The “Hillary Doctrine” is a term used to describe the foreign policy stance of former United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton , which posits that women’s rights and the eradication of violence against women are not merely social or humanitarian concerns, but are intrinsically linked to national security . This doctrine reflects principles she championed both before, during, and after her tenure at the State Department .

The Doctrine

The core tenets of the Hillary Doctrine were most explicitly articulated by Clinton during a surprise address at the TEDWomen Conference in Washington, D.C., on December 8, 2010. In her speech, she declared:

So the United States has made empowering women and girls a cornerstone of our foreign policy, because women’s equality is not just a moral issue, it’s not just a humanitarian issue, it is not just a fairness issue; it is a security issue. It is a prosperity issue and it is a peace issue … Give women equal rights, and entire nations are more stable and secure. Deny women equal rights, and the instability of nations is almost certain. The subjugation of women is, therefore, a threat to the common security of our world and to the national security of our country.

This principle was formally integrated into the inaugural Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review , a comprehensive assessment conducted and published by the State Department during 2009–10. The review prominently featured women and girls, referencing them over 130 times, and unequivocally stated that “The protection and empowerment of women and girls is key to the foreign policy and security of the United States.”

Clinton reiterated this perspective in her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices , which chronicled her time as Secretary of State. In the concluding chapter, she wrote:

… It was no coincidence that the places where women’s lives were most undervalued largely lined up with the parts of the world most plagued by instability, conflict, extremism, and poverty. This was a point lost on many of the men working across Washington’s foreign policy establishment, but over the years I came to view it as one of the most compelling arguments for why standing up for women and girls was not just the right thing to do but also smart and strategic … the correlation was undeniable, and a growing body of research showed that improving conditions for women helped resolve conflicts and stabilize societies. “Women’s issues” had long been relegated to the margins of U.S. foreign policy and international diplomacy, considered at best a nice thing to work on but hardly a necessity. I became convinced that, in fact, this was a cause that cut to the heart of our national security.

History and Analysis

The origins of the Hillary Doctrine can be traced back to Clinton’s evolving public role. Initially operating in the shadow of her husband, President Bill Clinton , as First Lady , she stepped into the spotlight with a powerful speech at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. During this address, she famously proclaimed, “if there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all.” This declaration is widely considered a foundational moment in the development of what would later be termed the Hillary Doctrine.

Another significant milestone was the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 , which addressed the disproportionate impact of conflict on women and called for their increased participation in peacebuilding and security efforts. The subsequent National Action Plans stemming from this resolution further bolstered the framework for integrating women’s rights into international policy. During her U.S. Senate confirmation hearings to become Secretary of State, Clinton unequivocally stated, “I want to pledge to you that as secretary of state I view [women’s] issues as central to our foreign policy, not as adjunct or auxiliary or in any way lesser than all of the other issues that we have to confront.”

The term “Hillary Doctrine” itself was first popularized by journalist Gayle Tzemach Lemmon in a March 2011 Newsweek article. Lemmon quoted Clinton asserting that “the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century.” To underscore her argument, Clinton linked the empowerment of women directly to national security, stating, “where women are disempowered and dehumanized, you are more likely to see not just antidemocratic forces, but extremism that leads to security challenges.”

Lemmon further elaborated on the doctrine in an April 2013 article for The Atlantic . Citing a speech Clinton gave at the Women in the World Summit shortly after leaving the State Department, Lemmon highlighted Clinton’s observation that “too many otherwise thoughtful people continue to see the fortunes of women and girls as somehow separate from society at large.” Clinton argued that extremists exploit this disconnect to perpetuate the subjugation of women, thereby hindering the liberation of entire societies. She specifically identified countries like Egypt , Pakistan , India , and even the United States as needing to improve their treatment of women. Lemmon speculated whether this doctrine would form the basis of a future presidential campaign for Clinton, noting that, regardless of future political aspirations, the Hillary Doctrine had already made a significant contribution to global national security discourse.

