On Monday, President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump presided over a bizarre ceremony in the Rose Garden where she made rare public remarks and he signed an executive order, Advancing Women’s Health to Improve Outcomes in All Phases of Life.
He spent five minutes laying claim to his support for women — by pouring concrete over the grass so that stiletto heels won’t sink. And he erroneously claimed there has never been a bolder federal effort to center women’s health.
Never mind that his executive order has the same primary objectives as one signed by President Joe Biden in 2024 — namely, increased research in and knowledge about diseases and conditions that affect women uniquely or disproportionately. Both executive orders make explicit the need to focus on menopause, midlife, and aging, with stated priorities such as Alzheimer’s Disease, cardiovascular and heart disease, stroke, and osteoporosis.
The biggest difference between the two is that Biden’s tied dollar amounts to these objectives: Though the $12 billion he directed Congress to allocate never materialized, hundreds of millions were activated across several federal agencies. Alas, that executive order is now officially replaced with the current one.
The Trump executive order adds a twist: the creation of a new Women’s Health Division within the National Institutes of Health (which will work alongside NIH’s Office of Research on Women’s Health) and a White House Women’s Health Task Force, to be led by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. What it will prioritize remains unknown; it has 90 days to report that out.
All that said, it would be disingenuous of me to bash the entire executive order. There are provisions I believe are objectively good and meaningfully presented — starting with the acknowledgment that the longstanding dearth of women’s health-focused research is endemic to our scientific institutions. Federal funding for it has been chronically and shamefully inadequate no matter the political party in charge, hovering now at 8 percent and never topping more than 10 percent of the NIH budget. I appreciate its explicit call to “translate [research] to clinical and community practice” — we need to move the science out from behind scientific journal paywalls and conferences — and I second the first lady’s remarks that all patients deserve affordable treatments no matter their financial circumstances.
The executive order also aligns with recent initiatives across the federal government — many of which I’ve shared here at The Contrarian and have been surprisingly effective. Last November, the Food and Drug Administration eliminated the decades-old inaccurate “boxed warning” on certain menopause hormone treatments, a direct response to citizen- and clinician-led advocacy. That change has truly ushered in a new era, catalyzing more nuanced discussion and consensus — the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists made headlines last week for updating and expanding its hormone therapy guidelines for menopause — while spurring patient interest.
And yet, as much as I want to mean it when I say this agenda must transcend partisanship — and show up for the millions of women who deserve these hard-won milestones — it was way too large a leap to be in the room where this executive order happened. Yes, I was invited to the Rose Garden. Yes, I declined.
My goal now is to support this executive order while still being full-throated about the harms to women’s health that stem directly from the president’s record — whether by proudly taking credit for the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, codifying punitive healthcare cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or curbing scientific research in the name of torpedoing DEI, to name a few. It is a record at odds with the executive order’s own declaration of his prior accomplishments. Among the dubious claims: “massive savings … to help families grow” by offering fertility prescriptions through TrumpRx.com, though experts agree the drug discounts don’t make a dent in the cost of IVF; and “support for expecting mothers” vis-a-vis the launch of Moms.gov, a website rife with links to anti-abortion organizations and crisis pregnancy centers.
Another important angle I want Contrarian readers to be aware of is the robust set of stakeholders poised to be alternative and trusted voices here: state elected officials. Over the past two years, lawmakers in 28 states have gotten out well ahead of their federal counterparts, introducing more than 60 bills that would accomplish related goals like improving clinician training and public education about midlife health and requiring private insurance and Medicaid to cover menopause treatment. To date, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Washington are those with new laws on the books.
This translates to far more than an improved standard of care for women in those states or even a blueprint others can follow. It means we need not be beholden solely to the Trump administration’s articulation — and manipulation — of this issue now. We can turn to governors, state legislators, and women’s health advocates who all are on the frontlines pushing for similar objectives.
As for me, I am going to take a moment to appreciate the monumental steps forward in delivering on this demand in governmental bodies across the nation, now including two White House administrations — even if it means skipping out on the Rose Garden photo op. Hopefully, I’ll be invited back in 2029 when we have made even more advances in women’s health.
Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at NYU School of Law. She also leads strategy and partnerships at Ms. Magazine.
