logo
Assessing Claims About the Pentagon's Women, Peace, and Security Program

Assessing Claims About the Pentagon's Women, Peace, and Security Program

Yahoo02-05-2025

On April 29, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced his intention to shutter the Pentagon's Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) program.
Although Hegseth referred to the WPS program as a 'Biden initiative,' the program was established through bipartisan congressional legislation and signed into law by President Donald Trump. Hegseth later appeared to acknowledge this in a separate tweet shared two hours after his initial post: 'The woke & weak Biden Administration distorted & weaponized the straight-forward & security-focused WPS initiative launched in 2017. So—yes—we are ending the 'woke divisive/social justice/Biden (WPS) initiative.''
Hegseth lacks the authority to entirely eliminate the program, which he appeared to acknowledge at the end of his tweet, noting he would dismantle it to the fullest extent allowed by the law and push for its eradication in the administration's next budget request, which Congress must approve. The law that created the program was written to apply not only to the Department of Defense (DOD), but also the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. Congress tasked the DOD specifically with ensuring that various training regimens address 'the importance of meaningful participation by women' and that employees receive training in 'gender considerations,' particularly in regards to the protection of civilians and international human rights law.
In May 2017, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire introduced the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 to increase female participation in U.S. foreign affairs, particularly in overseas conflict prevention and resolution. Four senators—two Democrats and two Republicans—co-sponsored the Senate bill, including Trump's current secretary of state, then-Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. The bill—and an identical version introduced in the House by South Dakota's then-Rep. Kristi Noem, the current homeland security secretary—called for the president to produce a 'Women, Peace, and Security Strategy' within one year of its passage, and then once every four years after, detailing the administration's efforts 'to promote the participation of women in conflict prevention and peace building.'
The Trump White House published its WPS report in June 2019. 'The Trump Administration is committed to advancing women's equality, seeking to protect the rights of women and girls, and promoting women and youth empowerment programs,' the 20-page report states. It spelled out four broad specific goals—'line of efforts'—detailing the administration's approach to advance 'women's empowerment and equality' and ensuring their participation in conflict-related matters. The first simply stated the importance of female participation globally 'in decision-making processes related to conflict and crises,' and the second focused on securing human rights for women around the world and protecting them from 'violence, abuse, and exploitation.' The third discussed how the U.S. could use its various international programs to advance its women's empowerment objectives, acknowledging 'that systemic inequality faced by women and girls serves as a known driver of conflict,' and the fourth focused on recommendations the U.S. should provide to allied governments for advancing women's empowerment and equality within their nations.
That strategy did not change radically between administrations, though the Biden White House's strategy, published in October 2023, focused more on intersectionality—a core concept of identity politics. 'Promoting intersectionality with regard to demographics such as race, disability, and sexual orientation is important to ensure opportunities for the participation of all women.'
The Biden administration report also linked questions of women's peace and security to climate change and LGBT+ rights. The administration stressed the importance of 'acknowledging the gendered dimensions of the climate crisis.' The report cited an example of an August 2023 review the government released to study the effects of climate change on women, and develop strategies to alleviate climate-related issues disproportionately affecting them. 'This Strategy directly links gender inequality and climate change with advancing the WPS agenda because climate change impacts—such as extreme weather events and food and water insecurity—are threat multipliers and increase the risk of displacement, migration, and conflict, especially in regions that suffer from instability, and particularly for women and girls,' the 2023 report explained. In another example, the report noted that tools to promote women, peace, and security within the government—such as sensitivity training—can also be used to raise awareness about LGBT+ issues of inequality.
The Dispatch Fact Check has reached out to the Department of Defense for comment.
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'

Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." - 'Wish him well' - The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Musk described the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised," Trump told reporters. Musk, who was Trump's biggest donor to his 2024 campaign, also raised the issue of the Republican's election win. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," he posted, adding: "Such ingratitude." Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican president is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. "Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He appeared to have deleted those tweets by Saturday morning. bur-sco/dhc

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction

Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'

Ukrainians among foreign nationals in US targeted for transfer to Guantanamo, WP reports
Ukrainians among foreign nationals in US targeted for transfer to Guantanamo, WP reports

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ukrainians among foreign nationals in US targeted for transfer to Guantanamo, WP reports

The Trump administration is preparing to transfer thousands of undocumented foreign nationals, including Ukrainian citizens, to the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the Washington Post reported on June 10, citing undisclosed U.S. official sources. The infamous prison facility was established by the Bush administration in 2002 to hold suspected terrorists amid the War on Terror. Its operations attracted broad criticism for reports of torture, abuse, and for the facility's position outside of normal legal frameworks. The detainees reportedly include individuals from countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Ukraine. The move is part of a broader plan to free up capacity at overcrowded domestic facilities. U.S. officials told the Washington Post that there were no plans to notify the governments of these citizens before their transfer to the facility. Medical screenings for 9,000 individuals are reportedly underway to assess whether they are physically fit for transfer. Internal documents reviewed by the Washington Post suggest the facility is currently underutilized and could accommodate more detainees. The Homeland Security Department and the White House declined to comment for the Washington Post on the reporting, which is based on information from multiple anonymous officials and internal documents. A defense official maintained that current operations at the base remain "unchanged" and refused to speculate on "future missions." Some home countries of the targeted detainees have previously expressed willingness to repatriate their nationals, but have been deemed too slow by U.S. immigration authorities. The White House has not confirmed the number of Ukrainians affected, and Ukraine's Foreign Ministry has yet to comment. The plan to revive Guantanamo as a holding site for mass immigration enforcement is part of President Donald Trump's broader pledge to ramp up deportations and arrests, with a goal of at least 3,000 arrests daily, according to White House officials. Previously, the media reported that the Trump administration planned to revoke the temporary legal status of 240,000 Ukrainian refugees who fled Russia's invasion. According to a March 6 article by Reuters, the administration aims to cancel refugees' immigration status granted under the Biden-era Uniting for Ukraine program, potentially exposing them to deportation. Although the White House denied the claim, internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documents suggest preparations for fast-tracked removals are underway. Read also: Ukrainian boxer Usyk invites Trump to his home to see Russia's war firsthand, BBC reports We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store