In their 2015 book, The Hillary Doctrine: Sex and American Foreign Policy, Texas A&M University professor Valerie M. Hudson and former World Health Organization manager Patricia Leidl delved deeply into the doctrine’s premise. While initially met with skepticism in some academic circles, Hudson presented research, partly drawn from the WomanStats Project database, that established a strong correlation between violence against women, gender inequality within a state, and that state’s national security and stability. Their findings indicated that “the best predictor of a state’s peacefulness was not level of democracy, or wealth, or civilizational identity: The best predictor of a state’s peacefulness was its level of violence against women. These findings cut across wealth, regime type, and region.” The book included case studies examining phenomena such as sex-selective abortion and female infanticide in Asia, the use of rape as a weapon in the Congo civil wars , the experiences of women in the Arab Spring , and the persistent violence against women in Guatemala .

Hudson and Leidl then assessed the foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration , particularly during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State , to gauge its adherence to the Hillary Doctrine. They observed numerous instances of alignment, including the appointment of women to prominent positions, a tenfold increase in funding for the Office of Global Women’s Issues , extensive use of social media to promote women’s empowerment, and Clinton’s direct engagement with women’s groups during her travels. They acknowledged, however, that strategic considerations sometimes led to silence on abuses against women, most notably regarding Saudi Arabia’s treatment of its female population . The authors concluded that while significant efforts were made to establish a regulatory and legal framework for the Hillary Doctrine within Washington, its consistent implementation at the local level showed mixed results, with weaknesses identified in program development, contracting, and on-the-ground execution.

Critiques of the doctrine have raised concerns about “imperial feminism,” suggesting it may be a tool to justify military interventionism and the expansion of American influence. Another point of contention involves the potential risks faced by women who are encouraged to become more active in advocating for women’s rights in Afghanistan , particularly in light of the planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from that country . Hudson and Leidl themselves identified the situation of Afghan women as a crucial indicator of the Hillary Doctrine’s potential for success. Alternative explanations for conflict and instability, such as the Clash of Civilizations hypothesis, democratic peace theory , and theories focusing on environmental poverty and scarcity , are also part of the broader academic discourse on international relations.

Other Formulations

The phrase “Hillary Doctrine” has been applied to various concepts attributed to Clinton, sometimes without her explicit use of the term. Journalist David Rohde , in a January 2013 Atlantic article, discussed Clinton’s interactions with other American politicians regarding dilemmas involving the United States and certain African nations. In this context, Clinton reportedly emphasized that “a lot of the challenges we face are not immediately – or sustainably – solved by military action alone,” advocating for a more nuanced approach that considered populations often overlooked in national security discussions, as well as historically neglected regions. While Rohde’s article explored these ideas, the phrase “Hillary Doctrine” itself may have been a contribution from the magazine’s editors.

In April 2015, James M. Goldgeier , a political scientist and dean at American University , published an article in The National Interest titled “The Hillary Clinton Doctrine.” This piece primarily analyzed foreign policy trends of recent U.S. administrations and offered recommendations for a potential Clinton foreign policy, highlighting the inherent challenges and limitations. The term “doctrine” appeared only in the article’s title.

Clinton herself has not explicitly endorsed the label “Hillary Doctrine.” In Hard Choices, she similarly stated that there was no singular “Obama Doctrine ” during her tenure, explaining that the complexity of global challenges precluded a “simple and elegant road map.” However, in an August 2014 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic , Clinton expressed a desire for a coherent strategy to combat jihadism , drawing a parallel to the containment strategy employed against the Soviet Union during the Cold War . She famously critiqued Obama’s oft-cited dictum, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Analyzing this interview, journalist John Cassidy wrote an August 2014 article for The New Yorker titled “The Hillary Doctrine: ‘Smart Power’ or ‘Back to the Crusades’?” Cassidy interpreted Clinton’s remarks as advocating for “a sustained global campaign targeting radical Islam (some, doubtless, will call it a ‘crusade’) that encompasses all of the options at the disposal of the United States and its allies: military, diplomatic, economic, political, and rhetorical.” Again, the phrase “Hillary Doctrine” was confined to the headline.

Bibliography

• Clinton, Hillary Rodham (2014). Hard Choices. New York: Simon & Schuster . ISBN 978-1-4767-5144-3.
• Hudson, Valerie M.; Leidl, Patricia (2015). The Hillary Doctrine: Sex & American Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press . ISBN 978-0-231-16492-4.