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

The Climate Bill Is Here—and Republicans Just Handed You the Check

Climate change isn’t a distant threat. It’s an everyday expense. And for millions of Americans, the costs are already piling up.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

The Climate Bill Is Here—and Republicans Just Handed You the Check

Introduction

Donald Trump ran on fighting inflation. Instead, he’s helped push prices higher—and made life more expensive for everyday Americans. As climate disasters disrupt farms, raise food prices, and strain household budgets, GOP leaders are attacking the science and policies that could help us adapt. From wildfires in California to droughts in Arizona and floods in Texas, extreme weather is turning climate denial into a hidden tax on working families.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pharma Industry and Ballard Partners Dominate the Lobbying Space in Second Quarter of 2025
Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Pharma Industry and Ballard Partners Dominate the Lobbying Space in Second Quarter of 2025

Pharmaceutical and health products companies continued to dominate the lobbying space in the second quarter of 2025, spending $105.4 million to influence public policy. That industry has spent more on lobbying than any other, during every quarter but one, since 2010, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of disclosure reports.

That total was down from the industry’s first-quarter total ($121.4 million) but still 38 percent more than the second biggest spender, the electronics industry.

Keep ReadingShow less
classroom, learning, teaching, class, students

Although the DOE has expressed concerns about declining academic outcomes among marginalized students, it continues to pursue policies that have proven to be detrimental.

Getty Images, Rafa Fernandez Torres

The Trump Administration and Failing Schools

What is Trump’s administration doing to eliminate achievement gaps between minorities, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and children with learning disabilities? Arguably, the administration is promoting policies that worsen these issues. The Department of Education (DOE) has expressed concerns about data representing the declining academic outcomes of these subgroups, but it continues to pursue policies that have proven ineffective and detrimental.

The curricula and subjects taught are being adapted to prepare students for the workforce and provide them with skills to succeed. For example, schools are promoting AI literacy and preparing students for an AI workforce, but the administration is not addressing the needs of students with learning disabilities and varying limitations. Large Language Models (i.e., ChatGPT) generate responses based on datasets of neurotypical users, which do not accommodate individuals with dyslexia and challenges with reading comprehension. Additionally, voice models are not optimized for users with non-standard speech patterns. Students with non-verbal learning disabilities also struggle to interpret AI language, which uses abstract phrasing and indirect expressions, and people with ASD excel with more concrete language and visual supports.

Keep ReadingShow less
Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers Show What a Healthier Democracy Can Look Like

Democracy Voucher

Credit: Tom Latkowski

Seattle’s Democracy Vouchers Show What a Healthier Democracy Can Look Like

In a political era dominated by billionaire-funded Super PACs, voter suppression efforts, and widening gaps in political participation, it’s easy to feel like our democracy is slipping further out of reach. But in Seattle, we’ve spent the last decade quietly building something remarkable: a program that gives everyday people real power in our elections.

Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program is the first of its kind in the nation. And it works. Since its launch in 2017, the program has transformed how campaigns are funded, who runs for office, and who gets heard in our local elections. It’s become a powerful counterweight to the influence of big money in politics and proof that a different kind of democracy is possible.

Keep ReadingShow less