Share & more
Norwegian People’s Aid will turn down millions in US government funding due to wide-reaching restrictions on reproductive health and equity, the mine action group announced, in a rare example of a humanitarian organisation publicly rejecting US cash.
The decision could affect 40% of NPA’s de-mining budget and 1,700 jobs, and will have “major consequences” for the organisation, NPA said.
Few humanitarian groups have spoken publicly about the so-called “global gag rules” since the Trump administration expanded the discriminatory restrictions this year. The regulations, known as the Mexico City policy, handcuff organisations receiving US cash even if potentially banned work is paid for in separate budgets by other donors.
Over decades, the US has repeatedly rescinded then reinstated the global gag rule as the government lurches between Democrat and Republican-led administrations.
“I think it’s an important time to stand up for the rights that we’ve been fighting for – the system that we’ve been fighting for – for so many years.”
Previous versions have tried to block organisations that receive US health funding from providing or promoting abortion care as part of family planning – even if the money came from other sources. This year, the Trump administration has expanded the rules to cover almost all foreign aid including humanitarian funding, and to target gender identity and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“We see that a more rights-based approach is being challenged globally,” Gry Ballestad, NPA’s director of policy and communications, said in an interview. “And I think it’s an important time to stand up for the rights that we’ve been fighting for – the system that we’ve been fighting for – for so many years.”
The restrictions affecting NPA cover funding from the US State Department’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement.
Critics say the global gag rules are an attempt to co-opt international aid along US ideological lines. The US made drastic cuts to humanitarian budgets when it dismantled its aid programme last year, which could lead to millions of deaths, a study published in The Lancet estimated. But other governments are also cutting back – leaving the US as a top humanitarian donor that can shape how and where the system works by sheer volume.
For example, the US has earmarked some $3.75 billion to UN-run pooled funds – roughly 83% of total funds so far, and $3.6 billion more than the next largest donor. It has also promised hundreds of millions more directly to UN agencies like the World Food Programme and UNICEF, or non-governmental organisations like World Vision. The initial $2 billion to UN pooled funds was signed just before the global gag rule’s new restrictions came into effect.
Ballestad spoke to The New Humanitarian about NPA’s decision, its consequences, and what this moment means for the wider humanitarian and development sectors.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
The New Humanitarian: Can you describe the decision-making process: What were the considerations?
Gry Ballestad: It’s been a difficult decision given the implications, the programmes it affects around the world, the size of the funding, all the people that will be losing their jobs, and the impact on the ground. It’s been a very difficult decision to take.
In [2026], the big change for us was that now the requirements are not just for the American funding – not just the mine action programmes funded by the State Department, but it would affect also all our other activities and programmes… This would put limitations on everything we do – not just the American funding.
When we started working with the Americans, these were not the requirements we signed on to – actually, quite the opposite. For a long time, it’s been a requirement that we do take into consideration equal opportunities and all these things that are now a problem.
We see that now, with the change in the requirements, and looking at our core values and principles, that it’s such a big change that we cannot accept it. Because there’s a change in the regulation, we would basically have to change our core values, our activities – really, who we are.
NPA is not just working on mine action. We are the humanitarian solidarity organisation of the labour movement. That’s our origin. Our core values are very much linked to the labour movement. They’re very close to us still. Basically, we would have to change who we are. We would have to change our core values.
We have a big programme in Norway that’s working on search-and-rescue activities, but also integration activities. For example, today we had the launch of our new anti-racism guidelines for our members, and other organisations, on how to work on anti-racism. We have local chapters all over the country, and they are very much involved in integration and anti-racism activities. We couldn’t do that. It would affect what we do also in Norway together with our partners around the world. And it’s not something we can accept. It’s beyond the American funding.
It would affect who we are, how we operate. Of course, we can’t change our identity and all of our activities because one of our donors changed their requirements.
The New Humanitarian: I think what people might not understand is how far the global gag rule reaches.
Ballestad: It’s very broad. For us, it’s very much about who we are. What are the core values of an organisation like NPA?
The first paragraph of our principles… says “Norwegian People’s Aid’s values are based on equal rights for all regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, functional ability, and social status. Norwegian People's Aid is an anti-racist organisation.” That’s the first paragraph. So already there, we’re in trouble.
What’s the game-changer this time: The [US] requirements that came out in [2025] were similar, but they were only for American-funded activities. This time, it would cover all of what we do. You can’t compensate for what you can’t do with American funding with other funding.
It would affect who we are, how we operate. Of course, we can’t change our identity and all of our activities because one of our donors changed their requirements. It’s basically about our political freedom.
The New Humanitarian: Many mine action programmes have focused on recruiting women as de-miners. Is something like that – the US would consider that to be non-compliant?
Ballestad: Yes. When we advertise, for example, sometimes we encourage women to apply so that we can have more of a gender balance in, for example, our management positions. This, we wouldn’t be allowed to do. And we do that for everything. That’s part of our HR policies.
There’s a lot of levels that we would have to change. We can’t accept it. Of course, Americans set their requirements for their funding. But we have to assess if this is something we can accept to remain true to our foundational values.
The New Humanitarian: Looking at the entire aid sector, why do you think it’s important that NPA made this decision? What’s the significance of it?
Ballestad: In the bigger picture, we see that a more rights-based approach is being challenged globally. And I think it’s an important time to stand up for the rights that we’ve been fighting for – the system that we’ve been fighting for – for so many years. It costs, if you stand up for rights. And I think it’s the time to do so.
It’s a slippery slope… Currently, these are the rights we’re discussing. You don’t know what’s next. When do you put your foot down?
Edited by Andrew Gully.
