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
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. governor's race intensifies as GOP candidates seize on LA protests
If you're a member of the Bay State's political and chattering class, and you needed a reminder that Massachusetts is officially in the thick of a gubernatorial campaign season, then you didn't have to look much further than your email inbox on Monday. There, you would have found dueling press releases from Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve, the two former Baker administration officials dueling for the GOP nomination for the Corner Office in 2026. The target, inevitably, was Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who'd signed onto a statement with her fellow Democratic governors criticizing the Trump administration's decision to federalize National Guard forces in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles. The statement, issued through the Democratic Governors Association, took the Republican White House to task for its unusual decision to sidestep Golden State Gov. Gavin Newsom when it called in the National Guard — which 700 U.S. Marines have since supplemented. The White House's end-run was 'an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the commanders-in-chief of their National Guard, and activating them within their own borders without consulting or working with a state's governor is ineffective and dangerous,' the DGA's statement asserted. Kennealy, who served as Baker's housing and economic development czar, was first out of the gate at little after 4 p.m., arguing that, by opposing the federal response, the Democratic incumbent was 'legitimizing criminal behavior under the guise of protest.' Shortsleeve, who ran the MBTA under Baker, followed up around 6:30 p.m. He got in a similar shot, condemning Healey for appearing to side with 'rioting protesters waving foreign flags' who were 'violently attacking American law enforcement officers.' Shortsleeve also slammed Healey for her management of the state's hugely expensive migrant crisis and, by implication, her criticism of the aggressive tactics of federal immigration agents as they've rounded up undocumented people across the state. 'If cooperation between the federal and state governments is what she wants, you wouldn't know it by her refusal to work in an orderly way to ensure criminal illegal immigrants in our state were delivered to federal law enforcement for deportation instead of released onto our streets,' Shortsleeve said. Kennealy, who didn't explicitly mention the migrant crisis, but who has been publicly critical, observed that 'when the federal government offers help to restore order and protect citizens, we take it — because doing the right thing for our people should always come before scoring partisan points.' Read More: Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn | John L. Micek Taken together, the broadsides from the two Republican hopefuls were a reminder that the migrant crisis, which has subsided in its intensity, remains a potent line of attack, and that the Democratic incumbent remains vulnerable on the issue. More than half of respondents (52%) to a UMass Amherst/WCVB-TV poll in February, for instance, said they disapproved of the Arlington Democrat's management of the shelter crisis. Their mood was reflective of national trends. A broader UMass poll in April found Americans to be of 'two minds' on the issue, supporting a path to citizenship, even as they supported the White House's moves against migrants with criminal records. A CBS News poll completed before Saturday's unrest in Los Angeles, however, provided a reminder that public patience for the White House's tactics extends only so far. That's because support for enforcement against non-criminals drops off precipitously, the poll found. While 55% of respondents approved of Trump's deportation goals, only 44% approved of his approach to the deportation effort. Healey, in public appearances, repeatedly has drawn that line. She's stressed that she supports taking criminals off the streets, even as she's decried the apparent shroud of secrecy that's enveloped the apprehension of such noncriminal migrants as Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk and Milford High School student-athlete Marcelo Gomes da Silva. Read More: Gov. Healey demands answers after ICE arrests Mass. high school student 'This is part of the problem that we're seeing with ICE across the country. And certainly here in Massachusetts, people are being picked up. We have no information about their circumstances,' Healey said after an unrelated news conference at the State House last month. 'There have been real questions raised about due process and whether or not ICE and immigration officials are ... complying with due process here and in other states. And we need answers.' It's not clear, however, if the Massachusetts voters were grasping the subtlety of that policy fine line. An internal poll by Kennealy's campaign pointed to a similar vulnerability for Healey on immigration issues, The Boston Herald reported last month. And 49% of respondents to a University of New Hampshire poll last week said they approved of her job performance, compared to 45% who said they disapproved. With the poll's 3.3% margin of error, that's a statistical dead heat. Even still, Healey's loyalists pounced on the UNH canvass, dismissing it as an outlier, as they pointed to other public polling that showed her more broadly popular overall. 'Governor Healey is going to earn reelection because she understands Massachusetts people need someone who's going to fight to lower costs for them, going to fight to increase housing opportunities for them, going to fight back against Donald Trump,' state Democratic Party Chairperson Steve Kerrigan said during an interview on WBZ-TV's 'Keller @ Large' program that aired last weekend. 'And frankly, neither Mike Kennealy nor Brian Shortsleeve are willing to do any of that.' The lingering question is what happens if Massachusetts, which already has been targeted by the White House, finds itself facing a Los Angeles-style protest that results in Trump doing a gubernatorial end-run by federalizing the state National Guard or, at its extreme end, dispatching U.S. troops to Boston or some other city. If elected, would Kennealy or Shortsleeve acquiesce in the face of such an action? Or would they protest a usurpation of their executive authority? At that point, the question moves from political to practical. Healey staked out her territory with that DGA statement. The responses from Shortsleeve and Kennealy would speak volumes about how they intend to lead during what presumably would be the final two years of Trump's term. That's something that Massachusetts voters would have to decide for themselves. Which makes their answers bear watching. Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing Mass. lawmakers get bad grades on industry report card. But who's failing whom? | John L. Micek Math is hard. Midterm math is harder. The lessons Mass. needs to learn for 2026 | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon diverts $1 billion from barracks improvements to send troops to border
