This year marks a series of significant anniversaries, including twenty-five years since the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and thirty years since the Fourth World Conference on Women and the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. Despite these monumental dates, the 69^th annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69) took place against the backdrop of an uncertain geopolitical context marked by increasing hostility toward and rollback of women’s rights as well as a dire funding crisis for feminist and women’s civil society organizations around the world. The general energy throughout the two weeks of CSW69 in March reflected these complex dynamics, with participants expressing a muted enthusiasm while honoring the accomplishments of the past thirty years and sharing concerns about the current geopolitical and funding climate related to women, peace, and security (WPS) and gender equality. They also called for renewed solidarity and unity to fight back against the rollback of women’s rights.

The priority theme this year centered on assessing current challenges that affect the implementation of the Platform for Action and the achievement of gender equality and empowerment of women, as well as the platform’s contribution toward full realization of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Ahead of this year’s CSW, UN Women called upon countries to undertake comprehensive national-level reviews of the progress made and challenges encountered in implementing the Platform for Action, including assessments on the achievement of gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls. A total of 168 member and observer states submitted their national reviews. This high level of participation indicates a broad national appetite for participation in the CSW and reaffirms that women’s rights remain an issue on which countries continue to engage with.

The CSW is a process operating along two tracks: formal statements and member-state negotiations happen inside the UN building, while outside the UN, feminist civil society groups organize their own events in one of the largest such gatherings in the world. In the formal negotiations, building on the national reviews, representatives from the forty-five member states serving as members of the Commission adopted a political declaration and a multi-year program of work (MYPOW) to set the agenda and priority themes for the CSW over the next five years. The political declaration, adopted every fifth CSW, is generally seen as a less significant document than the “Agreed Conclusions,” which is negotiated at the annual sessions of the Commission and sets out an analysis of the year’s priority theme and outlines concrete recommendations.

In a closed-door roundtable hosted at the International Peace Institute (IPI), some member-state representatives gathered ahead of the negotiations and discussed the need to strike a balance between ambition and caution amid the need to push forward on gender equality at a time of heightened pushback on women’s rights. Despite initial concerns going into the negotiation process, the CSW adopted a political declaration that was stronger than anticipated, and while there are some key omissions, it includes language that marks a step forward for women’s rights. The MYPOW is usually not a contentious negotiation, but given the dynamics around gender this year, there were debates around what the CSW should focus on in the future.

Despite concerns around a member state with a historically poor record on women’s rights playing the role of chair of the CSW, member-state representatives commended Saudi Arabia’s actions as chair. The chair’s role is particularly important to the negotiations, as seen in previous years. Despite political pressure from conservative member states, Saudi Arabia remained focused on fair procedures. Specifically, ahead of the negotiations, some member-state representatives expressed concern over having to debate previously agreed language, but Saudi Arabia did not allow these debates to derail the substantive negotiations. Member states also praised Costa Rica for its active engagement as vice-chair in ensuring productive discussions during the negotiations.

The resulting political declaration contains more detailed language on violence against women, specifically through the inclusion of language on both sexual and gender-based violence and sexual violence in conflict. Language related to conflict often receives pushback from conservative member states because they think deliberations around conflict should only be done through the UN Security Council. Additionally, the political declaration included language to ensure that all victims and survivors of all forms of violence against women have access to social and healthcare services. The text also has stronger language on eliminating violence that occurs through or is amplified by digital technologies like social media and artificial intelligence. Additionally, there is a new reference to maternal and menstrual health. These additions, among others, largely represent wins and progress in terms of advancing women’s rights and promoting gender equality, and they emerged because of the relentless campaigning by women’s civil society and feminist activists and the commitment of certain member states involved in the negotiations.

Negotiators shared that they thought one reason that progressive language remained in the political declaration was because some key right-wing conservative actors were not members of the Commission this year and therefore could not vote on the outcome document. As such, though they could put forward proposals, these conservative actors had less influence and power throughout the negotiation process. Furthermore, the aggressive attacks from the Trump administration on anything related to gender positioned the US as a “mega-spoiler,” which paradoxically caused other states to be more cooperative on issues that are often major sticking points, as they wanted to avoid appearing aligned with the US and thus overly extreme. These dynamics also contributed to a political declaration that was stronger than anticipated. To voice its opposition to the language in the political declaration, the US gave a statement explaining what language it objected to.

