UNFPA has been accused by American
pro-life groups of providing support for government programs which have promoted
forced abortions and
coercive sterilizations. Its charter includes a strong statement condemning coercion. In response to these allegations, the
U.S. Congress passed the Kemp-Kasten amendment in 1985 to empower the president to block U.S. funding of programs deemed by the president to include "coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization". Since its passage, all
Republican presidents (
Reagan,
H.W. Bush,
W. Bush, and
Trump) have withheld funding from the UNFPA a policy known as the
Mexico City Policy. UNFPA provided aid to Peru's reproductive health program in the mid-to-late 1990s. When it was discovered a
Peruvian program had been engaged in carrying out coercive sterilizations, UNFPA called for reforms and protocols to
protect the rights of women seeking assistance. UNFPA continued work with the country after the abuses had become public to help end the abuses and reform laws and practices. Over the course of the George W. Bush administration, a total of $244 million in Congressionally approved funding was blocked by the Executive Branch. From 2002 through 2008, the administration denied funding to UNFPA that had already been allocated by the US Congress, on the grounds that the UNFPA supported Chinese government programs which include forced abortions and coercive sterilizations. In a letter from the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Nicholas Burns to Congress, the administration said it had determined that UNFPA's support for China's population program "facilitates its government's coercive abortion program", thus violating the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which bans the use of United States aid to finance organizations that support or take part in managing a program of coercive abortion or sterilization. The notion that UNFPA had any connection to China's administration of forced abortions was deemed to be unsubstantiated by investigations carried out by various US, UK, and UN teams sent to examine UNFPA activities in China. Specifically, a three-person
US State Department fact-finding team was sent on a two-week tour throughout China. It wrote in its report that it found "no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China," as has been charged by critics. at the United Nations US Representative
Chris Smith criticized the State Department investigation, saying the investigators were shown "Potemkin Villages" where residents had been intimidated into lying about the family-planning program.
Nafis Sadik, former director of UNFPA, said her agency had been pivotal in reversing China's coercive population planning methods, but a 2005 report by
Amnesty International and a separate report by the US State Department found that coercive techniques were still regularly employed by the Chinese, casting doubt upon Sadik's statements. However, Amnesty International found no evidence that UNFPA had supported the coercion. A 2001 study conducted by the pro-life
Population Research Institute claimed that the UNFPA shared an office with the Chinese family planning officials who were carrying out forced abortions. "We located the family planning offices, and in that family planning office, we located the UNFPA office, and we confirmed from family planning officials there that there is no distinction between what the UNFPA does and what the Chinese Family Planning Office does," said Scott Weinberg, a spokesman for PRI. However, United Nations Members disagreed and approved UNFPA's new country programme in January 2006. The more than 130 members of the "
Group of 77" developing countries in the United Nations expressed support for the UNFPA programmes. In addition, speaking for several European democracies – Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany – the
United Kingdom stated, "UNFPA’s activities in China, as in the rest of the world, are in strict conformity with the unanimously adopted Programme of Action of the ICPD" and plays "a key role in supporting our common endeavour, the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms". In response, the EU decided to fill the gap left behind by the US under the
Sandbæk Report. According to its Annual Report for 2008, the UNFPA received its funding mainly from European governments: Of the total income of $845.3 million, $118 million was donated by the Netherlands, $67 million by Sweden, $62 million by Norway, $54 million by Denmark, $53 million by the UK, $52 million by Spain, and $19 million by Luxembourg. The
European Commission donated a further $36 million. The most important non-European donor state was Japan, which gave $36 million. The number of donors exceeded 180 in one year. In the United States, nonprofit organizations like Friends of UNFPA, formerly
Americans for UNFPA, worked to compensate for the loss of United States federal funding by raising private donations. In January 2009 President
Barack Obama restored US funding to UNFPA, saying in a public statement that he would "look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund. By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries." The United States said during the UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS Executive Board meeting that considered the China programme in 2015:During its recent visit, the U.S. delegation observed the positive impact of UNFPA's rights-based programming in China. We commend the Fund's adherence to demonstrating the advantages of a voluntary approach to family planning and were pleased to see – in support of its ICPD commitments – increased provider emphasis on patient rights. In April 2017, the
Trump administration announced that it will cut off funding to UNFPA, on the grounds that it "supports, or participates in the management of, a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization." On 7 January 2026, the
second Trump administration announced that the United States would be formally withdrawing from UNFPA "as soon as possible". ==Other UN population agencies and entities==