SAVANNAH, Ga. (WSAV) – The Pentagon is diverting $1 billion from army barracks upkeep and maintenance funds to send more troops to the Southern border. In their fiscal plan for the rest of 2025, the Pentagon has decided to move over a billion dollars from Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization, a fund that is primarily used for barracks upgrades, to fund President Trump's border mission. The Pentagon has the discretion to move around some funds between accounts as long as that money has already been appropriated by Congress through a process called reprogramming. 'To kind of go back to this old mantra of the military that we have to just suffer the whole time is kind of disappointing and disheartening, especially when we saw some progress moving forward to go away from that,' John Hartman, a veteran who was stationed at Fort Stewart until 2019 and now lives in Savannah said. The Government Accountability Office released a scathing report in 2023 identifying unsafe and unsanitary conditions in barracks around the country. WSAV reported exclusively on some of the poor conditions in the barracks at our own Fort Stewart. 'The desperation and the depression that's caused by the barracks and the housing,' one soldier living in the Fort Stewart barracks at the time said. Now, the Pentagon is diverting $1 billion of the money that was meant to go toward fixing barracks issues. 'Issues with washing machines not working, mold, stuff like that, ACs going out. It's Fort Stewart, that happening in the middle of the summer is brutal, especially when you've been outside all day in the heat working,' Hartman said of the conditions during his time at the installation. Even staunch Trump administration supporter Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01) has advocated for balance. 'I've been to visit the barracks at Hunter Army Airfield, at Fort Stewart. I will tell you they are in need of repair,' he said. 'Sending money to the southern border is not a bad thing. It's a good thing, but at the same time, we can do both.' Rep. Carter said he's a proponent of replacing the funds with a provision in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' making its way through Congress. However, that bill has not been passed, and the funding is not guaranteed. 'It doesn't matter whether it comes back or not. There's still going to be backlog. There's still going to be expenses that pile up. At the end of the day, you're just kind of digging a deeper hole,' Hartman said. 'It's a complicated situation, but the answer is not taking such a large amount of funding away from bettering the lives of our service members to push it toward this other issue.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans dedicate some funding to courts, workforce agency, ag, but Democrats say it isn't enough
'The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing disease from spreading,' Sen. Howard Marklein said at a press conference. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner) Republicans and Democrats on the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee were divided Tuesday about the amount of money the state should invest in several state agencies including the Department of Workforce Development, the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. Republicans on the committee said they were making strategic and realistic investments in priority areas, while Democrats said Republicans' investments wouldn't make enough of an impact. The first divisive issue came up when the committee considered the budgets for Wisconsin's courts. Democrats proposed that the state provide an additional $2 million and 8 new positions for the creation of an Office of the Marshals of the Supreme Court that would provide security for the Court. Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) and Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) said the need for the office has increased recently due to the number of threats the judges and justices are facing. 'Given the role that they play in our judiciary in order to be impartial, we shouldn't want them to be in danger or to fear for their safety or to have any outward pressures on them that would influence the case,' McGuire said. 'I believe it's important for the cause of justice. I believe it's important for the cause of safety.' Roys noted the inflammatory language that members of the Trump administration have used when talking about judges and justices, noting that Republicans have passed legislation before to help protect judges. She also noted that former Juneau County Circuit Court Judge John Roemer was targeted and murdered at his home in 2022. 'It is really frightening… and the Supreme Court has made this request over numerous years because they understand better than any of us do what it's like to try to serve the public in this critically important but increasingly dangerous role,' Roys said. 'I am much less interested in putting people in prison after they have murdered a judge than I am in preventing our judges from being attacked or killed, so, this seems to me a tiny amount of money to do a really important task to protect the third branch of government and particularly our Supreme Court.' Republicans rejected Democrats' motion. Committee co-chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that the Wisconsin Capitol Police are tasked with protecting visitors, employees, legislators, the Court and anyone else in the building. 'They do a good job and continue to provide top-notch work here at the Capitol as part of security for everyone who works here,' Born said. The committee also voted 13-3 with Andraca joining Republicans to allocate an additional $10 million each year to counties for circuit court costs. The committee took action on portions of the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), giving a boost to he agency's Meat Inspection Program and Division of Animal Health. 