Progress has been made regarding Sexual and Gender Based Crimes (SGBC) in the realm of International Law. This progress has been hard-won and has only succeeded in moving the needle on this issue to a tiny extent. But Trump’s administration is unsurprisingly, shaping up to destroy any small advancements that have previously been achieved. Many of Trump’s picks could have devastating repercussions for any number of international and domestic standards and norms. This is not even debatable; it is the Trump administration’s express goal. And while it is entirely likely that other appointments will have even greater impact on the world in the long term, simply the nomination of credibly accused sexual assault perpetrator Pete Hegseth to become Secretary of Defense, leading the Department of Defense (DOD) has immediately devastating results.
To cover the basics of the allegations against Hegseth: he has been credibly accused of sexual assault (rape – but we’ll get into the distressing and convoluted definitional gymnastics surrounding this word, later,) by more than one woman, numerous reports by currently anonymous former co-workers that witnessed Hegseth’s drunken lasciviousness, his public history of disparaging and diminutive comments about women, and a devastating email written by Hegseth’s mother to her son, clearly addressing his abusive relationship toward women that she has witnessed. Any one of these facts about a person nominated to lead the largest department in the federal government would normally be immediately disqualifying. But it seems clear that none of the standards we thought we had established regarding the morality of people in power exist any longer. From here on out, the United States no longer has any standards for what socially acceptable behavior is, at least regarding sexual abuse. This is an unavoidable conclusion, without even pointing out that the future President himself has been found liable for sexual assault (which, as the judge in the case, Lewis Kaplan, pointed out, would be called ‘rape’ in most other US jurisdictions, but due to the wording of laws in New York where the case was held, could only be referred to as ‘sexual assault’ under the jurisdiction’s applicable legal definitions.) If it was not clear after the appointment of credibly-accused sexual assault perpetrator, Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in Trump’s first term, it is abundantly clear now that being a rapist, sexual abuser, sexual deviant, and/or blatant misogynist is not a negative quality for appointment in a Trump administration, it is in fact, what they appear to be looking for as a qualification.
The idea that sexual abuse is something to be even remotely frowned on, in any context, is clearly no longer a value that the American voting public holds. You may not count yourself among those voters, but if even a third of Americans could put aside the litany of sexual violence allegations against members of the incoming administration to vote for Trump, (and we know it’s considerably more than a third,) that speaks volumes about the kind of society America has become. Going forward, we must be cognizant of the standards our society adheres to and abides. Therefore, we must start from this understanding of our society: Appeals to moral standards regarding misogyny and sexual abuse do not hold water. Period. And through merely the nomination of Hegseth, regardless of whether he is confirmed by the Senate, or via recess appointment, or not at all, considerable damage has been done.
While the US is not a party to the Rome Statute, which is the basis for International Law, the global hegemonic status that the US has wielded over the last several decades has nonetheless had profound impact on International legal standards around the world. The primary reason the US has neglected to even acknowledge the legitimacy of International Law is to avoid accountability for its own actions. This is not a secret or a revelation, it has been a blatant excuse for refusing to contribute to the legitimacy that the US’s adherence to the Rome Statute would provide. But even while eschewing the responsibility to contribute to global norms through bolstering International Law in substantive and concrete ways, the US has continued to play a significant role in the moral and ethical standards that stand as a basis for what the world can agree to abide by. While one can rightfully excoriate numerous actions taken by successive US administrations, on a variety of issues, there has been some expectation that any previous US administration would at least frown upon, if not be appalled by the use of sexual violence as a method of warfare or domestic legal punishment. With the nomination of an alleged sexual abuser, by a convicted sexual abuser, to lead the largest military in the world, there can be no expectation of this base standard by a US government ever again. Sexual violence and discrimination by gender are now what the US stands for. Such a stain cannot be washed away or ignored.
This is why I suggest that even the nomination of Hegseth, regardless of whether he ends up as Secretary of Defense, has forever tarnished the credibility of the US as holding even the flimsiest standards of morality. Any advancements in gender equity that have been achieved have now been severely undermined by Trump and his nomination of Hegseth to the DoD. Hegseth has openly stated that he believes women should not be in the military, which is obviously a tremendous step backward for military readiness and gender equity. His views on women in general show his complete detachment from standards many of us believed we had reached in a society where women are no longer subservient and diminutive to men. So, putting Hegseth in charge of even the least consequential agency or department would be a catastrophic blow to gender equity of any kind. But to nominate such a man to the largest department in the entire US federal government, overseeing the largest and most effective military in the world, instantaneously puts every woman, and every gender non-conforming person around the world in imminent danger.
As I mentioned earlier, the word ‘rape’ is problematic for multiple reasons. The case of Donald Trump’s conviction of ‘sexual assault’ in a New York court is a good example of a much larger, more global problem with the word rape. In New York, the standard for ‘rape’ is grotesquely held to the explicit standard of ‘penile insertion’. This then obviously excludes digital (finger) insertion, which is what Trump was found liable for. This nauseating specificity came up in international law most explicitly in the cases of Akayesu and Bemba, both of which established precedent around the ‘mechanical’ definitions of rape. Akayesu succeeded in doing away with the incredibly specific definition which defined rape as solely the penile insertion into a vagina. This clearly creates the standard that only someone with a vagina can be raped and it can only be legally adjudicated as rape if a penis is used. The conclusion of the Akayesu case did away with such specific ‘mechanical’ language, which was a positive step for international law. But the Bemba case brought the definitional language backwards somewhat by returning to overly specific mechanics of what constitutes rape. It once again, establishes specific body parts that must be involved for the law to recognize an abuse as legally defined rape. But even under post-Bemba standards of international law, what Donald Trump did to E. Jean-Carrol is legally defined as rape. Therefore, under international law, the next President of the United States is a convicted rapist. Victims of SGBC worldwide would benefit immensely from returning to pre-Bemba standards for rape, or better yet, punishing all cases of sexual assault equally regardless of the gender involved or the specific body parts used to commit such abhorrent acts. But even under the current, diminished standard for accountability, Donald Trump is a violent sexual criminal by international standards.
Clearly, International Law has left much to be desired as far as prosecuting SGBC or addressing gender in a comprehensive way for the extent of its existence as a body of law. But even the small progress that had been accomplished rested on the continued adherence and recognition of any such standards by a majority of nations. This is referred to as Common Law, meaning it exists because it is something commonly acknowledged, abided by, and adhered to. With the US having now declared itself a country where committing sexual violence does not deserve shame or even the most minor repercussions for individuals in control of the law and government, every nation in the world has been given carte blanche to re-examine any standards they see fit regarding sexual abuse and the rights of victims of SGBC. Within just the last few years, we have seen that international law has not had the capacity to adjudicate the cases of war crimes and other basic tenets of what were purported to be core international crimes, (ie. Russian war crimes in Ukraine, Israeli war crimes in Gaza, to name only those high-profile examples perpetrated by State actors). And while many have a dismissive view of international law generally, the actions that the International Criminal Court has taken to attempt accountability for those State-sanctioned war crimes was a good sign that the court intended to hold war criminals to account. Now, there will likely never be accountability for these, or any such crimes in the foreseeable future. The US under Donald Trump, and particularly a US DoD under Pete Hegseth will ensure that sexual and gender-based violence are not only unprosecutable but are apparently an attribute to be applauded and rewarded with great power. US voters chose this. They have no excuse to suggest they didn’t know what they voted for. The US chose to be a country that admires perpetrators of sexual violence. This is the legacy the US electorate has decided the world will be subjected to for generations to come.
