logo
Opinion - America still needs the Women, Peace and Security Act — just not Biden's version of it

Opinion - America still needs the Women, Peace and Security Act — just not Biden's version of it

Yahoo20-05-2025
When President Trump signed the Women, Peace and Security Act into law in 2017, it was a pragmatic triumph, rooted in biological reality and strategic clarity.
Championed by Ivanka Trump, the legislation recognized that women and girls, due to their unique experiences — especially in conflict zones — play a critical role in stabilizing societies. Backed by data showing that peace agreements last 35 percent longer when women are involved in making them, the act was no progressive fantasy. It was a hard-nosed strategy to enhance U.S. national security.
Yet, under the Biden administration, ideological overreach distorted the law into a bloated 'woke' program, diluting its focus on women's distinct contributions. It's time to reorient the law to its original intent, leveraging biological differences to advance America's strategic interests and increase our strength and security.
The Women, Peace and Security Act was conservative at its core, grounded in the undeniable fact that women and girls face disproportionate violence, displacement and exploitation, and that this shapes their perspectives and roles in security and peacebuilding. Co-sponsored by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), it aimed to harness these experiences to strengthen U.S. foreign policy, fostering stable societies that reduce threats requiring American intervention.
Ivanka Trump's advocacy tied the bill to her Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, which reached 12 million women by 2019 with free-market tools like workforce training and property rights. This wasn't about social justice; it was about empowering women's unique contributions to prevent failed states that presage poor outcomes, like becoming breeding grounds for terrorism.
The original framework of the Women, Peace and Security Act also resonated with the Department of Defense's practical acknowledgment of biological differences. In Afghanistan, cultural support teams exemplified this: All-female units leveraged women's ability to engage local women and children, often inaccessible to male soldiers, gathering intelligence and building trust in ways men could not. This wasn't ideology — it was a force multiplier, increasing lethality by exploiting biological and cultural realities. Cultural support teams proved that recognizing women's distinct capabilities enhances mission success, aligning with the act's focus on results over dogma.
But that focus has been lost.
The Biden administration buried Women, Peace and Security under progressive mandates: gender advisers, climate security and diversity workshops ignored biological reality in favor of gender-neutral platitudes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's April 2025 decision to end the Pentagon's Women, Peace and Security program reflected this frustration, calling it a 'divisive social justice' distraction. This bureaucratic creep alienates allies, who see such mandates as cultural overreach, undermining the act's grounding in women's distinct roles.
Reclaiming Women, Peace and Security begins with restoring its foundation in biological reality — a principle President Trump recently reaffirmed through his executive order recognizing only two sexes. The Women, Peace and Security Act was never meant to serve as a vessel for progressive social experimentation. It was designed to elevate the distinct and often underutilized contributions of women in peacebuilding, diplomacy and security. That requires course correction, not cancellation.
First, costly gender quotas and United Nations-imposed compliance mechanisms must be eliminated. These mandates divert resources from mission-critical priorities like military readiness and strategic diplomacy.
Second, the program should be predominantly confined to the State Department, where it can strengthen alliances without militarizing a civilian-focused initiative. Third, programming should revive Ivanka Trump's storytelling approach, showcasing real women's successes to build support without progressive preaching.
Fourth, within the Department of Defense, Women, Peace and Security principles should inform — not distort — force design. Programs like the aforementioned cultural support teams, which trained female soldiers to gather intelligence and build trust in environments where male soldiers could not, offer a proven model. These are not diversity programs; they are combat multipliers.
Finally, for Women, Peace and Security to succeed abroad, it must engage men and boys. Women's empowerment initiatives that ignore traditional power structures or attempt to replace them will fail. Cultural legitimacy matters. True progress complements, rather than erases, local norms.
Critics will argue that scaling back risks undermining women's gains. But the original program, which helped Colombia adopt a National Action Plan in 2019, proved its efficacy by focusing on women's lived experiences, not ideological bloat. Others might call for scrapping Women, Peace and Security entirely. Yet abandoning a proven tool — one that recognizes biological reality to boost security and lethality — hands adversaries an edge in unstable regions. A streamlined Women, Peace and Security program, rooted in its 2017 intent, preserves its value while rejecting globalist overreach.
The Women, Peace and Security Act was a conservative triumph — a bipartisan policy that leveraged women's unique experiences to serve America's interests. By realigning it with its original roots, the Trump administration can restore the act's promise, delivering a stronger, more lethal America and a more stable world.
Meaghan Mobbs, Ph.D., is director for the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women's Forum. She is also the military advocacy and policy liaison for the Coalition for Military Excellence. Mobbs serves as a gubernatorial appointee to the Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors and a presidential appointee to the United States Military Academy — West Point Board of Visitors.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Full List of Democrats Who Voted for New Trump-Pick Confirmations
Full List of Democrats Who Voted for New Trump-Pick Confirmations

