When United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced in a post on X that he had “proudly ENDED” the Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017 by his department, he sparked immediate backlash from women’s rights advocates worldwide. Indeed, his decision, advocates say, endangers a widely implemented policy in US government entities that promotes, as its legislation says, the “meaningful participation of women in all aspects of overseas conflict prevention, management, and resolution, and post-conflict relief and recovery efforts.”
In his tweet on April 29, Hegseth called the act, known as WPS, “yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden” initiative and a “UNITED NATIONS program pushed by feminists and left-wing activists,” that distracts troops from war-fighting. “Politicians fawn over it; troops HATE it.”
The law was passed under the first Trump administration. It asserts that women’s involvement in conflict prevention and resolution creates “more inclusive and democratic societies and is critical to the long-term stability of countries and regions.” Hegseth later said that Biden “distorted & weaponized” the legislation, without elaborating.
The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted the original WPS resolution in a landmark vote in 2000 with more than 100 nations embracing WPS national action plans since then. Yet, only the US has enshrined it as law.
A National Guard veteran and former Fox News presenter, Hegseth has previously contended that having women in the military “has made fighting more complicated” and that “we should keep them out.” Women’s rights advocates warn that repealing WPS in the US military constitutes a significant security threat by eliminating the framework’s proven ability to prevent and resolve conflicts through the inclusion of women; protects women and girls from the use of sexual violence by combatants; and undermines decades of progress for women’s rights.
In Washington, one prominent, longtime advocate of WPS is Melanne Verveer, who heads Georgetown University’s Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS), which was founded by Verveer in 2016 with Hillary Clinton as US secretary of state. The institute called Hegseth’s move a “grave mistake” that guts a “low-cost, high-impact way to increase peace and stability in the world, protect women and girls from violence, enhance military operations, and strengthen America’s relationship with allies.”
Verveer said in an interview with PassBlue about Hegseth’s decision: “It was exasperating to have the Secretary of Defense say what he said. We need to integrate this concept much more significantly, it needs to be part of everyday understanding.”
She noted, too, that “as it stands, the DOD, regardless of what he said, has continuing obligations under the WPS law.”
Stéphane Dujarric, the UN spokesperson, said in response to Hegseth’s announcement: “It’s no secret that women remain largely on the periphery of formal peace processes and decision making, which is not good for the cause of peace.”
The WPS agenda is embedded, for example, in UN peacekeeping work and political missions, but overall advances of women’s equal participation in conflict mediation is scant, despite reams of data showing that their role in peace talks can help ensure the longevity of positive results.
Verveer, the first US Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues and head of the Office of Global Women’s Issues under President Barack Obama, spoke on May 14 with PassBlue about the legacy of WPS, its future and the effects of its cancellation in the US military.
She also offered her assessment of how Mike Waltz, the US candidate for UN envoy, will fill his role, if he is confirmed by the Senate. (His paperwork has yet to be filed for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.) The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity and space. — ARTHUR BASSAS
PassBlue: What do you think the effects will be of Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s decision to end WPS in the US Department of Defense (DOD)? What do you think are his motivations? Do you think he is afraid of “feminists” and needs to put them down?
Verveer: Well, I think that’s a very loaded question, but I’ll do my best. First, I think clearly it was a mistake on the part of the Defense Department, even with his statement; it’s mandated under the current laws to continue to implement the women, peace and security mandate. In fact, last year on the National Defense Authorization Act, there was an added component put on DoD — the Defense Act — to ensure the full implementation of WPS through 2027, so if you will recall, he made his statement saying DoD is about war-fighting. It’s not about “woke,” or however he described his opposition to this. I have to think that he wasn’t fully aware of the commitment of his own administration, his own president, to this issue, and maybe it would be useful to go through some of that for your readers.
