Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council

Background

Before its revocation, the establishment of the Gender Policy Council under President Biden played a significant role in reshaping federal policy regarding gender equity and equality. The council's directive aimed to harmonize efforts among various federal agencies, focusing on dismantling systemic biases and amplifying the participation of women and girls in all societal spheres. A notable shift occurred in the Department of Labor's efforts to address wage disparities and enhance labor force participation by introducing guidelines that mandated equal pay for equal work irrespective of gender. This initiative actively fought against structural impediments in the workplace, aiming to bridge wage gaps that disproportionately affected women.

The Department of Education, under the same directive, pushed forward initiatives to break down gender stereotypes, encouraging the participation of women in STEM fields. This effort included funding for scholarships and programs designed to inspire young women to pursue careers traditionally dominated by men. The council facilitated collaboration between the Department of Education and corporate partners to create internships and mentoring programs, providing a pathway for increased female representation in tech and engineering sectors.

On a broader international scale, the State Department was tasked with integrating gender equality into diplomatic strategies, thereby ensuring that U.S. foreign aid and development programs included specific objectives related to improving equity for women globally. This shift was underscored by the promotion of women's leadership in peace and security efforts, essentially aiming to make gender considerations a critical component of international diplomacy and development projects. The overarching intent was to foster a holistic and strategic approach to gender equality, recognizing it as central to achieving sustainable economic growth and political stability worldwide.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this executive order by President Trump in January 2025 signaled a clear departure from the policies enacted under the Biden Administration. A major reason for undoing the order was rooted in a larger ideological pivot characterized by a preference for minimizing federal oversight in social policy, echoed by Trump's commitment to limit what he and his supporters perceived as overreach by the government into private sector and state-run initiatives. This ideological stance prioritized deregulation and a rollback of federal mandates seen as cumbersome to economic flexibility.

Another contributing factor was the alignment of the revocation with a broader political narrative that questioned the emphasis placed on gender-specific initiatives, advocating instead for policies centered around individual merit without government-imposed considerations of gender identity. Trump's approach reflected a shift towards a more traditionalist perspective, wherein gender issues were viewed through the lens of generalized welfare without specific federal commissions or councils dedicated to them.

Furthermore, the revocation could be seen as a response to pressure from certain conservative factions within the political sphere who viewed efforts under Biden to advance gender equity as an extension of a progressive social agenda. These groups argued that prioritization of gender issues could detract from efforts to address other pressing economic challenges. The move to dismantle the council was thus deeply intertwined with a broader recalibration of policy priorities under the new administration.

Winners

Businesses operating within sectors resistant to regulatory changes, such as traditional manufacturing and sectors with entrenched wage disparities, often view deregulation favorably. These industries are poised to benefit financially from reduced compliance costs related to gender-specific oversight and reporting. A loosening of mandates could translate to a more unrestricted approach to wage structuring, aligning with a free-market ideology that minimizes government interference.

Politically, the revocation might resonate with specific constituents aligned with libertarian and conservative values. These groups often see centralized federal oversight on gender issues as an unnecessary imposition that infringes upon state and individual rights. Revoking the executive order could, therefore, translate into increased support from these voting blocs, bolstering political capital in regions that heavily favor states' rights and less federal intervention.

Some segments of the small and mid-sized business community, particularly those without the resources to easily adapt to new regulatory conditions, might also appreciate the scaling back of what they perceive as burdensome requirements. These businesses often argue that compliance with extensive federal policies disproportionately affects their competitiveness compared to larger corporations that can more readily absorb compliance costs.

Losers

The most directly impacted by this policy shift are likely to be women, particularly those who face systemic barriers in the workforce and education sectors. With the dismantling of structured efforts to foster diversity in fields like STEM and entrepreneurship, opportunities aimed at leveling the playing field could diminish, thus limiting progress in gender representation and equity.

Nonprofit organizations that relied on federal guidance and support to advance gender equity initiatives also stand to lose ground. These organizations often work in collaboration with government entities to drive changes in social policy, and the loss of a centralized coordinating body can result in fragmented efforts and reduced effectiveness in tackling gender-based challenges.

Internationally, countries that benefited from U.S. leadership in promoting gender equity might see a reduction in both financial support and moral encouragement. The move could undermine American efforts to serve as a global advocate for gender equality, possibly weakening international alliances and cooperation on initiatives aimed at advancing the rights and status of women worldwide.