Newsweek

time11 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Full List of Democrats Who Voted for New Trump-Pick Confirmations

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Several Democrats voted over the weekend to confirm nominees appointed by President Donald Trump, including for the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. Newsweek contacted the Democratic National Committee via online form for comment on Sunday. Why It Matters Democrats appear to be divided over how to approach Trump and his administration. While many have been hesitant or slow to confirm his nominees, several Senate Democrats broke with party expectations by voting in favor of his nominees, which ultimately helped advance some of his picks. As reported by Newsweek, the Democrats' bind over how to handle Trump spilled out on the House floor this week when New Jersey Senator Cory Booker delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, criticizing his fellow Democrats for what he perceives as "complicity" with Trump's administration. Booker's remarks were instigated by an exchange with other Democratic senators over a package of law-enforcement funding bills. The seal of the U.S. Senate on December 27, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. The seal of the U.S. Senate on December 27, 2012, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP viaWhat To Know The official Trump-pick confirmations and the Democrats who voted for them are as follows: Adam Telle: Department of Defense Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland) Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) Chris Coons (Delaware) Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada) Dick Durbin (Illinois) John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire) Martin Heinrich (New Mexico) John Hickenlooper (Colorado) Tim Kaine (Virginia) Mark Kelly (Arizona) Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) Gary Peters (Michigan) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Jacky Rosen (Nevada) Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) Mark Warner (Virginia) Raphael Warnock (Georgia) Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) Jason Reding Quinones: Department of Justice Dick Durbin (Illinois) Andrew Puzder: Department of State Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire) Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) John Arrigo: Department of State Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) Mark Warner (Virginia) Sean Cairncross: Executive Office of the President Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland) Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) Chris Coons (Delaware) Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada) Dick Durbin (Illinois) John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire) Martin Heinrich (New Mexico) John Hickenlooper (Colorado) Tim Kaine (Virginia) Mark Kelly (Arizona) Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) Gary Peters (Michigan) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Jacky Rosen (Nevada) Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) Mark Warner (Virginia) Raphael Warnock (Georgia) Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut) Lisa Blunt Rochester (Delaware) Cory Booker (New Jersey) Maria Cantwell (Washington) Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) Andy Kim (New Jersey) Ben Ray Luján (New Mexico) Ed Markey (Massachusetts) Jeff Merkley (Oregon) Chris Murphy (Connecticut) Patty Murray (Washington) Jon Ossoff (Georgia) Alex Padilla (California) Brian Schatz (Hawaii) Adam Schiff (California) Chuck Schumer (New York) Tina Smith (Minnesota) Chris Van Hollen (Maryland) Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) Ron Wyden (Oregon) Marcus Molinaro: Department of Transportation Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland) Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) Miriam Cantwell (Washington) Chris Coons (Delaware) Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada) Dick Durbin (Illinois) John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire) Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) Mark Kelly (Arizona) Andy Kim (New Jersey) Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) Gary Peters (Michigan) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Jacky Rosen (Nevada) Brian Schatz (Hawaii) Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) Mark Warner (Virginia) Raphael Warnock (Georgia) Luke Lindberg: Department of Agriculture Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland) Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) Chris Coons (Delaware) Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada) Dick Durbin (Illinois) John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire) Martin Heinrich (New Mexico) John Hickenlooper (Colorado) Tim Kaine (Virginia) Mark Kelly (Arizona) Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota) Gary Peters (Michigan) Jack Reed (Rhode Island) Jacky Rosen (Nevada) Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) Mark Warner (Virginia) Raphael Warnock (Georgia) Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) What People Are Saying New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding specific bills: "This, to me, is a problem with Democrats in America right now, is we're willing to be complicit to Donald Trump…to let this pass through when we have all the leverage right now." "We are standing at a moment where our president is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States of America, and we're willing to go along with it today. No. No. Not on my watch." What Happens Next With more key positions still awaiting confirmation, the spotlight now turns to upcoming Senate hearings, where further bipartisan cooperation—or division—could shape the direction of Trump's agenda.

