A long-standing Pentagon committee has been shuttered, sparking debate over the military’s direction on gender policies.
According to the Washington Examiner, the War Department, newly renamed under President Donald Trump, has terminated the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), a 74-year-old body tasked with advising on the recruitment and retention of women in the military. The decision, led by War Secretary Pete Hegseth, cites the group’s focus on what officials call a divisive feminist agenda.
Established in 1951 under Defense Secretary George Marshall to bolster women’s roles during the Korean War, DACOWITS has submitted annual reports and recommendations to Pentagon leadership. Its termination was hinted at earlier this year when the department proposed sunsetting 14 advisory groups, including this one.
War Department press secretary Kingsley Wilson didn’t mince words, stating, “The Committee is focused on advancing a divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness, while Secretary Hegseth has focused on advancing uniform, sex-neutral standards across the Department.” Such rhetoric signals a sharp pivot away from policies perceived as prioritizing ideology over military effectiveness.
The committee’s recent reports, as noted by the Daily Signal, touched on sensitive topics like the impact of the Roe v. Wade overturn on reproductive healthcare for service women. Critics might argue this strays from core military concerns, feeding into a narrative of mission creep that distracts from readiness.
While the committee’s history shows decades of service, its brief suspension in 2021 under Lloyd Austin for a broader Pentagon review hinted at prior scrutiny. Now, under Hegseth’s leadership, the axe has fallen for good, raising questions about how women’s unique challenges in the military will be addressed.
A coalition of female veteran lawmakers, including Senators Tammy Duckworth, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Mazie Hirono, alongside Representatives Chrissy Houlahan, Mikie Sherill, and Maggie Goodlander, penned a letter to Hegseth in May urging the committee’s preservation. They warned, “We are concerned the disassembly of DACOWITS will exacerbate the gap in the collection of data regarding key policies to improve conditions for service women and reduce barriers to the recruitment and retention of women.”
Their plea, reported by Military Times, underscores a fear that without dedicated oversight, systemic issues affecting female service members could be sidelined. Yet, one wonders if such concerns overlook the potential for broader, less ideologically charged mechanisms to handle these matters with equal rigor.
Hegseth’s own history adds fuel to the debate, as his confirmation hearings spotlighted past comments questioning women’s roles in combat. He clarified these stemmed from witnessing “standards lowered” in certain contexts, a point that resonates with those skeptical of policies bending too far toward accommodation over merit.
In March, Hegseth ordered a review of physical fitness standards for combat arms, emphasizing sex-neutral benchmarks. The review document insists, “All entry-level and sustained physical fitness requirements within combat arms positions must be sex-neutral, based solely on the operational demands of the occupation and the readiness needed to confront any adversary.”
This directive also explicitly bars lowering standards for existing service members, a move that aims to ensure fairness while maintaining rigor. It’s a pragmatic stance, though skeptics might question whether such uniformity fully accounts for biological differences without tailored support.
The push for uniform criteria reflects a broader effort to refocus the military on combat effectiveness over social experimentation. While noble in intent, the challenge lies in balancing this with the undeniable need to attract and retain diverse talent in a competitive recruitment landscape.
The termination of DACOWITS marks a decisive stand against what Hegseth’s team views as ideological overreach, but it’s not without cost. Losing a dedicated advisory body risks muting voices that have historically flagged real barriers for women in uniform.
Still, the War Department’s gamble seems rooted in a belief that military cohesion trumps specialized advocacy when readiness is at stake. If sex-neutral standards can deliver on their promise of fairness without alienating half the population, this could be a win for a leaner, more focused Pentagon.
For now, the debate simmers on, with lawmakers and advocates likely to keep pressing for alternative ways to safeguard women’s interests in the armed forces. As the War Department charts this new course, the true test will be whether it can uphold its mission without leaving critical voices unheard.
