In early March, the United States found itself isolated at the United Nations when a procedural maneuver led by European countries thwarted a vote on defining gender in strictly biological terms at a prominent global forum focused on women’s rights.

At the conclusion of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, the United States was the sole nation opposing the annual “Agreed Conclusions” of the body. The U.S. expressed concerns that the language used strayed from biological definitions of women and girls. No other countries supported the U.S. stance.

The crux of the disagreement revolved around the U.N.’s interpretation of “gender.” Current U.N. guidelines, which stem from the 1995 Beijing Declaration, do not fixate on a single definition. Instead, they embrace evolving interpretations linked to broader notions of gender identity, as highlighted by EU officials.

The United States aimed to firmly ground the definition of gender in biological sex.

To address this, the U.S. introduced a resolution entitled “Protection of women and girls through appropriate terminology.” This resolution aimed to provide clarity on the interpretation of gender within U.N. policies.

The discussion took place during the “Violence Against Women and Girls” meeting, part of the 70th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, held in New York on March 12, 2026. (Photo by Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The draft states that the term “gender” should be interpreted “according to its ordinary, generally accepted usage, as referring to men and women.” 

The proposal never reached a vote. Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, introduced a “no action motion,” a procedural tool that blocks debate and prevents a proposal from being considered. 

The motion passed, halting the U.S. resolution before it reached the floor.

That distinction carries practical implications. U.N. language shapes global standards tied to development funding, humanitarian programs, education policy and anti-discrimination frameworks.

Bethany Kozma, director of global affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, told Fox News Digital the move reflects a broader effort to shut down debate at the U.N.

The Belgian flag is photographed in Antwerp, Belgium, on May 17, 2015. (Photo by Michael Jacobs/Art in All of Us/Corbis via Getty Images)

“While our redlines were ignored, the United States Government will not stand by and watch as malicious forces misuse multilateral organizations to promote their ideologies and social agendas, obstructing nations’ abilities to exercise their national sovereignty,” Kozma said. “We will always protect women and girls from dangerous gender ideology and affirm biological truth.”

She added that the decision to block the vote was driven by political calculation.

“The EU blocked our resolution to define gender to mean men and women at the U.N. because they feared we would win and they would lose,” Kozma said. “We will not give up on doing what is right for women and girls. Even if we stand alone like we did at the U.N. last week, we will always stand to protect women and girls from dangerous radical gender ideology and always affirm biological truth.”

Delegates attend a United Nations Security Council meeting on Feb. 24, 2026, in New York City. (John Lamparski/Getty Images)

A State Department official, speaking on background, described the move as part of a broader coordinated effort led by European countries.

“These are procedural games that these countries are not prepared for,” the official said, referring to smaller delegations that may lack guidance on complex procedural votes.

The official said the maneuver allowed opponents to block a vote despite what the U.S. believed was growing support. These claims could not be independently verified.

The European Union rejected the U.S. criticism, saying the proposal was flawed and rushed.

“The draft resolution presented by the U.S. was factually incorrect,” said David Jordens, spokesperson for Belgium’s foreign ministry, adding that it “misquotes and contradicts” language agreed to in the 1995 Beijing Declaration.

The United Nations in New York City. (iStock)

“While the EU respects member states’ prerogative to put forward new initiatives for consideration, CSW members should not be forced to rush a decision on an issue of this importance by the unilateral initiative of one member state, without any prior consultations or negotiations,” Jordens said.

He added that “there is no universally agreed definition of the term ‘gender’. As reflected in the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women, the term was understood in accordance with its ordinary and generally accepted usage, without establishing a fixed or exhaustive definition. The United Nations should continue to approach gender equality in an inclusive and forward-looking manner, respectful of diversity. Any effort to revisit or reinterpret internationally agreed language must take place through broad, transparent consultations with the full membership.”