'The focus here is going to be on basically keeping our food safe and preventing the disease from spreading,' committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) said. The Meat Inspection Program got an additional $2.7 million and two additional positions under the proposal approved by the committee. The program works to ensure the safety and purity of meat products sold in Wisconsin, including by inspecting the livestock and poultry slaughtering and processing facilities that are not already inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Division of Animal Health would get three additional employees that would be funded with about $500,000. According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Wisconsin has 233 official meat establishments and 70 custom meat establishments that require state inspection. Roys said the proposal 'falls far short of what is needed,' noting that agriculture is a major economic driver in Wisconsin and the industry is under pressure due to actions being taken by the Trump administration. The USDA recently terminated its National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, which had been in place since 1971, and the administration has considered ending most of its routine food safety inspections work. 'That kind of uncertainty is exactly why we need to step up our work at the state level,' Roys said, adding that she hopes that Republicans 'consider funding at the appropriate level what our farmers…deserve.' Marklein noted that the committee's work on DATCP's part of the budget is not completed yet. 'This is a program that's had a shortfall year over year,' Andraca said, adding that she hopes 'members of this committee are vegetarians.' 'If there's one place that I wouldn't cut, it would probably be in meat inspection. If we're looking at places to take a little off the edge, food safety is not one of them, particularly in a time where we have avian flu and other diseases breaking out,' Andraca said. The committee also voted along party lines to invest additional funds in programs administered by the Department of Workforce Development, including $6 million in youth apprenticeship grants, $570,000 in early college credit program grants, $250,000 for the agency's commercial driver training grant program and $250,000 for the workforce training grants. Democrats had suggested that the committee dedicate $11 million for the youth apprenticeship program, which provides an opportunity for juniors and seniors in high school to get hands-on experience in a field alongside classroom instruction, but Republicans rejected it opting to put a little more than half of that towards the program. Andraca said the program is important for allowing youth to 'try out new skills and new jobs' and train to fill positions in Wisconsin and that the $6 million investment makes it seem like the program is 'pretty much getting gutted.' The program has steadily grown annually over the last several years at an estimated rate of 16%, although, according to the LFB, the number of additional students each year has declined going from a high of 1,923 additional students in 2022-23, to 1,703 more in 2023-24, and 1,430 in 2024-25. Andraca noted that the program currently operates on a sum certain model, meaning that there is a specific amount of money available and the size of a grant could vary depending on participation and available funds. If there is continued growth of 16% then the grant sizes could shrink. A sum sufficient model (which Democrats wanted) would mean that the agency's spending on the program isn't capped by a specific dollar amount. Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) noted that the grants for students would likely grow from an average of about $900 currently to about $1,000 under the Republican proposal. 'This motion [is] at $6 million and $100 per award over the last budget, but we're supposed to believe it's gutting the program,' Quinn said. 'Welcome to the People's Republic of Madison where stuff like that happens a lot; $6 million in new money is a lot of money to most people but obviously the other side, it's gutting the program,' Born said, responding to Quinn. 'At some point when you're building a budget, you have to figure out a way to afford it, be reasonable in your investments, so maybe that's why we don't view a $6 million investment as gutting because we're trying to live within our means.' The committee approved $2.3 million to support the new Wisconsin History Center in downtown Madison for 2025-26 and $540,800 and six positions annually starting in 2026-27. Construction on the museum, which will be operated by the Wisconsin Historical Society, started in April and its opening is set for 2027. The Historical Society had requested the one-time funding of $2.3 million in 2025-26 as well as ongoing funding of $1.7 million annually — more than double the amount the committee approved — starting in 2026-27 to help with operational costs, including security, janitorial and maintenance services. It said without ongoing funding from the state it wouldn't be able to open and maintain the museum. It also said that it was not anticipating needing to request additional funding for the museum operations in future budget cycles if the request is funded. The committee also approved an additional $562,000 in one-time funding across the biennium for security and facilities improvements for the Historical Society's facilities and collections and $157,000 to cover estimated future increases in services costs. But the committee decreased funding for the Historical Society by $214,000 for estimated fuel and utilities costs. A law, 2023 Wisconsin Act 73, overhauled alcohol regulation in Wisconsin and created a new Division of Alcohol Beverages under the Department of Regulation tasked with preventing violations of the new laws. Republicans on the committee approved a motion to recategorize nine general DOR positions and over $900,000 to the Division of Alcohol Beverages to help with enforcement. It also transferred an attorney to the division and added $456,000 in funding for two more positions in the Division of Alcohol Beverages. Democrats said that Republicans on the committee were 'nickel and diming' the Department of Revenue with its proposal given that it recategorizes already existing positions rather than creating new ones. 'I do appreciate some of the efforts involved in this motion,' McGuire said, adding that he noticed there were 10 positions that were moved around. 'That seemed odd to me,' McGuire said. 'Were their feet up on their desk? They weren't collecting taxes at school time, or what were they doing? We want to be able to give the Department of Revenue tools they need to succeed, and frankly, the tools they need to provide resources to the state to make sure that everyone's on an even playing field so we can fund the priorities' of the state. The GOP proposal passed on a party-line vote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
