feminism

In an era of global polarization and escalating crises, the promise of a Feminist Foreign Policy (FFP) has emerged as a beacon of progressive change. Yet, a troubling paradox lies at its heart: while political support holds steady, the financial backbone of the movement—women’s rights organizations—faces a “life-threatening” funding crisis. In an exclusive multi-respondent Q&A, experts from the Feminist Foreign Policy Collaborative—Katie Whipkey, Spogmay Ahmed, and Beth Woroniuk—break down the alarming data from their latest report and outline the path from minimalist commitments to a truly transformative global agenda.

1. The Rhetoric-Reality Gap: A “Life-Threatening” Divide

Your report’s data reveals a world where support for FFP is growing, yet funding for women’s rights organizations is in “urgent alarm.” How do you explain this gap?

Katie Whipkey: The report found that feminist foreign policy is not experiencing the rollback that we might have expected during this time of deep polarization and gender backlash. However, to say that it is growing may not be quite right—the interest is holding steady. That gives us a lot of hope. FFP has enabled governments to double down on existing commitments to gender equality in multilateral spaces and push for more gender-inclusive language. However, when it comes to the tougher structural issues like funding, especially for non-traditional funding targets such as women’s rights organizations (WROs), we see a gap. The brash reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) and the continually miniscule funding for WROs is alarming. ODA dropped 9% in 2024 and is predicted to fall up to 17% in 2025. Many of the biggest ODA donors are FFP governments, and they are cutting development budgets while simultaneously increasing military spending. This is life-threatening as 90% of WROs in crisis contexts report disrupted operations due to funding cuts. So what we see is that gender equality has been better rhetorically mainstreamed while remaining fiscally marginalized.

Beth Woroniuk: This gap is not new. There has always been a huge divide between the statements of support for gender equality on the part of the development assistance donors, and their actual support for women’s rights organizations. Between 2014 and 2023, just 0.1 per cent of ODA reached women’s rights and women-led organisations directly. Another example: financing to support the implementation of the women, peace and security agenda has ‘failed to match the scale of the challenge.’ The hope was that countries with feminist foreign policies would start to reverse this trend. And we saw this start to happen. Unfortunately this momentum is threatened by the current trend to slash development assistance budgets.

2. Resisting Backlash: The Second Generation of FFP

We’ve seen high-profile FFP abandonments in Europe and the Americas. Where are you seeing the most effective resistance to this backlash, and what does that resistance look like on the ground?

Katie Whipkey: Resistance to backlash takes several forms. Perhaps the single strongest form is from within through institutionalization of as many elements of FFP as possible. When we move away from political feminism—declarations or speeches that can be reversed overnight—and toward institutional feminism—incorporating inclusive and responsive policy into laws, budgets, bureaucracies, and diplomatic culture—we have a chance to stave off conservative pushback. This is the second generation of FFP, where the architecture outlasts the architects. The report identifies five mechanisms for institutionalization: policy, through legislative or administrative provisions; architecture, through dedicated departments; budgetary, through earmarked funds; leadership, through dedicated high-level roles; and capacity, through staff training. Resistance also looks like feminist bureaucrats and civil servants quietly keeping feminist norms alive through budget tagging and gender audits even when political leadership changes.

Spogmay Ahmed: While our report identifies FFP abandonments across Europe and the Americas, it also points out that engagement in FFP discourse—primarily by civil society—has deepened and diversified. For example, our own Global Partner Network for Feminist Foreign Policy has grown from 14 to over 100 partners. Over the past few years, regional networks have launched and expanded. Likewise, academic coverage has greatly increased. While there is no shortage of skepticism, our report demonstrates that interest has persisted, evolved and broadened. That too is one form of resistance.

3. Following the Money: Where Gender-Focused Aid Really Goes

The data shows FFP countries give more gender-focused aid, but the actual amount reaching women’s rights organizations is “miniscule.” Where is the money actually going, and how can it be redirected?

Beth Woroniuk: Development assistance that is counted as ‘gender focused’ supports a wide variety of goals and is provided to governments, international organizations, private sector companies, and NGOs. The vast majority of this funding is for projects that have just one component that supports gender equality, while a small percentage supports projects that directly target gender equality objectives. Traditionally, women’s rights organizations have been seen as too small and too risky to be chosen as key ‘implementors.’ In recent years, new mechanisms have emerged to address these challenges. For example, women’s and feminist funds have mobilized both development assistance and philanthropic resources to provide core, flexible, and predictable funding. These funds allow bilateral assistance entities to reduce the high transaction costs involved in providing multiple small grants.

