Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

American Hypocrisy Is Holding Back Global Efforts To End Child Marriage

Hands protecting a child.

A child being protected.

Getty Images, Mary Long

Following recent bans in Washington, Virginia, and New Hampshire, Missouri and Oregon are poised to become the fourteenth and fifteenth states to ban marriage under 18 years. As recently as 2018, “child marriage” remained legal with parental consent and judicial approval in all 50 U.S. states. If you are shocked to read this, you are not alone; the majority of Americans assume it is illegal throughout the country.

It may also surprise you that resistance comes not just from conservatives, who have argued that an outright ban would risk either leaving teen mothers unmarried or the encouragement of abortion, but also from strongholds on the political left. In California, which has no legal age minimum for marriage, Planned Parenthood has argued that banning marriage under the age of 18 would “impede on the reproductive rights of minors and their ability to decide what is best for them, their health, and their lives."


The logic here is that, particularly in late adolescence and when a pregnancy or baby is involved, marriage may serve the best interests of a minor, and that parental consent and judicial approval already provide effective protections against marriages that would otherwise be harmful. There may also be securities inaccessible to unwed partners, such as spousal benefits, leading New Hampshire to recently introduce a bill that effectively reverses its own ban on child marriage for military personnel.

These considerations stand in stark contrast to the exacting lens with which American foreign policy frames child marriage in the Global South. In 2015, the U.S., as an influential United Nations member, signed on to a global target to abolish child marriage by 2030, thus depicting all marriages under 18 years as unequivocally harmful. There is little nuance or appreciation of adolescent autonomy here, with child marriage unambiguously categorized as a form of forced marriage and a human rights violation. Over 1400 organizations now work to end child marriage, primarily in low and middle-income countries, often drawing on both government and private funding from the U.S.

To be sure, child marriages are a rarity in the U.S., making up less than one percent of all marriages, compared to many African and South Asian countries where closer to a third of all girls and women marry under 18 years. However, the blaring hypocrisy of America’s position on child marriage is clear. Until America fully bans child marriage, it is one rule for “us” and one for “them.”

At a recent United Nations panel on the “Successes and setbacks in the global effort to end child marriage,” American hypocrisy on child marriage law was singled out as preventing global progress in passionate speeches by both American Writer Chelsea Clinton and Fraidy Reiss, founder of Unchained at Last, a nonprofit dedicated to ending child marriage in the U.S. If we cannot agree that child marriage should be illegal at home, the two advocates argued, how can we demand legal reform abroad?

As an anthropologist, I am hesitant to support any singular age threshold that universally designates the readiness to marry or the ability to give informed consent. A romanticized view of childhood as a “sanctuary” also fails to recognize that children can only live free from the risk of harm when their wider context has the resources to shield them. Without such protections, minors in the Global South routinely take on dangerous labor, engage in risky sexual behavior, fight in wars, and endure abuse or a high burden of domestic work at home.

Faced with these realities, a growing body of ethnographic research demonstrates that early marriage is often viewed by both adolescents and their parents as the best available option when situated within wider contexts of poverty, early childbearing, and patriarchal norms that afford few rights and opportunities for girls and women outside of marriage. Among the Maasai of Kenya, for example, parents consider early marriage as a relatively reliable pathway to social and economic security for their daughters, while enrollment in formal education is often a risky investment, unlikely to translate into livelihood security.

The notion that all child marriages are forced is also contradicted by the fact that a not insignificant portion takes place via elopement, against parental wishes. Similar characterizations have also been made about the historical prevalence of child marriage in the U.S. when marriage was sometimes used as a means of emancipation from responsibility to one’s natal family. In some scenarios, child marriage can present a rational choice and pathway to mitigating, rather than elevating, wider risks to an adolescent’s well-being.

Such observations do not dispute the potential harms of early marriage but do underline that care needs to be taken as we consider the path forward. As the U.S. critically evaluates whether child marriage should be banned outright, or allowed under certain scenarios, and is currently reconsidering its role in funding international development altogether, it is crucial that policymakers apply equivalent considerations to the capacity for youth to engage in informed decision-making both at home and abroad.

Our shared goal must be to end harmful early marriages globally, rather than to merely export an ethnocentric model of childhood universally ending at 18 years. Comprehensive policy requires not only legal reforms of marriage age but also identifying and targeting the wider structural factors that render early marriage desirable, often quite reasonably so, for many vulnerable young people around the world.

David W. Lawson is a Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a Public Voices fellow with the Op-Ed Project.

