. So to unlock this growth we focused on three essential issues that are really critical to unlocking women’s full participation in the economy in the twenty-first century.

The first was access to care infrastructure. So just as people need roads and bridges in order to get to work, so too do they need care for their families to be in place in order to get to work. And so we really looked at this as an infrastructure issue, both domestically and globally. And globally, as part of the President’s Global Initiative on Infrastructure and Investment, we launched something called the Invest in Childcare fund, which was a $500 million partnership between the World Bank and G-7 nations that was focused on incentivizing investment in childcare infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries. And that fund continues to make grants today.

There’s a second issue that’s really critical to women’s economic participation in the twenty-first century, and that’s access to the internet. So closing the gender digital divide is a really critical twenty-first century priority to enfranchise women in the economy. And yet, we know that approximately 260 million more men than women are connected to the internet today. So to help close this gap Vice President Harris took a leadership role and launched the Women in the Digital Economy Initiative, she did this on her first trip to Africa, which then grew into a billion-dollar public-private partnership to support programs that help narrow the gender digital divide. And, importantly, we worked on this not only programmatically but also through policy. So the U.S. led in the G-20 the adoption of a concrete target by G-20 nations, in partnership with the Indian government that was hosting the G-20 a few years ago. And the target was to cut the gender digital divide in half by 2030. So we have a group of nations that are now working in partnership to achieve that important goal.

And then a third gap for women in our modern economy is participation in green and blue industries of the future—from energy, to wind, to solar, to environmental conservation. We saw that these were growing industries in the U.S. and around the world that often provide very well-paying jobs, but that women remained dramatically underrepresented in those jobs. So to help unlock women’s participation and economic potential we launched something called the Women in the Sustainable Economy Initiative, which actually, through participation in the COP conferences and the partnerships we were able to form with other governments and private sector, grew into a $2 billion public-private partnership that’s really focused on helping to close gender gaps in the industries that are critical to combating climate change.

So we did a lot of work on women’s economic participation. And we also prioritized combating gender-based violence. So the same executive order that created the Gender Policy Council also mandated the development of our first-ever National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, as well as an update to our U.S. Strategy to Prevent Gender-Based Violence Globally. And it was under these strategies that we took really significant strides forward. So President Biden issued an historic presidential memorandum to help increase accountability for conflict-related sexual violence. It used to be that that was one of many factors that could be considered in the imposition of sanctions or visa restrictions. And we changed the policy to make it so that it is possible now under U.S. law to impose consequences on the—solely on the basis of commission of conflict-related sexual violence.

And under that new policy, the U.S. issued its first-ever dedicated tranche of sanctions focused on that particular human rights abuse. So that was a big step forward in terms of accountability. And we were able to partner with other governments in that effort. We also focused on addressing new and twenty-first century forms of gender-based violence, specifically that are happening online. And I know you’ve written a lot about this in your work. Online harassment and abuse, which is disproportionately targeted at women leaders and therefore chills their participation in public life. We launched a Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse to address the range of harms—from doxxing, to targeted disinformation campaigns, to deepfake nonconsensual intimate images—all of which threaten women’s participation in public life, and therefore undermine democracy.

And we amplified efforts to close the gender gap in women’s leadership. And I know you’re such a champion on this issue, as is my colleague, Susana Malcorra. We focused on addressing the gross underrepresentation of women still today in positions of power, in governments and in peace and security processes. And you know well the statistics. You know, still only about twenty-six women who are heads of state out of 193 countries. In 2025, women comprising only 25 percent of legislators nationally around the world. So we launched an initiative called Women Lead, which was squarely focused on closing this gap, and worked with over thirty partners, other governments, civil society, multilateral organizations, to support programs that build the pipeline of women leaders and address some of the most significant barriers that they face.

So that’s an overview of some of our biggest accomplishments and where we really focused our efforts during the Biden-Harris administration around the world. I’m happy to talk about what we did here at home too. And I recognize that we have a lot to get to.

ROBINSON: Yes. I think we’ll leave that to the Q&A. But I’d like to, before we close out the U.S. policy discussion, talk a little bit about what has been lost, that we know of. And I’d like to go with you first, Rachel, to just highlight a couple of things. As you were mentioning, many of your initiatives had private sector partners, NGO partners, multilateral partners. And we’ll go into our next block of discussion to talk about the global status and what we think are the pressing priorities. But I’d like to just ask you to highlight some of the costs as the new administration has come in—what we know may be continuing, what may be definitely not.

And then, Susana, I’d like you to come in and really respond to both of Rachel’s points—the contributions made over the last four years. You want to signal something that you think has been particularly impactful in the area that you have followed, or location, or an issue. But also, what do you see as the primary cost of certain efforts being abandoned now? So just do kind of a final round on what we’re losing under the current administration, that we might want to put on the table for further discussion in our Q&A period.

