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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Despite Democratic-Farmer-Labor control of the state Senate, the governor's office, and half of the House, Republicans forced Democrats to roll back one of their signature accomplishments from the 2023 legislative session: health care for undocumented people. The Legislature is expected to vote Monday to repeal undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare, the state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor. Children would still be covered. Republicans successfully used their leverage — the threat of a government shutdown starting July 1 — to force the Democrats' hand on an issue that is of supreme importance to GOP lawmakers. The DFL pulled out all nearly of the stops to avoid cutting health care access for undocumented adults. During negotiations, DFL leaders offered Republicans concessions related to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, and noncompete agreements — but Republicans didn't budge, said Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina. 'They turned all of those things down, because all they wanted…was to make sure that the 17,000 people were left out to die, that we worsen our health care system and that we decrease our tax revenue,' Mann said at a press conference Monday decrying the move. When Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders announced a budget deal — contingent on repealing MinnesotaCare eligibility for undocumented adults — on May 15, lawmakers with the People of Color Indigenous Caucus protested outside the door. They told reporters later that they were blindsided by the deal. After the announcement, POCI caucus members brought alternatives to legislative leaders, said Rep. Liish Kozlowski, DFL-Duluth. The POCI caucus suggested capping undocumented enrollment in MinnesotaCare, raising premiums, allowing children currently enrolled to retain coverage instead of aging out, or making exceptions for elderly people or those with chronic conditions. None of those options made it into the bill, which is expected to be heard first on the House floor during a 21-hour special session beginning at 10 a.m. Republicans have repeatedly exaggerated the cost of providing health care to undocumented people enrolled in MinnesotaCare. Enrollment has exceeded the state's expectations, however, with more than 17,000 undocumented people currently enrolled. Meanwhile, per-person spending on the undocumented population has been lower than expected, according to the Department of Human Services. Federal politics and funding have complicated the issue: A budget bill passed by the GOP-controlled U.S. House would cut funding to states that provide health care to undocumented people, including Minnesota. And while the federal government pays for some of the cost of MinnesotaCare, it doesn't contribute any money for undocumented enrollees. Walz is expected to sign the bill into law.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lawmakers condemn Trump's use of Guard, active-duty troops in LA
Congressional Democrats and administration critics condemned President Donald Trump's decision this weekend to federalize National Guard troops in California as a serious breach of standards for the involvement of the military in domestic affairs. 'Such unilateral action, taken without consultation with local leaders, risks escalating tensions rather than calming them,' Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Sunday night. 'This move sets a troubling precedent for military intervention in local law enforcement. 'It is crucial that decisions of this magnitude are made with transparency, restraint, and respect for constitutional balance.' Over the weekend, Trump announced plans to deploy 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to quell the protests over immigration policies and enforcement. About 300 have already arrived in the city to help with peacekeeping activities. The move came over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty' in a social media post Sunday. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in a statement called Trump's decision 'an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation. It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop.' Officials from the veterans organization Common Defense said the moves 'undermine civil rights and betray the principles we swore to uphold.' Newsom and others promised to file legal actions in coming days to challenge the president's decision. In addition to the Guard actions, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took to social media late Saturday night to say that if violence in the Los Angeles region continues, 'active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized.' Officials said about 500 active-duty personnel are preparing to deploy if needed. Trump has cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.' But critics have called his interpretation of the law an overreaction, and noted that the recent moves were the first time in decades that a state's National Guard was activated without a request from its governor. Hegseth is scheduled to testify before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on Tuesday, where he will likely face additional questions about the military deployments. The Los Angeles protests were sparked by the arrest of more than 40 individuals in immigration raids across the city Friday. Since then, nearly 60 more have been charged with vandalism and violence for attempts to block federal officials from conducting additional operations. Trump on social media said the individuals objecting to the immigration raids 'are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists.' He also repeatedly criticized Newsom and local Democratic leaders for not taking a stronger stance against the violence. The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.