Read More

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

Alyssa West from Austin holds up a sign during the Fight the Trump Takeover rally at the Texas Capitol on Saturday, August. 16, 2025.

(Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

From MAGA Republicans to progressive Democrats to those of us in the middle, Americans want real change – and they’re tired of politics as usual. They’re craving authenticity, real reform, and an end to the status quo. More and more, voters seem to be embracing disruption over the empty promises of establishment politicians, who too often live by the creed that “one bad idea deserves a bigger one.” Just look at how both parties are handling gerrymandering in Texas and California, and it’s difficult to see it as anything other than both parties trying to rig elections in their favor.

Instead of fixing the system, politicians are fueling a turbocharged redistricting arms race ahead of high-stakes midterm 2026 elections that will determine control of the U.S. Congress. In Texas, Republicans just redrew congressional lines, likely guaranteeing five new Republican seats, which has sparked Democratic strongholds like California and New York to threaten their own gerrymandered counterattacks.

Keep ReadingShow less
Declaration of Independence
When, in 2026, the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we should take pride in our collective journey.
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

What Exactly Does "All Men Are Created Equal" Mean in the Declaration of Independence?

I used to think the answer was obvious; it was self-evident. But it's not, at least not in today's political context. MAGA Republicans and Democrats have a very different take on the meaning of this phrase in the Declaration.

I said in my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An America Manifesto, that it is in the interpretation of our founding documents that both the liberal and conservative ideologies that have run throughout our history can be found. This is a perfect example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington, DC, skyline
A country in crisis needs to call a truce with its government
Michael Lee/Getty Images

Defending Democracy in the Heart of Democracy - Washington, D.C.

The Crisis in Our Capital

Washington, D.C. is at the center of American democracy. Yet today, its residents — taxpayers, veterans, workers, families, people like you an I, American citizens — are being stripped of their right to self-government. The recent surge of out-of-state National Guard troops into the District under federal order has highlighted a deep flaw in our system: D.C. does not have the same authority to govern itself that the 50 states enjoy.Keith

We are told this militarization is about “public safety,” but violent crime in D.C. is near a 30-year low . What we are witnessing is not a crime-fighting measure, but an unprecedented encroachment on local authority. The consent of the people — the foundation of democracy — is being sidelined to pursue a political or even personal agenda.

The Ethical and Constitutional Problem

Legally, a president can request National Guard support through interstate compacts. But legality is not the same as legitimacy. True democracy requires consent, not unilateral fiat. Under the Home Rule Act, federal control over D.C. is only supposed to last 30 days in emergencies. Yet the use of state-based National Guard units circumvents this safeguard and seems to demonstrate a hidden agenda. This is a loophole — one that undermines D.C.’s right to self-governance and sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.

An Urgent Legislative Answer

It is not enough to critique the abuse of power — we must fix it. That is why I have drafted the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act, which closes this loophole and restores constitutional balance. The draft bill is now available for public review on my congressional campaign website:

Read the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act here

This legislation would require explicit, expedited approval from Congress before federal or state National Guard troops can be deployed into the District. It ensures no president — Republican. Democrat or Independent — can bypass the will of the people of Washington, D.C.

This moment also reminds us of a deeper injustice that has lingered for generations: the people of Washington, D.C., remain without full representation in Congress. Over 700,000 Americans—more than the populations of several states—are denied a voting voice in the very body that holds sway over their lives. This lack of representation makes it easier for their self-government to be undermined, as we see today. That must change. We will need to revisit serious legislation to finally fix this injustice and secure for D.C. residents the same democratic rights every other American enjoys.

The Bigger Picture

This fight is not about partisan politics. It is about whether America will live up to its founding ideals of self-rule and accountability. Every voter, regardless of party, should ask: if the capital of our democracy can be militarized without the consent of the people, what stops it from happening in other cities across America?

A Call to Action

When I ran for president, my wife told me I was going to make history. I told her making history didn’t matter to me — what mattered to me then and what matters to me now is making a difference. I'm not in office yet so I have no legal authority to act. But, I am still a citizen of the United States, a veteran of the United States Air Force, someone who has taken the oath of office, many times since 1973. That oath has no expiration date. Today, that difference is about ensuring the residents of D.C. — and every American city — are protected from unchecked federal overreach.

I urge every reader to share this bill with your representatives. Demand that Congress act now. We can’t wait until the mid-terms. Demand that they defend democracy where it matters most — in the heart of our capital — because FBI and DEA agents patrolling the streets of our nation's capital does not demonstrate democracy. Quite the contrary, it clearly demonstrates autocracy.

Davenport is a candidate for U.S. Congress, NC-06.