VOGELSTEIN: Well, we’ve seen significant steps backward on programs and policies that are really critical to women’s rights and to gender equality, both here in the U.S. and around the world, in just the seven or so weeks of this new administration. So on the president’s first full day in office he issued an executive order repealing the White House Gender Policy Council, and also issued an executive order under the guise of repealing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives—which has really swept up a lot of the work that I just outlined. So, for example, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has issued policy guidance warning against reliance on the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, and even warning against reliance on the National Plan to End Gender-Based Violence, which is really, if you read it, not about diversity, equity, and inclusion. It’s about addressing gender-based violence, which is a problem that persists both here in the U.S. and globally.

We’ve seen on the domestic side the repeal of policies to protect women’s reproductive health, to protect civil rights and antidiscrimination law in the workplace. We’ve seen an attempted freeze on government grants and loans, which then pause support for women and families, including in domestic violence nonprofits. And I think we’ve also seen, in terms of women’s leadership, that some of the historic firsts that we achieved in the last administration—which had the first-ever gender balanced Cabinet in our nation’s history and the first woman ever to serve as commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, which made her the first woman ever to lead a major branch of the U.S. military—we saw her fired in that first week of President Trump taking office, giving her only three hours’ notice to leave. And we saw also the termination of the first woman to serve as the chief of naval operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So the number of women leaders, we have seen a change in this time period.

And then I think the most significant challenges we’ve seen have really been on the foreign policy and national security side. In prior administrations there has been continuity, largely, in terms of support for foreign assistance and the work that we do around the world. And much of the work that I talked about was supported through our foreign assistance funding. And, as I’m sure you all are aware, given the freeze and then the evisceration of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is responsible for implementing much of the work that I talked about on the global side, that has had a really profound effect.

So on global health the freeze really halted the lifesaving maternal and child health programs that the U.S. previously supported around the world. In Ghana, in Syria, across sub-Saharan Africa we’ve seen the freeze interfere with efforts to reduce transmission for HIV, which has particular effects on women and girls, as well as malaria. We’ve seen education funding terminated or frozen, and even in places like Afghanistan, at a time when girls are prohibited from schooling after the sixth grade. Humanitarian aid, gender-based violence, and the list goes on.

ROBINSON: So the list goes on, yes. And I want to turn to Susana now to just make some brief comments about U.S. policy across these two administrations. I understand it’s early days now. And I think we should put some caution. There are some efforts in the courts now. I think that some funds that Congress did approve, appropriate, and obligate will be forced to come forward. But the picture going forward is probably much grimmer. But, Susana, on both the plus and the minus column, could you just give us some initial thoughts about U.S. policy before we turn to the global status, and what we see the global community doing? Thank you, and welcome again.

MALCORRA: Thanks, Linda. Thanks for inviting me. And sorry I cannot be there. But Rachel and I were there in my last event yesterday. So I did my very best.

First of all, let me briefly say what GWL Voices is. You know, this is an association where we are almost eighty women. All of us have held very senior positions in the multilateral system at large, not only the U.N. but the whole of the system, or in our governments, related to foreign policy. So it’s a very senior group of women who look at the impact of the multilateral system, what the multilateral system does to further policies that are critical from the lens of women. So we look at policies through the lens of women and with a particular focus on women leadership. So that’s our work. And through those perspectives it’s that we relate not only to other associates in civil society, but also to governments.

And it is—it goes without saying that in the realm of the local governance, the role of the U.S. can be very conducive, or—and helpful, or can turn to be a difficult challenge. So that’s the reality of the U.S., the weight of the U.S. That’s what the U.S. represents to the world. So we work very closely, as GWL Voices, and as we worked with Rachel and others in the past four years, to promote especially the questions related to leadership that she mentioned in her introduction. So that was something that we really bet on. We also work on questions related to technology and the engagement of women in technology, because that has such an impact on potential new opportunities. We see economic empowerment as a key driver for women to really find their space throughout the world.

So that was a very important step for the work that we do within the global governance system. Changes in that have an impact. And you rightly said it. It’s early on. We just need to be cautious. But the first signals give us concern. Give us concern, because the impact, particularly at the grassroots level, that some of these cuts or potential cuts could have really represent a very, very negative and very worrisome trend. So we still believe that there is an opportunity to engage. And we will talk about the global aspects shortly. And we hope to be able to work with partners within the U.S. administration to highlight why some of these lines of work are so important and so enabling, not only for women but for societies, and for the sustainability and development of those societies. So that’s where we stand.

ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to conduct two more rounds before we open up. And what I’d like to do, as you’ve already, both of you, laid out, there’s a very strong business case for investing in women. And I think the word “investment” is really appropriate. The World Bank ratified the earlier McKinsey report that we were all used to citing. Global GDP can double in a decade if some of these investments are made. And of course, the economic line of effort, possibly the conflict-related sexual violence effort, there may be some pieces. But we are clearly seeing signals that a lot of efforts are falling by the wayside.

So what I would like to turn to now is what can we expect from the global community and the multilateral structure? Of course, we’re here with the Commission on the Status of Women. It put out a new declaration, Beijing+30, basically ratifying the commitment to the twelve lines of effort laid out back in 1995, but not with new meat on the bones. Although—and we’re going to have—the second round I want to have solely about women’s political leadership, because there is some new news there. But I think it’s very important for us to just identify who are the key actors on the world stage who can maybe come to the rescue right now with both funding, programmatic help, and leadership.

And I might, on this round, start with you, Susana, to just ask you—you put out a call. Your GWL organization put out a call. And in one of the items that you asked the commission to take on you said, what about regional hubs for the CSW structure? That struck me as perhaps a good innovation to try to find regional leaders who would carry forward. But I’d just like you to comment on where do you see the critical areas of need and some potential global partners to backfill what we’re losing. And then I’ll come to you with the same question.

MALCORRA: Thanks, Linda.

And in fact, we believe that CSW is a key tool within the toolbox that we have, you know? And people are calling for a new approach within the U.N. system. People are calling for renewed commitments, different ways of doing work. We deeply believe that CSW can really make a difference. And in fact, that was something that came out of the Pact of the Future, you know, this possibility of CSW getting to a different status, that will allow to be—to have more teeth. Because in the end, that’s what we’re talking about. You know, institutions that have more teeth. So that’s the work that now is being discussed. And you’re right. We decided to put forward some suggestions that could land in concrete steps. And we mentioned, of course, much stronger monitoring mechanisms, because we believe that what we have today is too weak. And to set up benchmarks. You know, people talk about accountability. Well, that is required. And CSW can be an element of accountability. That is important. Greater coordination. Data—more data. Data that it can really inform policy decisions.

But the thing that we felt, and you mentioned it, could make a big difference is this notion of the regional hubs. Why so? First, because of the proximity to the issues. We know the world is uneven. And, yes, it’s true that with a broad stroke we can talk about women throughout the world. But when you dive deep, different regions of the world have different needs, different requirements, different styles of leadership to lead the way. So we feel that probably taking a regional approach to CSW could enhance the effectiveness and the proximity to the issues, so that what is put forward to then define policy decisions is better informed. And not only is better informed, it has more impact. In the end, the proximity can make a huge difference, impact-wise. So among the list of things that we suggested, because there are conversations around the revitalization and the change in CSW but there was not a real thread of concrete suggestions. We put quite a few forward, but this is the one that we believe could make a big difference.

ROBINSON: Thank you. Rachel, two minutes on this topic.

VOGELSTEIN: Well, I think there are some areas where we actually might still see progress and common ground. And so I just want to flag those for you. The first is women’s economic participation, which was a priority by the Trump administration in its first go-around. And there was really important work done in that administration, particularly on one of the issues that I mentioned with respect to closing the gender digital divide. So I think—and, of course, the broader W-GDP Initiative was focused in the first Trump administration on women’s economic security and prosperity. So I think that is one area to watch where, hopefully, we could see some of the U.S. work continue.

Also, efforts to combat violence against women. Once again, looking at past as prologue, there was important work done on conflict-related sexual violence. And hopefully that work will continue as well. And then women, peace, and security. You know, President Trump signed into law the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017. The first Trump administration promulgated a national strategy on Women, Peace, and Security under that law. And I think really important work was done on that issue. And hopefully that work will continue.

But there are some areas of concern, of course. And one area that I would point to is reproductive rights. And we’re already seeing a difference in terms of how the global community is responding. So as the U.S. is reimposing policies, like the expanded Mexico City policy, and withdrawn from the World Health Organization, and other U.N. entities. In the past we’ve seen other governments rise to the challenge to fill the funding gap that was left behind by the U.S. pulling away. And so far, we haven’t seen that. And it’s early days still, but I think that there is a great opportunity for other countries to step in, as has happened in the past, for multilateral organizations to step in, and to ensure that the important work that was being done on family planning access, for example, worldwide resume.

ROBINSON: Yes, thank you. And obviously, we want to hear from the group here in just a minute about ideas for this. And I think a burden will fall in the philanthropic community as well, because it’s really about lives being lost.

