Analysis of U.S. Policy Shifts and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Recent policy directives and rhetoric from the United States Department of Defense signal a departure from established protocols for handling abuse and harassment. These changes, which appear to endorse aggression, pose a significant threat to the advancement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). This report analyzes the implications of these developments on both military and civilian populations, highlighting the erosion of protections for victims of sexual violence and the weakening of institutional accountability.

Threats to SDG 5: Gender Equality

Rhetoric Normalizing Gender-Based Violence

Statements by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth promoting an end to “walking on eggshells” and the expunging of infractions from the records of “tough” leaders directly challenge the principles of SDG 5. This rhetoric risks normalizing a culture of impunity for sexual harassment and violence, undermining global efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls (Target 5.2). The endorsement of “violent masculinity” as policy creates an environment where gender-based discrimination and violence can flourish, impeding progress toward gender equality within institutional frameworks.

Statistical Evidence of Systemic Issues

The prevalence of sexual assault within the U.S. military underscores the urgency of upholding SDG 5. Data from the Department of Defense’s 2024 sexual assault report reveals a persistent crisis:

• 2024: 8,195 reported assaults.
• 2023: 8,515 reported assaults.

Furthermore, an estimated 24 percent of women and 1.9 percent of men in the active-duty military reported being sexually assaulted during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These figures indicate a systemic failure to protect personnel, a core component of creating safe and inclusive institutions as envisioned by the SDGs.

Erosion of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

Weakening Access to Justice

The proposed overhaul of protocols for handling hazing and abuse allegations threatens to dismantle mechanisms for justice, in direct opposition to SDG 16.3, which aims to ensure equal access to justice for all. The historical and ongoing use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, as seen in conflicts like that in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), illustrates the devastating consequences when accountability is absent. The low conviction rates for sexual violence within the U.S. further exemplify a weak justice system:

• Across the United States, fewer than 4 percent of reported rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse cases result in a conviction.
• In Chicago, Black victims of sex crimes face the lowest conviction rates, highlighting a failure to provide inclusive and effective justice (a key tenet of SDG 16).

Politicization of Security Institutions

Presidential statements suggesting the use of the National Guard for training in U.S. cities, framed as combating an “invasion from within,” risk politicizing security institutions and targeting marginalized communities. This approach contravenes the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels (Target 16.6). Reports from the ACLU and the National Women’s Law Center confirm that sexual assault by law enforcement is a systemic problem that disproportionately affects these communities, further eroding public trust and institutional integrity.

Compounding Effects on SDG 3 and SDG 10

Disruption of Health Services and Support Systems

The achievement of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) is jeopardized by recent federal government actions. The halting of grant funding for domestic violence and sexual assault organizations has severe consequences:

1. It cripples the ability of civil society organizations to provide essential physical and mental health support to survivors, including specialized programs for military communities.
2. It disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations who rely on these services, thereby increasing inequalities in access to care and justice.
3. The funding freeze represents the second such disruption this year from the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, indicating a pattern of de-prioritizing survivor support systems.

Conclusion: A Call for Alignment with Global Goals

The policy shifts and rhetoric documented within the U.S. administration demonstrate a clear divergence from the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals. By endorsing aggression, weakening judicial accountability, and defunding essential support services, these actions undermine progress on gender equality, justice, health, and inequality reduction. To realign with global commitments, leadership must prioritize policies that protect survivors and foster a culture of accountability, thereby strengthening the institutions responsible for ensuring peace and safety for all citizens.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  The article’s central theme is sexual violence, which is a significant barrier to gender equality. It discusses sexual assault within the U.S. military, its use as a weapon of war internationally (e.g., in the Democratic Republic of Congo), and the impact of rhetoric that glorifies aggression and patriarchy. These issues directly relate to the goal of eliminating violence against women and girls.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article extensively covers failures within institutions responsible for justice and security. It highlights the overhaul of military protocols for handling abuse, the expunging of records for offenders, extremely low conviction rates for sexual crimes (“less than 4 percent convictions”), and sexual assault perpetrated by law enforcement. Furthermore, it discusses the halting of grant funding for victims’ services, which weakens the institutional support systems for survivors. The recognition of conflict-related sexual violence as a war crime also ties directly to this goal.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article points out that the failures of the justice system disproportionately affect marginalized communities. It explicitly states that “sexual assault by law enforcement is prevalent… and primarily targets marginalized communities” and that “Black victims of sex crimes in Chicago have the lowest conviction rates.” This highlights an inequality of outcome within the justice system based on race, which is a core concern of SDG 10.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 5: Gender Equality

  • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including… sexual and other types of exploitation.

    This is the most relevant target. The article provides specific data on sexual assaults in the U.S. military (8,195 in 2024), discusses sexual assault as a “weapon during war” in conflicts like the one in the DRC, and addresses sexual violence by law enforcement within the U.S.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

    The article’s focus on sexual violence as a “pervasive problem” both domestically and in conflict zones directly addresses the need to reduce violence.

  • Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.

    The article mentions that “child sex abuse cases” are among those with extremely low conviction rates, connecting the issue to this target.

  • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

    The article critiques the justice system’s failures, citing that “less than 4 percent” of reported sexual violence cases result in convictions. It also mentions the plan to expunge the records of military leaders with past infractions, which undermines the rule of law and access to justice for survivors.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory… policies and practices.

    The article highlights a significant inequality of outcome in the justice system, noting that “Black victims of sex crimes in Chicago have the lowest conviction rates.” This points to a systemic failure to provide equal justice, which this target aims to address.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for Target 5.2 (Eliminate violence against women and girls)

  • Number of reported sexual assaults: The article provides specific figures from the Department of Defense report, such as “8,195 assaults occurred in 2024” and “8,515 took place in 2023.”
  • Prevalence of sexual assault among specific populations: The article states that during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “an estimated 24 percent of women and 1.9 percent of men in active-duty U.S. military reported being sexually assaulted.”
  • Number of victims of conflict-related sexual violence receiving services: The article mentions that “Doctors Without Borders treated 7,400 victims and survivors of conflict-related sexual assault in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between January and April 2025.”

• Indicators for Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and equal access to justice)

  • Conviction rates for sexual violence crimes: A key indicator mentioned is that “The majority of rape, sexual assault and child sex abuse cases reported across the United States result in less than 4 percent convictions.”
  • Disparities in justice outcomes by race: The article implies an indicator for measuring inequality by stating, “Black victims of sex crimes in Chicago have the lowest conviction rates.”

• Indicators for Institutional Strength and Support (Relevant to SDG 5 & 16)

  • Availability of government funding for victim support services: The article points to the “halting grant funding for hundreds of domestic violence and sexual assault victims’ organizations” as a negative indicator of institutional support.
  • Policies regarding accountability for perpetrators: The plan to have the records of “‘tough’ leaders with past infractions… expunged” serves as a qualitative indicator of weakening accountability within institutions.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: msmagazine.com