On Tuesday, the Department of War announced the termination of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), an advisory group dedicated to addressing issues facing women in the U.S. military. Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision comes amid his administration’s focus on promoting uniform standards across the department, dismissing the committee’s perceived advocacy of a divisive feminist agenda. According to a statement by press secretary Kingsley Wilson, the committee’s recommendations were seen as contradictory to the military’s fundamental purpose of readying service members for combat.
The DACOWITS, which has existed since 1951, has historically been instrumental in shaping policies that impact the service experience for women in the military. Its recommendations have covered a range of issues, including recruitment, retention, employment, and integration strategies. The committee has also addressed the well-being and treatment of service members, particularly focusing on gender and ethnic considerations in body composition standards and the management of harassment allegations. Since its inception, the committee has made over 1,100 recommendations, with approximately 94% of these being adopted by the department as of 2025.
Hegseth’s rationale for disbarring the committee highlights a broader political narrative surrounding military readiness and traditional roles in the armed forces. By emphasizing sex-neutral standards, he aligns with a perspective that views the military as an institution requiring uniformity and combat effectiveness, with minimal focus on the specific challenges or rights associated with gender identity or diversity. Critics, however, argue that this decision neglects the complex realities faced by women in the military, such as ensuring their safety and equal opportunities for advancement without compromising the mission’s integrity.
Notably, the decision aligns with historical trends, as the Bush administration scaled back the DACOWITS in 2002, citing concerns about its promotion of gender quotas and combat roles for women. Similar ideological positions have persisted in recent years, with figures like Nancy M. Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women’s Forum, warning that such agendas could undermine the military’s primary objective of winning wars. This historical context underscores a deeper ideological conflict regarding the role of gender diversity within the military’s operational and strategic priorities.
The implications of this decision extend beyond policy reform. It reflects ongoing discussions about how the military should balance inclusivity with readiness, a debate that has been amplified by the increasing presence of women in combat roles and the push for greater representation of diverse identities within the armed forces. As Hegseth’s administration moves toward its own interpretation of uniformity and readiness, the long-term impact on military policy and personnel dynamics remains subject to further analysis and public discourse.