I’d like to turn now for just a brief final round before we open up on an area dear to all of our hearts, the women’s political leadership. Which, as you may know, has been sputtering along with incremental gains, but it’s really hit the stall. And in the elections last year, only five of thirty-one presidents elected were women. The parliamentary numbers have stalled at 0.03 percent increase, which is virtually nothing. So it’s been slowing down since 2017. And the U.S. Congress had fewer elected than any time since 2011. And two-thirds of the elections last year, fewer women were elected in parliaments around the world. So we’ve really hit an inflection point. And I’m giving talks everywhere I can, encouraging women to run, and especially our younger women to run, because if you don’t have access to that power you can’t shape these policies.

And I would like to turn to start—oh, I wanted to mention. So IPU, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, has adopted parity as its goal. And they were leveraging an October decision by the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination about women. Recommendation number forty issued parity is now the goal. So forget the 30 percent. We’re really saying women should be there in equal numbers in the decision-making tables around the world. And I think that’s one of those bold, concrete moves that helps people understand we really need women to be out in much greater force than they have been. So I will get off my soapbox and hand it to Susana, because I would like to give you a couple of minutes to talk about one of your signature efforts, which is the Madam Secretary-General Campaign, and anything else you want to add, Susana.

MALCORRA: Thank you. Thank you, Linda.

You know, our flagship report, Women in Multilateralism, it has its third edition. We unveil it on Monday—this past Monday. And it has been a very important tool to track where we stand around the multilateral system, the global governance, with women’s representation. And it’s not great at all. In fact, there are nineteen institutions out of the fifty-four that we track that never had a woman at the helm. So it’s a very, very bad signal. And there are quite a few that only had one women. They were the one and done approach, yes, we just ticked the box. So that’s another negative element.

There are some positive signals. One of them is that the senior leadership teams in these institutions now are composed by 44 percent women. So we are getting close to the 50 percent. And I have to say, the efforts by Secretary-General Guterres had a lot to do with this, which shows when leadership cares there is an opportunity to make an impact. This year in particular we decided to focus on the governing bodies of these institutions. And the numbers are really, really bad. In particular, the General Assembly. When you look at the General Assembly, is only 21 percent of women perm reps are integrated in the General Assembly today. And it’s only four times in seventy-nine years—four years since ’79, where a woman was president of the General Assembly.

So you talk about representation in politics, this is the global politics, the international politics. And women are really very, very poorly represented. But of course, one element that gives us hope and opportunity is the fact that Secretary-General Guterres will step down at the end of next year. On January 1, 2027, we will have a new secretary-general. And we have a campaign that we call Madam Secretary-General, because we are persuaded that this is a time to really think about a different leadership style at the U.N., because the times are such that require different approaches to solutions, different ways of coming with proposals. And what more different than having, for the first time ever, a woman representing the peoples of the world, not the men of the world.

So that’s where we stand. There is a strong sense that member states believe in this. In fact, at the end of last year, there was a statement sponsored by Spain, Mexico, and Slovenia in this regard. And seventy-eight countries adhered to it. So we know that more than eighty countries are for the notion of having women candidates. And it’s not women because they’re women. Is women, again, because we can bring something different to the table. When they talk about the idea of stewardship of resources, women do very well in that regard—risk management, bridging, finding ways to talk with the other, finding approaches that are consensus-building. In a moment where there is such a masculine style in leadership, probably having at the U.N. somebody who can think differently is the way to go. And we are deeply convinced that this should be the case.

ROBINSON: Thank you. And, Rachel, I know there’s so much to say on this topic, but if you could give a few choice thoughts. And then we’ll open up for more dialog. Thank you.

VOGELSTEIN: Just very briefly, I think one of the warning signs that we are seeing with leadership is what you honed in on, Linda, which is the stagnation and, in some—by some metrics even slight decrease, in the number of women running for office in this moment. We’ve shared all of the numbers that show the underrepresentation of women in positions of power, but I think this combination of violence against women and girls in politics, which we are seeing manifest both in the physical world and online, is creating a danger of underrepresentation, and potentially even decline, that we really need to pay attention to.

ROBINSON: Yes. And I look forward to our having this discussion with more ideas. But we are—the other figure that everyone tracks is Cabinets. We actually have gone from women holding 50 percent of Cabinet positions in fifteen countries, to nine now. So there are real decline metrics out there.

(Break.)

ROBINSON: So I’d like to end on an up note, and just note that global polls show that a majority do support democracy, three-quarters support equal rights for men and women, and two-thirds support women’s choice. So I would say, go out and be active. Thank you all for your participation today. (Applause.) Thank you so much.

(END)

This is an uncorrected transcript.