The political declaration did fall short in certain respects. It is missing references to LGBTQ rights, women’s human rights defenders, and sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR). Member-state representatives we spoke to claimed that in the negotiation phase, they were cautious about the inclusion of “family rights language” (language promoted by member states with conservative views on women’s rights). While at face value, protecting family rights sounds like a worthy objective, it is often used to shepherd in regressive, stereotypical, and patriarchal notions of family structures that are harmful to women and essentialize their roles as mothers and wives. Unsurprisingly, conservative countries had a hard line against language on SRHR. To prevent the inclusion of family rights language, like-minded countries strategically relinquished SRHR as a negotiating tactic, ultimately arriving at language that was acceptable for both sides.

The political declaration also includes a new reference to inclusive and equal education, including physical education and sports. The reference to sports gave some member-state and civil society representatives we spoke with some hesitation. On the one hand, harassment, abuse, and violence against women in sports and issues around inclusion, unequal opportunity, and access to sports have been well documented, suggesting that this new reference could be beneficial. On the other hand, there is a growing movement among conservative actors to discriminate against and exclude transgender women and girl athletes under the guise of “protecting women and girls” in sports. If the language in the political declaration is used to limit the rights of a vulnerable and targeted population, it would represent an area of concern. As such, there is a need to monitor developments around this to ensure that this language is not used as a Trojan horse for discriminatory and exclusionary laws.

Finally, while the political declaration did not turn out as bad as some predicted, the accountability language is weaker compared to what was adopted at CSW64 five years ago. The CSW64 political declaration explicitly calls for strengthened accountability for and effectiveness of efforts to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment. The CSW69 political declaration calls for robust accountability systems but otherwise removes the explicit call for enhanced accountability. The Beijing Declaration and the WPS agenda establish strong, feminist normative frameworks, but implementation of these commitments has been slow and inadequate. Women’s civil society has consistently called for more robust implementation and accountability measures to ensure that governments live up to their commitments. Thus, any weakening of accountability language is a missed opportunity.

In contrast to the negotiations on the political declaration, discussions on the MYPOW were more fraught than anticipated. In particular, a proposal in the zero draft for the 2026 priority theme to center on “transforming care systems” was watered down, with the final adopted version of the MYPOW shifting to “recognizing and strengthening care and support systems” as the primary theme in 2028. The opposition likely stems from fears from member states with conservative views on women’s rights, who believe that transforming care language suggests women should not be in “traditional roles” within their families. Some member states mentioned that certain regional groups attempted to introduce new redlines on the final day of negotiations—a move widely considered as being in bad faith—which led to unexpected tensions in the MYPOW negotiations.

On the civil society side, there was the opportunity to reflect on the existing strong normative frameworks of Security Council Resolution 1325 and the Beijing Platform for Action while recognizing that progress and implementation have often been slow and insufficient. To help remedy the lack of implementation, there is a need to engage women’s civil society more meaningfully and give them a central role in policymaking. While this year saw greater solidarity among civil society participants, enthusiasm overall was muted in comparison to years past due to the geopolitical climate. Funding specifically remained a major concern, as countries around the globe have been cutting spending on gender equality initiatives amid rising military spending, with the most extreme example being the US government’s gutting of the US Agency for International Development. Thus, while civil society participants made numerous calls to action, there was a sobering recognition that the ability to implement these calls depends on dwindling resources. At an IPI event focused on “Past Reflections and Future Visioning on the 25^th Anniversary of the WPS Agenda,” several participants raised the importance of strengthening feminist coalitions and increasing accountability to improve implementation of the WPS agenda in such an uncertain time.

If the Trump administration continues to restrict travel into the US, it will become increasingly difficult for civil society participants to attend CSW in the coming years. For example, the Access Denied campaign, launched this year, calls attention to the women and activists—particularly from the Global South—who were excluded from the CSW due to visa barriers, costs, or other obstacles including safety concerns. Broader conversations on revitalizing the CSW will need to address this challenge, with one potential solution being the organization of regional conferences leading up to the larger convening. In the face of an uncertain geopolitical future, the revitalization of the CSW presents an opportunity to regroup around strengthened civil society coalitions and enhance member-state accountability.

Olivia Parsons works the Women, Peace and Security program at the International Peace Institute (IPI). Phoebe Donnelly is a Senior Fellow and Head of Women, Peace, and Security at IPI. Evyn Papworth is a Policy Analyst for IPI’s Women, Peace, and Security program.