Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shut down a group that has been working to increase the number of women in the military for decades, and it seems like a step backward in time. The group was founded in 1951 by former Defense Secretary George C. Marshall under President Harry Truman to boost the number of female service members and open up new professional sectors for them, and this is more than simply a small administrative change.
The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services was one of several organizations that advised the secretary. Politico claims that Hegseth eliminated it as part of his “warrior ethos” plan for the agency. He has already shut down a program that sought to increase the proportion of women in peacebuilding and conflict prevention initiatives, calling it “woke” and “divisive.” This is not the first time he has taken such a move.
Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said the committee was “focused on advancing a divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness” when he announced the decision on X. This belief system runs against the committee’s long-standing goal of guaranteeing women could serve fairly and productively.
Hegseth’s actions are a part of a larger drive to reshape the military, which also includes attempting to eradicate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and establishing new grooming standards. Hegseth stated that he had “seen standards lowered” for women in battle, which was the subject of his criticisms. His prior remarks, however, give a different impression.
“I’m just saying that we shouldn’t have women in combat roles,” he said on a podcast last year. Having women in these positions “hasn’t made us more effective,” he continued. He insists that having women hasn’t increased lethality but has complicated combat.
These are strong beliefs that obviously conflict with the objectives of a committee tasked with increasing the opportunities available to women in the military.
This committee’s closure is a big step, especially in light of its past. It was established to aid in the more successful integration of women into the military, a process that has taken decades and has been gradual. Now, a crucial component of that support structure has been disassembled with a single pen stroke.
For a group that has spent so much time ensuring that female service members have the tools and chances they need to thrive, the argument that the committee undermines “combat readiness” by “advancing a divisive feminist agenda” is quite outrageous.
Numerous concerns regarding the future of inclusion and diversity in the military are raised by this decision. It implies that, at least under the current leadership, the way forward places a high value on a very particular, and perhaps out-of-date, idea of what a “warrior” ought to be.
Despite Hegseth’s assertions that it is putting “uniform, gender neutral standards” first, the removal of a committee created especially to handle the special requirements and difficulties faced by women in the services appears to have the opposite effect. It’s a decision that will probably have a lasting effect, and it will be interesting to see how this administration continues to influence military policy.