It's the Worst Time To Be an American Farmer in Decades
It's the Worst Time To Be an American Farmer in Decades

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

It's the Worst Time To Be an American Farmer in Decades

America's farmers are locked in a generational crisis, fending off an array of threats that could jeopardize food supplies and spell financial disaster for those often hailed as the "backbone of the nation." "They love their way of life, and they love that dirt," President Donald Trump said this week, in a somewhat off-piste response to a question on the importance of farmers. "They don't know how to do anything else, but they don't want to do anything else." But the current storm of rising debt, declining commodity prices and labor shortfalls has begun to echo the great Farm Crisis of the 1980s and may be testing the love farmers hold for their profession. Farm sector debt is expected to reach a record $561.8 billion in 2025, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, up 3.7 percent from 2024. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has attributed this primarily to increased lending for small- and mid-sized farms. This growing financial pressure has also pushed up bankruptcies. Researchers at the University of Arkansas recently found that Chapter 12 filings-specifically for farmers and family fishermen-reached 88 in the first quarter of the year, nearly doubling the previous year's figure. "Bankruptcies are on the rise and you will see many more on the auction block in the coming months especially this fall," said John Boyd, a crop and livestock farmer and founder of the National Black Farmers Association. Boyd has been farming since the early 1980s, currently growing soybeans, corn and wheat across 1,500 acres in Virginia while raising 150 head of beef cattle. He told Newsweek that 2025 marked the first time in his career that he was unable to receive an operating loan, which provides farmers working capital needed to cover daily expenses, and blamed this on the trade policies of the current administration. "I was turned down by banks for the simple fact of low commodity prices due to the president's tariffs," he said. The higher costs for foreign importers have dampened foreign demand, leading to further reductions in the price of America's agricultural exports. Corn futures, as an example, have fallen about 15 percent since the start of the year, according to TradingEconomics. "Mexico buys U.S. corn, China buys soybeans," Boyd said. "We cannot survive on low crop prices with input costs at an all-time high.I have not seen such political chaos like this, and I have been farming since 1983." A May survey by Purdue University found that a strong majority (70 percent) of U.S. farmers believe Trump's tariffs will strengthen U.S. agriculture-some telling Investigate Midwest that they will help the U.S. pressure China to boost its imports. But according to Caleb Ragland, president of American Soybean Association, the "tit-for-tat trade war"-which has still not given way to a full-fledged deal despite several weeks of negotiations-could see American soybean farmers lose out on this critical market. "Make no mistake, American soybean farmers do stand at the edge of a cliff and will suffer if tariffs are not replaced with trade agreements that reduce tariffs before our harvest this fall," Ragland said in his May testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. "American farm and ranch families need a workforce that is ready, willing and available," said Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers (NCAE). "The shortage of these workers is perhaps the most significant challenge facing U.S. agriculture." "This year, the labor shortfall in U.S. agriculture will exceed 400,000 jobs," he added. "Technology will not fill that need." The California Farm Bureau listed "access to a stable workforce" among the key challenges facing America's farmers, and pointed Newsweek to its recent statement warning that "current immigration enforcement activity has caused disruptions to farming operations." Farms have been one the key targets of the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration, raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) resulting in worker shortages and even rotting crops as the country heads into harvest season. "The president's immigration policies have hurt America's farmers," Boyd said. "Who's going to do the hard work that is required in 100-degree heat and enduring work conditions?" "A significant portion of our domestic workforce is here in unauthorized status," Marsh said. "Congress has failed since 1986 to pass meaningful agricultural labor reform. As a result of that and stepped-up efforts to remove unauthorized persons from the U.S., people on our farms and ranches are frightened." However, beyond the current enforcement actions, Marsh said the issue has been exacerbated by labor regulations, which "expanded significantly during the last administration." "For instance, in just 18 months the Biden administration issued 3,000 new pages of regulations for users of the temporary H-2A visa program," he said, referencing changes made by the Department of Labor in 2024. That, he said, has been "jeopardizing the ability of farm and ranch families to sustain the enterprise but also jeopardizing the safety and security of our people." For the consumer, the struggles of American farmers in 2025 are beyond simply a rural community crisis and carry direct repercussions at the checkout line and dinner table. "When our farmers face persistent challenges, the broader consequences can include higher food prices, fewer choices at the grocery store and reduced access to the variety and quality of food Americans have come to expect," California Farm Bureau President Shannon Douglass told Newsweek. "In the long run, it could also weaken our domestic food supply and make the U.S. more reliant on imports." For farmers, the impacts could be even more dire. "We as Black farmers are facing extinction!" said Boyd, adding that this group has "never really benefited" from the billions in subsidies paid annually by the government. The sweeping tax and spending package signed into law by Trump on July 4 frees up significant funds to support America's farmers. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" will continue commodities programs and boosts subsidies for farmers by an estimated $66.4 billion over 10 years. While a lifeline for many, analysis has shown that these benefits will be unevenly distributed, depending on the type of crops are grown, with larger farms and those in the South expected to reap the greatest benefits. "It fails to offer any meaningful support for independent farmers-who face increasing challenges from low prices, trade wars and the climate crisis-and the communities they feed," was the response of the National Family Farm Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for small- and medium-scale family farmers and fishing communities. And to others, while subsidy programs are a step in the right direction, they fall short of addressing the structural issues plaguing U.S. agriculture. "There are provisions included in the Big Beautiful Bill that benefit farmers and ranchers," the California Farm Bureau said. "However, a comprehensive farm bill is still needed." Newsweek has reached out to the Department of Agriculture via email for comment. Related Articles Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins: A Common-Sense Plan to Strengthen America's Food Safety | OpinionTrump's Plan To Combat Bird Flu Will Ensure More Bird Flu | OpinionWoman Speechless at 'Huge' Egg Laid by Chicken-Then Sees What's InsideTrump Pressures California to Reroute Water to Farms, Cities 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Smithsonian Issues Update on Trump's Impeachment Exhibit Controversy
Smithsonian Issues Update on Trump's Impeachment Exhibit Controversy