For example, it was the last Trump administration that codified WPS into law. In fact, we [were] the only country with the plan to implement WPS and codify it in 2017. In 2019, a full implementation plan was put forward by the Trump administration to the agencies that are required to fulfill WPS’s legislative mandate and that extended to DoD, to the State Department, to Homeland Security, etc . . . and it has been carried out in the various agencies. In addition, who were serious supporters of WPS? The current Secretary of State — at the time, Senator — Marco Rubio was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and endorsed it wholeheartedly. You can find his words of strong support, which in some ways he reiterated just a few weeks ago [in Congressional hearings on April 1], when he was presiding over the International Women of Courage Awards, in which he said, the US fully carries out this comprehensive law, that it’s important in terms of participation of women both in our foreign policy and protection.
The current Homeland Security Cabinet Secretary, Kristi Noem, introduced the bipartisan bill in 2017. The potentially incoming ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, was the Republican co-chair of the caucus in the House on WPS. So, you have strong support. This was always bipartisan. It was not ideological; it was not partisan. That is the history — a fairly recent history. And Mr. Hegseth walks in and basically says, “Well, I’m doing away with it; it’s ‘woke’ now.” Whether that’s predicated on his hostility towards women in the military, whether it’s predicated on his desire to somehow show his bona fides in this DEI battle that is going on — he juxtaposes it to that. It’s not clear when this was raised with him. My understanding is he didn’t back away from the Trump role, and then basically blamed it on Biden, saying it was the Biden administration’s implementation. But the reality is they have an obligation. My understanding is he’s recognized that obligation, and he says, “In the future, we’ll work to make sure we come out from under it,” or something to that effect. So, as it stands, the DOD, regardless of what he said, has continuing obligations under the WPS law.
PassBlue: Considering the origins of the WPS Act, what does it signal about the Trump administration that its defense secretary would drop it, for the reasons he cited?
Verveer: Well, with respect to your question. . . . You all are interfacing with the United Nations every day. The US ambassador to the UN in Trump’s first administration, Nikki Haley, in hearings in the Security Council, for example, also talked about how critical WPS is, and, in fact, said something like: “If we’re not really implementing this, if we don’t factor women’s empowerment into this equation, we’re going to have more conflicts. It’s going to lead to bigger problems. This is a big part of the solution.” So, you have really strong support. I think it’s important for the international community to understand the leadership in the US has been engaged for years and working with other nations on WPS, working within the United Nations on this issue. This is not something that has cropped up overnight and shot down equally quickly, right?
PassBlue: What effect do you think Hegseth’s decision will have on the US and its allies across the world?
Verveer: I want to believe that the obligation towards WPS continues to exist, since it is the existing statutory requirement. It came from the US Congress. We had strong bipartisan support in the Congress, and I hope that will continue. I think it’s important for the international community to understand that the US has been a leader in — and it’s kind of ironic that all of this is happening on the 25th anniversary of a framework that the UN established all those years ago — recognizing that women have a critical role to play in issues revolving around peace and security. So, I hope we will see the good faith efforts. We’ll see to what extent, but certainly the secretary of state is on record. Certainly, the secretary of defense now knows that this obligation continues. It’s not ended by a statement. And I think that to answer your question, we will all see together how this is taken seriously going forward, but it certainly should be. I hope that strong bipartisan commitment in the US continues to see this through.
PassBlue: How do you think this decision by Hegseth affects other countries and parties that have been opposing WPS, like Russia?
Verveer: Well, Russia, to the best of my recollection, has not voted against any of the 10 WPS resolutions since the first one 25 years ago. But these activities or positions by the US, where the leadership has been strong, where there’s countermanding or changes in these critical areas, gives comfort and solace to those who don’t subscribe to these things. There are those who say that the US is giving up, so maybe there’s a place for us to regain a more competitive posture in this space, or that they’re seeing the light of day in terms of supporting our own positions. This does play out on the geopolitical platform — how this decision is interpreted. Obviously, we don’t know, as we talk, how that will be exemplified going forward, but I hope that the interpretation will not be for those who oppose this position to see it as great comfort.
