When President Trump enacted the Women, Peace and Security Law in 2017, it marked a notable achievement, grounded in biological realities and strategic insight.
Ivanka Trump has pointed out the law’s significance, especially in stabilizing societies affected by conflict, noting that data suggests peace agreements tend to last about 35% longer when women are involved in their creation. This wasn’t just a progressive dream; it was a well-thought-out strategy aimed at enhancing U.S. national security.
However, the approach shifted under the Biden administration, which some argue has transformed the law into an overly broad initiative, focusing solely on women’s contributions. It seems critical now to realign the law with its original goals, tapping into biological differences to further American strategic aims and bolster safety.
At its core, the Women, Peace and Security Act is conservative, acknowledging the unique challenges faced by women and girls—such as violence, displacement, and exploitation—which influence their roles in peace and security efforts. The act, co-sponsored by former Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), aims to harness these experiences to inform U.S. foreign policy and foster stable societies that minimize threats requiring intervention.
In expressing her support, Ivanka Trump highlighted a bill for her Initiatives for Global Development and Prosperity for Women, which, by 2019, had reached approximately 12 million women. This initiative employs free-market strategies like workforce training and property rights, distinguishing itself from the realm of social justice. The focus was on enhancing women’s unique contributions to mitigate risk and potential state failures that could lead to terrorism.
The original vision of the Women, Peace and Security Act recognized biological differences effectively. For instance, in Afghanistan, the Cultural Support Team, consisting entirely of women, leveraged their status to engage local women and children, gaining intelligence and trust in ways that male soldiers could not. This wasn’t ideological—it was simply a way to amplify forces and improve effectiveness by utilizing both biological and cultural nuances. The team validated the program’s outcome-based focus, embracing women’s capabilities to facilitate mission success.
Sadly, that focus appears to have diminished.
Under the Biden administration, initiatives pertaining to women, peace, and security have seemingly been overshadowed by progressive agendas. The Gender Advisor and other policies are criticized for dismissing biological realities in favor of a more gender-neutral perspective. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has described the approach as a source of frustration, labeling it as divisive and distracting from the core mission.
To reclaim the essence of women, peace, and security, we need to return to basics rooted in biological truths. Presidential directives emphasizing the recognition of only two genders would be a start. The Women, Peace and Security Act wasn’t crafted for progressive experimentation; it aimed to enhance women’s vital, often overlooked roles in peacebuilding and security efforts. It needs proper redirection, rather than outright cancellation.
First, we should eliminate expensive gender assignments and compliance mechanisms imposed by the UN. Such mandates often detract from essential military and diplomatic objectives.
Second, these efforts should be focused primarily within the State Department, where they can bolster alliances without militarizing civilian initiatives. Third, we should embrace a storytelling approach akin to Ivanka Trump’s to highlight the real achievements of women, fostering support without resorting to progressive rhetoric.
Fourth, within the Department of Defense, the tenets of women, peace, and security should guide force design without distorting intention. Successful programs, like the Cultural Support Team, trained female soldiers to gather intelligence and build trust in contexts where male soldiers faced limitations. These are not mere diversity initiatives; they are tools that enhance combat effectiveness.
Finally, for these efforts to be effective overseas, it’s crucial to engage men and boys. Initiatives that seek to empower women while disregarding traditional power structures often falter. Gaining cultural acceptance is essential; true progress works alongside existing local norms rather than attempting to erase them.
Some may contend that scaling back threatens women’s interests. Yet, the original program in Colombia showcased its effectiveness by centering on women’s lived experiences instead of being bogged down by ideological concerns. Others might advocate for completely overhauling the women, peace, and security framework. But abandoning elements that acknowledge biological realities only endangers security interests in regions prone to instability. Reinforcing a streamlined women, peace, and security program that aligns with its foundational intentions from 2017 can uphold its value while resisting excessive globalist influences.
At its core, the Women, Peace, and Security Act represents a conservative victory. It stands as a bipartisan initiative that draws upon the distinct perspectives of women serving American interests. By returning to its roots, the Trump administration has the potential to strengthen its commitment and foster a more stable and secure global landscape.