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

Smithsonian Issues Update on Trump's Impeachment Exhibit Controversy

The Smithsonian National Museum of American History on Saturday released a statement on its website announcing that it would reinstall President Donald Trump to its exhibit about impeachments, saying that it never intended his removal to be temporary. Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment by email outside of normal business hours on Saturday evening. The museum removed references to Trump's two impeachments from its exhibit on presidential impeachments last month, igniting a debate about historical accuracy and political influence in public institutions. The controversy centered on "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden" exhibit, which included a temporary label about Trump's impeachments that was added in September 2021. Trump remains the only U.S. president to have been impeached twice. During his second administration, Trump has influenced the museum, which is independent of the government but receives funding from Congress. In March, he signed an executive order to eliminate "anti-American ideology" in the museum and to "restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness." The Smithsonian confirmed the temporary label remained in place until July before being removed during a review of legacy content. In a statement posted to the museum's website, the Smithsonian said the placard "did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline and overall presentation." "It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case," the statement continued. "For these reasons, we removed the placard. We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit." The museum assured that the exhibit in the coming weeks would see its impeachment section updated to reflect "all impeachment proceedings in our nation's history." "As the keeper of memory for the nation, it is our privilege and responsibility to tell accurate and complete histories," the museum wrote. The decision to remove the placard stoked concerns in the public about possible government interference, the shaping of public memory, and the integrity of historical curation at America's most prominent museum complex. A Smithsonian spokesperson previously told Newsweek: "In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed. The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance. Trump faced two impeachment efforts by Democrats during his first administration: First on December 18, 2019, and then again on January 13, 2021 - just one week before he left office. He was ultimately acquitted both times. The first impeachment charged Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his dealings with Ukraine. Both articles passed the House with no support from any Republicans, and some Democrats split from the party. The second effort occurred following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, with some Republicans in the House - most notably Liz Cheney - breaking from the party and supporting the effort to impeach. What People Are Saying Political analyst Jeff Greenfield wrote on X: "Orwellian is a much-overused phrase; but forcing the Smithsonian to erase the fact of Trump's impeachments is right out of 1984. Did they drop that stuff down the memory hole?" Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, posted images of media coverage about Trump's impeachments on X, writing: "This is what Donald Trump wants you to forget. American never will." Former GOP Congressman and Trump critic Joe Walsh called the Post's report on X: "Despicable. Reprehensible. Dishonest. Cowardly. Trump's 2 impeachments are historical facts. They are both part of American history. He's using the powers of his office to try to rewrite history. I'm done saying 'shame on him.' Shame on us for electing him." A White House spokesperson told NPR: "We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness. The Trump administration will continue working to ensure that the Smithsonian removes all improper ideology and once again unites and instills pride in all Americans regarding our great history." The Smithsonian acknowledged the need for a comprehensive update of its presidential impeachment exhibit. The institution stated the impeachment section will be revised in the coming weeks to "ensure it accurately represents all historical impeachment proceedings." No specific timetable was provided for when Trump's impeachments or other new content will be permanently reintroduced. Related Articles Removal of Trump From Smithsonian Impeachment Exhibit Sparks OutrageTiny Flying Reptile Found in Arizona Fills 200-Million-Year Evolutionary GapWho Is Kim Sajet? Donald Trump Fires National Portrait Gallery DirectorHistory-Making Carl Nassib Reflects as His Jersey Heads to the Smithsonian 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store