Carney Shelves Canada’s Feminist Foreign Policy But Little Has Changed |
In November 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that he would no longer describe Canada’s foreign policy as a “feminist foreign policy” (FFP). According to Carney, Canada would continue to support values of gender equality abroad, but do so without the national branding and rhetoric of being feminist.
At its core, Canada’s FFP elevated a wider range of priorities considered central to Canadian security interests including the protection of women’s rights and gender equality especially in conflict zones, pursuing international justice for victims of sexual and gender-based violence, elevating female participation in global peace processes, and providing international support in a manner that enhances the economic standing of women and girls.
On the surface, Carney’s comments appear to mark a stark departure from the approach of his predecessor Justin Trudeau, whose government pioneered Canada’s FFP and proudly adopted the feminist label. In 2017, the Trudeau government launched the Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), which served as the main framework of Canada’s FFP meant to guide Canadian diplomacy and international development.
Carney’s comments sparked significant backlash. Dozens of civil society organizations signed an open letter expressing deep concern over his statement and noted that his comments come at a time of a global rolling back of women’s rights with rising levels of illiberalism and democratic backsliding.
Does the Carney government’s new approach really mark a seismic shift from the Trudeau government’s embrace of FFP in practice? Analysis of the Trudeau government’s policies and rhetoric regarding its FFP in its last two years, reveals significant continuity between both governments. Carney seems simply to have offered a formal public statement on what the Trudeau government had already been practicing.
Trudeau’s feminist foreign policy in practice: Canada’s response to Russia’s invasion
In February 2022, Russian forces staged a full-scale invasion of Ukraine that appears to present the exact type of international crisis Canada’s FFP was designed to address. Growing evidence of sexual and gender-based violence committed by the Russian military against Ukrainian soldiers and civilians has been documented. Civilian infrastructure has been explicitly targeted by the Russian military. Moreover, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova for allegations of war crimes related to unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.
During the first two years of the full-scale invasion, the Trudeau government adopted policies that were broadly consistent with its FFP framework. Canada joined sweeping multilateral sanctions against Russia and pressed for international justice against those violating international law. Canada also committed over $350 million in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and its neighbouring countries with substantial support for civil society organizations working with women and vulnerable populations. Millions were allocated to the UN Population Fund aiming to support survivors of sexual and gender-based violence.
In all, the Trudeau government’s response mostly aligned with the principles and guidance of Canada’s FFP framework, however, an examination of the government’s public statements on these policies reveals something different.
Gendered silences continue
Despite the consistency between Canada’s FFP and its policy response to Russia’s invasion, the Trudeau government was conspicuously mute about the relevance of feminist or FFP to its policy choices.
The government made almost no references to Canada’s FFP or feminist principles in any of its public statements on these policies. There is not a single reference to feminism or Canada’s FFP in any official government statement on Canada’s humanitarian aid policies nor did Trudeau or his cabinet members mention feminism in any of their dozens of social media posts regarding Canada’s response to the invasion. Mélanie Joly, then Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the only cabinet member to make a few scant references to FFP.
What explains this surprising silence from a government that for many years proudly branded itself as “feminist”? Examining the broader geopolitical environment is instructive, as is focusing on what the government did say.
First, on the wider international arena – Canada was not the only North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member to silence its FFP in recent years. In 2022, the Swedish government, widely considered the inventor of feminist foreign policy itself, formally abandoned its FFP. Official communications from the NATO alliance itself, including social media posts, news stories posted on its website, and statements made by its Secretary General (then Jens Stoltenberg) drastically reduced references to “gender” and the Women, Peace and Security agenda (WPS) that it once championed, after Russia’s 2022 invasion.
Second, on a shift in rhetoric – as NATO members began to silence references to feminism, gender, and WPS following the full-scale invasion, they began to amplify messages of NATO as a strong, cohesive military power prepared to respond to Russian aggression. It is also notable that a growing number of NATO members, including Slovakia under Robert Fico, Poland under Andrzej Duda, and Italy under Giorgia Meloni, have governments that are outwardly hostile toward gender equality and the concept of feminism itself.
A prominent and public feminist foreign policy stance for Canada would have not only appeared inconsistent with the new “unified” and “militarily powerful” NATO message but positioned Canada in opposition to the public stances of many of its members that now embrace anti-gender and anti-feminist platforms.
In this way, Carney’s support for gender equality values while shelving the FFP brand does not represent a drastic departure from the Trudeau government in its final years, but instead a formal and public statement of what the Trudeau government had already been practicing. Ultimately, for Carney, the muting of Canada’s FFP while still trying to support some of its values is a wager. Consistent with his approach of “values-based realism”, national branding and rhetorical exercises are to be shelved in favour of pursuing tangible goals that further Canada’s interests. What remains to be seen is if devaluing the role of publicly signalling Canada’s support for feminist principles makes Canada’s ability to pursue and defend those principles more difficult at a time when anti-feminist and anti-gender actors have increasingly attempted to dominate information spaces with their messages.
His recent article, “Canada’s feminist foreign policy amidst Russia’s war in Ukraine: An ontological security approach” is published in International Journal and available here.
Taylor Robertson McDonald’s recent article, “Canada’s feminist foreign policy amidst Russia’s war in Ukraine: An ontological security approach” is published in International Journal and avaliable here.