America still needs the Women, Peace and Security Act — just not Biden's version of it
When President Trump signed the Women, Peace and Security Act into law in 2017, it was a pragmatic triumph, rooted in biological reality and strategic clarity.
Championed by Ivanka Trump, the legislation recognized that women and girls, due to their unique experiences — especially in conflict zones — play a critical role in stabilizing societies. Backed by data showing that peace agreements last 35 percent longer when women are involved in making them, the act was no progressive fantasy. It was a hard-nosed strategy to enhance U.S. national security.
Yet, under the Biden administration, ideological overreach distorted the law into a bloated “woke” program, diluting its focus on women’s distinct contributions. It’s time to reorient the law to its original intent, leveraging biological differences to advance America’s strategic interests and increase our strength and security.
The Women, Peace and Security Act was conservative at its core, grounded in the undeniable fact that women and girls face disproportionate violence, displacement and exploitation, and that this shapes their perspectives and roles in security and peacebuilding. Co-sponsored by then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), it aimed to harness these experiences to strengthen U.S. foreign policy, fostering stable societies that reduce threats requiring American intervention.
Ivanka Trump’s advocacy tied the bill to her Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, which reached 12 million women by 2019 with free-market tools like workforce training and property rights. This wasn’t about social justice; it was about empowering women’s unique contributions to prevent failed states that presage poor outcomes, like becoming breeding grounds for terrorism.
The original framework of the Women, Peace and Security Act also resonated with the Department of Defense’s practical acknowledgment of biological differences. In Afghanistan, cultural support teams exemplified this: All-female units leveraged women’s ability to engage local women and children, often inaccessible to male soldiers, gathering intelligence and building trust in ways men could not. This wasn’t ideology — it was a force multiplier, increasing lethality by exploiting biological and cultural realities. Cultural support teams proved that recognizing women’s distinct capabilities enhances mission success, aligning with the act’s focus on results over dogma.
But that focus has been lost.
The Biden administration buried Women, Peace and Security under progressive mandates: gender advisers, climate security and diversity workshops ignored biological reality in favor of gender-neutral platitudes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s April 2025 decision to end the Pentagon’s Women, Peace and Security program reflected this frustration, calling it a “divisive social justice” distraction. This bureaucratic creep alienates allies, who see such mandates as cultural overreach, undermining the act’s grounding in women’s distinct roles.
Reclaiming Women, Peace and Security begins with restoring its foundation in biological reality — a principle President Trump recently reaffirmed through his executive order recognizing only two sexes. The Women, Peace and Security Act was never meant to serve as a vessel for progressive social experimentation. It was designed to elevate the distinct and often underutilized contributions of women in peacebuilding, diplomacy and security. That requires course correction, not cancellation.
First, costly gender quotas and United Nations-imposed compliance mechanisms must be eliminated. These mandates divert resources from mission-critical priorities like military readiness and strategic diplomacy.
Second, the program should be predominantly confined to the State Department, where it can strengthen alliances without militarizing a civilian-focused initiative. Third, programming should revive Ivanka Trump’s storytelling approach, showcasing real women’s successes to build support without progressive preaching.
Fourth, within the Department of Defense, Women, Peace and Security principles should inform — not distort — force design. Programs like the aforementioned cultural support teams, which trained female soldiers to gather intelligence and build trust in environments where male soldiers could not, offer a proven model. These are not diversity programs; they are combat multipliers.
Finally, for Women, Peace and Security to succeed abroad, it must engage men and boys. Women's empowerment initiatives that ignore traditional power structures or attempt to replace them will fail. Cultural legitimacy matters. True progress complements, rather than erases, local norms.
Critics will argue that scaling back risks undermining women’s gains. But the original program, which helped Colombia adopt a National Action Plan in 2019, proved its efficacy by focusing on women’s lived experiences, not ideological bloat. Others might call for scrapping Women, Peace and Security entirely. Yet abandoning a proven tool — one that recognizes biological reality to boost security and lethality — hands adversaries an edge in unstable regions. A streamlined Women, Peace and Security program, rooted in its 2017 intent, preserves its value while rejecting globalist overreach.
The Women, Peace and Security Act was a conservative triumph — a bipartisan policy that leveraged women’s unique experiences to serve America’s interests. By realigning it with its original roots, the Trump administration can restore the act's promise, delivering a stronger, more lethal America and a more stable world.
Meaghan Mobbs, Ph.D., is director for the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women’s Forum. She is also the military advocacy and policy liaison for the Coalition for Military Excellence. Mobbs serves as a gubernatorial appointee to the Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors and a presidential appointee to the United States Military Academy — West Point Board of Visitors.