PassBlue: What is your personal response to the Hegseth choice, separate from how you see it politically, given how much time you have invested and still do so, in WPS.
Verveer: I was exasperated, to be honest with you. As somebody who’s been steeped in the collaborative efforts in a bipartisan way on this issue, and working even in the Trump administration with appointees of the administration who have been confident and committed in this space, it was exasperating to have the secretary of defense say what he said. I was in Japan not too long ago for the WPS focal point thematic meeting. Japan has made enormous strides on WPS, exemplifying great leadership, and they have had just a terrific relationship with the US, not just in the foreign policy sphere, but in the defense sphere, with workshops that really enhance military effectiveness, regional participation in that work, an ongoing commitment with the combatant commands. To have this statement come out, it just is like: Where’s the reality here? Do you truly understand what this means?
So, my first reaction was exasperation, not really that it was based on more, as I said at the outset, either a hostility to what any effort that involves women represents, or a sort of ideological consideration, but one rooted in the realities of operational effectiveness, the realities of war-fighting, the realities of what women have brought to the security sector, not just in the US but around the world. Those capabilities and those experiences — that’s not an argument today anymore. [When consulted recently on whether WPS should be ended in DoD, the Joint Staff recommended keeping the program and its benefits to national security] That’s where the exasperation comes from. But I hope that better minds will prevail, and that the collegiality and the collaboration that has been evidenced on this issue over the last many years will continue.
PassBlue: What has WPS achieved across the last 25 years?
Verveer: The most important aspect of WPS, beyond the recognition of what it represents, is that it be integrated in policy. So I’ve always said in the time I spent in government in my own country, that when it comes to the critical issues, the crises of our time, whether it’s what’s happening in Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar or in the Middle East, that this is about WPS. So, the strength of it is not some side program. It’s not some marginal consideration. It’s really about taking this perspective, this gender lens, if you will, of women’s equality and women’s empowerment and recognizing, as one of our former top military officials said, that half the population’s experience, half the population’s resources, capabilities and talents should be applied in the peace and security space as well. We have voluminous evidence today of how this makes a difference.
What we need, I think, are greater efforts on the part of all actors in this space to more significantly engage, to integrate and to mainstream WPS programs. So yes, there’s been good progress. Yes, it is based on a strong foundation. Yes, we know peace agreements will last longer. We know that when women are at the table, they will get to those agreements sooner. We know about the work on the grass-roots level. We know what it does to enhance military capabilities and how much bilateral work is going on around the world, with the US and its allies, with other countries and their allies in this space. But I think we also have to recognize, and I certainly believe, particularly in this moment of anniversary, that we need to do better, and we need to fully implement and understand that if we truly did this in the most effective way, the benefits it would have to peace and security in the world. So, it’s important that the work goes on, but it’s also important that we recognize that we need to do a better job.
PassBlue: Where is WPS falling short?
Verveer: I remember when UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that if member states want to demonstrate their commitment, they should put together national action plans, which more than 100 countries have done today. It’s an extraordinary evolution of commitment. You look at the Security Council, which has a core group of countries, both some of the permanent representatives and temporary, who are really committed to the WPS agenda and integrating it in many of the developments and crises that are occurring. We’ve had peace agreements that have been exemplary in what they represent. We’ve had many discussions of the whole defense world of countries working together from training missions to enhancing capabilities.
As we speak, Oslo is hosting the WPS Focal Points thematic meeting, and there was one in Japan several months ago. So, there is good work going on. But I think many of these national action plans need to be more robust. They need to really affect what’s happening within the country, and the country’s dealings with others. One of my biggest concerns is that the work that happens on the ground, where women peace-builders every day are facilitating dialogue, working at reconciliation, engaging in potential solutions to address problems on the ground, know that those problems are, for the most part, separated from the so-called “official negotiations.”