4. Protecting Resources: A Political Choice

The report’s 5R framework highlights “Resources” as a key pillar. With major donors cutting Official Development Assistance (ODA), how can FFP countries practically “ring-fence” and protect funding for gender equality?

Beth Woroniuk: Protecting development assistance funding for gender equality is a political choice. When ODA budgets are cut, choices have to be made about what programmes are reduced or eliminated. At this moment, governments have an opportunity to say ‘we stand for gender equality and we will not cut these strategic investments.

5. Signature Initiatives: Funding Models That Work

The reports mention “signature initiatives” that partner directly with civil society. What is one concrete example of a funding model that is successfully getting resources to feminist movements?

Spogmay Ahmed: In our report, we outline a few of these ‘signature initiatives,’ such as France’s Support Fund for Feminist Organizations, which is allocated EUR 250 million over five years. Similarly, Canada invested CAD 300 million in the Equality Fund. We point to the Equality Fund as a powerful example of ‘institutionalizing’ feminist foreign policy; by making a large early investment, Canada helped ensure the Fund’s continued global impact.

Beth Woroniuk: These ‘signature’ initiatives all respond to calls from feminist activists to both increase investments in gender equality and change the terms on which this money flows – focusing more on feminist movements and providing more flexible funding.

6. The Power of Regional Partnerships

Beyond money, how are regional partnerships, like the one between Chile and Mexico, proving to be a powerful tool for advancing FFP goals?

Spogmay Ahmed: Our report recognizes a marked increase in regional cooperation. We see this primarily through a rise in ‘South-South’ cooperation efforts. One example is Chile and Mexico institutionalizing their FFP partnership through a memorandum of understanding on FFP, diplomatic training and Indigenous cooperation. Through such partnerships, governments are able to share learnings, strengthen collaboration, and collectively push for gender equality and human rights.

7. True Partnership: Beyond Writing Checks

The report recommends that FFP countries “ally with women’s and feminist funds.” What does a true, equitable partnership look like in practice, beyond just writing a cheque?

Katie Whipkey: We see that true, equitable partnership is grounded in co-creation and power-sharing. It means shifting from donor-recipient models to structures based on shared decision-making. Practically, this looks like feminist groups being involved in decision-making about how funds are prioritized, distributed, and evaluated. Feminists from the Majority World would be viewed and valued as knowledge experts. It also means long-term, core funding that enables spending on administrative and political work – not just service delivery.

Beth Woroniuk: Most development assistance projects are highly bureaucratic. Women’s and feminist funds are rooted in and accountable to feminist movements. Working together as thought partners, co-creators, and innovators are promising examples of changing out-dated structures.

8. Learning from Outliers

The report notes that some non-FFP countries invest a greater percentage in gender equality than FFP countries. What can FFP champions learn from these outliers?

Beth Woroniuk: One of the lessons from the report is that you don’t have to have an FFP to invest development assistance in gender equality. There are countries supporting key initiatives who haven’t adopted this label. So one lesson is that all countries can boost their gender equality ODA investments. There can be feminist champions doing solid work, without the feminist label.

9. One Action for Real Commitment

If you could tell the leaders of the remaining FFP countries one thing they must do in the next year to prove their commitment is real, what would it be?

Spogmay Ahmed: Strengthen feminist principles across all areas of foreign policy. This brings us back to the ‘Reach’ in our global framework. I would encourage leaders to broaden the scope and application of their feminist foreign policies, as well as their ambition.

Katie Whipkey: Institutionalize. We need to guarantee our gains by legislating what we know works, including protecting staffing and training budgets, providing direct funding to women’s rights organizations, and mandating regular publishing of transparent progress reports.

Beth Woroniuk: I would encourage countries with FFPs to reach out and engage civil society organizations. Yes, activists are often critical, yet they are also an enormous source of strength and creativity. These relationships can be sources of inspiration, expertise, and accountability.

From Pledge to Power: The Road Ahead

The insights from Katie Whipkey, Spogmay Ahmed, and Beth Woroniuk paint a clear picture: the future of Feminist Foreign Policy depends on closing the gap between rhetoric and resources. While institutionalization and civil society partnerships offer hope, true progress requires political courage—to protect funding, share power with grassroots movements, and extend feminist principles across all areas of foreign policy. As Whipkey powerfully notes, “In a time of backlash, we need courage.” The stakes could not be higher, but neither could the resolve of those fighting for a foreign policy that serves all of humanity.