U.S. Pentagon Terminates Landmark Women, Peace, and Security Program
The abrupt termination of the Pentagon’s Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) program by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has jolted advocates of gender equity and defense reform alike. This pivotal program—spearheaded as the world’s first standalone national law focused on integrating women into peacebuilding and security—now faces a dramatic rollback. The decision, announced on April 29, 2025, marked a sharp departure from bipartisan endorsements that defined the program’s rise. Hegseth, labeling WPS as a ‘woke’ distraction, attributed its existence to the Biden administration, though it was actually signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2017. Critics point out that this narrative downplays the true bipartisan genesis of the WPS Act, which originally positioned the U.S. as a trailblazer in advancing women’s role in national and international security.
The Pentagon signaled that only minimum statutory requirements would be maintained, with the intent to phase out WPS entirely in future budget cycles. This move reflects a growing trend under Hegseth, who has also discontinued identity month celebrations, such as Black History Month, and directed the removal of what he deems ‘divisive’ books from military academies.
“The WPS Act was the first comprehensive national law dedicated to promoting women’s participation in peace and security, making the U.S. a pioneer in this domain,” the program’s backers highlighted, lamenting its unraveling.
Many public servants and experts are concerned that such decisions undermine both operational effectiveness and American global credibility. The erasure of the WPS initiative, which had been held up as a key Trump-era accomplishment to win over women voters, now fuels heated debate about the future of diversity and inclusion in defense. Notably, the current defense leadership’s rhetoric ignores repeated acknowledgments by former Trump officials—including Ivanka Trump and military commanders—who praised WPS for strengthening military capabilities and alliances. The program’s supporters warn that this step risks sidelining practical strategies proven to enhance U.S. and allied missions around the world. Rhetoric aside, the facts reveal an internal tug-of-war over the true meaning of security and readiness in an ever-changing world.
Backlash and Defense Priorities: Evaluating the Decision’s Fallout
Within the military and broader national security community, the rollback of Women, Peace, and Security has triggered sharp debate. Defense Secretary Hegseth’s assertion that WPS is simply a ‘woke divisive’ distraction from war-fighting fails to recognize the program’s operational value, as detailed by numerous career officers and diplomats. General Dan Caine, the Trump-era Joint Chiefs Chairman, notably praised WPS for providing essential access to local women and children during deployments, generating unique intelligence and improving mission outcomes.
Some see this move as part of a larger campaign to excise diversity and equity initiatives from the U.S. military. Since assuming office, Hegseth has not only ended WPS, but also halted long-standing diversity and inclusion activities such as Black History Month and the removal of memoirs like Maya Angelou’s from the Naval Academy’s curriculum.
Hegseth’s actions are part of a broader push within the Pentagon to eliminate content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion following a directive from the Trump campaign to federal agencies.
These actions appear to signal a prioritization of traditional war-fighting ethos over the total force readiness concept, which research repeatedly shows benefits from a diverse and inclusive environment.
The contradictions are hard to ignore. For years, Republicans—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio (R) and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (R)—championed the WPS Act as central to U.S. diplomatic and security strategy. In fact, the Trump campaign itself touted the initiative as a signature achievement for women and national security—a stance at odds with Hegseth’s current framing. Such whiplash in messaging raises questions about the politicization of military priorities and the sustainable inclusion of proven operational practices.
A number of foreign policy organizations and veteran groups have voiced concern that scaling back WPS not only diminishes America’s soft power, but also sends troubling signals to allies who relied on sustained U.S. leadership in gender inclusion efforts. Where the U.S. once stood at the forefront of global progress on women’s participation in peacekeeping and conflict resolution, it now appears poised to retreat.
Historical Context and Global Implications: The WPS Act’s Enduring Legacy
To fully grasp the magnitude of the Pentagon’s decision, it is crucial to revisit the origins and core achievements of the WPS Act. The U.S. was the first nation worldwide to codify a comprehensive legal mandate for advancing women’s roles in military and security operations. The WPS Act, passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in 2017, was inspired by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, and sought to institutionalize women’s voices in peace negotiations, conflict prevention, and post-conflict recovery.
Past presidents and military leaders recognized that women’s inclusion is not an abstract moral pursuit, but a concrete strategy for sustainable security. The U.S. joined more than 80 countries in supporting the WPS agenda, often leading joint exercises and diplomatic efforts to elevate local women as partners for peace. Even as recently as 2020, Trump administration officials celebrated WPS as a means of strengthening alliances and building trust in conflict zones.
Critics underscore that the WPS initiative was previously praised by Trump officials, including Ivanka Trump, and was regarded as a significant U.S. advancement for women’s global participation in security
—a fact now at odds with its current characterization as an ideological burden.
The rollback of WPS stands to reverberate across the international stage, where allies and partners may question American commitment to inclusive peacebuilding norms. This policy shift risks undoing hard-won gains in both American readiness and moral authority, at a time when the security landscape demands innovation and collaboration. Nonetheless, advocates remain optimistic that the broad coalition behind WPS will continue to fight for its principles—if not through the Pentagon, then through civil society, Congress, and international institutions. History suggests such progress, while never linear, relies on the determined efforts of many committed individuals.