We’ve got to do a better job of connecting. However that happens, there needs to be a much better understanding of that vital element that exists around the globe on how we end these conflicts or prevent them in the first place. I think the Security Council has improved. It needs to do a better job when it sends envoys into conflict areas to make sure they go with an understanding of what their obligations are under WPS as well. So that whole area of connecting the world of peace-builders at the national, international level, with the ones at the ground level in areas of conflict, and truly understanding what’s at stake, making those interventions much more effective. Thirdly, I think that this whole area we’ve already talked a bit about, true integration, true understanding, whether it’s in national foreign policy apparatus, defense policies, the inner workings of the United Nations in political affairs and peace-building — we need to integrate this concept much more significantly. Somebody has to be reminded that they should do it. We are not there.
PassBlue: How do you see the possible appointment of Mike Waltz as UN ambassador affecting the organization’s ability to challenge the US on the Hegseth decision? Waltz’s Senate hearing has not been scheduled yet.
Verveer: I know Mike, and as a member of Congress, he has been quite effective and committed to WPS. The situation for him now, I think, is very much up in the air. I don’t think one can predict exactly how it will come out. I think it will be a very tough confirmation fight, both because of the so-called Signalgate and what that represents, and reports that President Trump has been unhappy with some conversations he had with Netanyahu; potentially, there may have been others.[Waltz] seems to be out of step with the more traditional crowd in the administration, because he comes in from the outside, even though he’s been a card-carrying, committed member of his party.
So, let’s assume that he does get confirmed. I would hope that he will continue to play a positive role what the United Nations should represent for the US, and going back 80 years now has had a record that is important to peace and security in the world. As I said, Waltz was the Republican co-chair of the caucus in the House on WPS and has a strong record with Afghanistan, for example. But in a way, that is not so representative of, going forward — assuming he’s confirmed — that the direction that he gets from the administration will be his working strategy. He will have to abide by whatever the administration wants to put forward at the UN and the early indications are, again, exasperating.
Having watched what was happening carefully during CSW [the UN’s annual Commission on the Status of Women conference], and a relatively O.K. resolution came out, but it didn’t advance the ball. It was watered down. There was strong opposition from the US to the whole gender equality, women’s empowerment agenda. I think we don’t know exactly how it’s going to play out, but that was not a good early sign. I understand there were discussions in peacekeeping operations meetings where there wasn’t even an awareness of the US obligations to its ongoing WPS commitments by the US parties who were involved. The resolution condemning the Russians’ aggression on Ukraine, on the war’s third anniversary where the US wound up voting with Russia, Belarus and North Korea — that is not anything but upsetting.
Then there are these huge battles on the [US] commitment to funding, however that plays out, whether in terms of dues, the voluntary agencies. . . . I think there are a lot of worrying signs, but hopefully there is also not giving up and finding avenues for progress. And I hope that if Waltz is confirmed, that he will be a good ambassador, not just a negative force: someone who will find ways for the US to continue to play at least a more positive than negative role, but also understanding the challenges to multilateralism today, their financing challenges. There are reforms that need to take place, but together, we could get to a better place. But that’s assuming that there’s a constructive force and good will.
We welcome your comments on this article. What are your thoughts on Hegseth banning WPS?
Related Posts
Arthur Bassas is a researcher and writer who graduated from St. Andrews in Scotland, majoring in international relations and terrorism. He lives in Brooklyn, N.Y., and speaks English and French.
![[Re]Group - A Playbook for Turbulent Times -Subscribe Now](https://passblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/regroup-v2_unf2026_square_600.500@2x.webp)
It is disgusting that the current administration is trying to go back to the dark ages in it’s embrace of sexism, racism, and xenophobia.
Pete Hegseth’s not wanting women messing with his war-fighting would be amusing if not so sad. While it is true that warring has been the purview of males (including male chimps)–as the United Nations has acknowledged countries with more gender equality experience less wars–less violence–more positivity. Feminism is not the “bad guys.” Perhaps some men, some types of governments just prefer the macho brand–no matter the negative consequences.