The Office of Global Women's Issues is Gone. America is Less Safe Because of it.

On April 22, my colleagues and I learned that our office at the U.S. Department of State was eliminated after an updated organizational chart was quietly circulated within the Department. There was no meeting, no notice from leadership — just a document showing that our office no longer existed. Our box was simply gone.

I served as a Foreign Affairs Officer in the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues, implementing the Women, Peace, and Security Act, which is a piece of bipartisan legislation passed unanimously and signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in 2017. 

The work wasn't about politics or ideology. It was about national security. 

Indeed, research has shown that including women in peace processes increases the chances of achieving a peace agreement that lasts at least 15 years by 35 percent. Fewer failed peace processes mean fewer regions requiring U.S. military intervention and a stronger foundation for long-term global stability.

But by July, I was fired along with my entire 65+ person office. The work I spent over a decade building expertise to do, including coordinating across the U.S. government and with international partners to prevent conflicts, counter violent extremism, and strengthen fragile states, simply stopped. No transition plan was offered, and the national security mandate Congress created through the WPS Act was effectively left without a home inside the Department.

Empty Promises

Without political leadership, we tried to adapt, but the lack of communication and policy guidance from Department leadership made it difficult to be proactive. We prepared detailed briefing materials for incoming appointees, such as comprehensive overviews of each of the office’s divisions and how our work would support the Administration’s focus on a foreign policy that makes America “safer, stronger, and more prosperous.” We emphasized areas where the first Trump administration had shown interest: For instance Ivanka Trump had championed women's economic empowerment globally through the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP). U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had co-sponsored the WPS Act, signed into law on October 6, 2017, when he was a Republican Senator. 

We thought maybe, just maybe, the evidence and bipartisan support would matter. It didn't.

Between January and July, we felt constantly on edge, waiting for the next demoralizing executive order or DOGE email. The silver lining was the bonds formed with colleagues who became dear friends as we navigated these compounding challenges together. But those relationships couldn't compensate for watching our life's work dismantled.

What Was Lost

Americans should understand what the Office of Global Women's Issues actually did. We weren't symbolic. We were a specialized team of experts implementing Congressional mandates focused on women and girls and coordinating U.S. government efforts to advance women's rights and empowerment as a core national security priority. 

We prevented and responded to gender-based violence — from conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine, to technology-facilitated violence targeting women online, to forced marriage affecting girls all over the world. We strengthened women's economic security by supporting women entrepreneurs across the globe, helping pass legal reforms removing barriers to women's economic participation, and investing in girls' STEM education and climate leadership. And we implemented the bipartisan Women, Peace and Security Act of 2017, coordinating across the State Department, Pentagon, USAID, Department of Homeland Security to support women's participation in peace processes, integrate a gender perspective into peace and security processes, and train thousands of U.S. personnel on why inclusive approaches to security are more effective.

We weren't doing charity work; we were advancing U.S. national security interests. When we trained partner nation security forces on preventing gender-based violence, those forces were more effective and less likely to commit abuses that would undermine U.S. partnerships. When we invested in women's economic empowerment in fragile states, we addressed root causes of instability and migration. Every dollar we spent on prevention saved exponentially more on reactive interventions later.

The Efficiency Lie

The administration justified eliminating the Office of Global Women's Issues as improving efficiency. This elimination is the opposite of efficiency.

Efficiency in foreign policy means preventing crises before they require expensive responses. It means maintaining relationships so partners trust us. It means having expertise available when issues emerge. It means not rebuilding from scratch what took decades to build.

Real efficiency looks like the small team I was part of: clear mandate, measurable outcomes, established partnerships, implementing Congressional law. What happened instead was institutional vandalism dressed up in the language of reform.

Secretary Rubio assured Congress that regional bureaus would absorb WPS implementation. But those bureaus are already understaffed and stretched thin. Without a coordinating office, implementation will be duplicative, inconsistent, and ineffective. 

When my office was eliminated, we took with us centuries of expertise and institutional knowledge: advanced degrees, language skills, regional knowledge, relationships with foreign counterparts, and understanding of what works and what fails in conflict prevention. That expertise cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop. 

Now it's gone.

The Technical and Personal Cost

The programs we ran weren't expensive. Our budget for global programs was roughly $15 million annually, but the value was enormous. Supporting inclusive peace processes costs millions; failed states requiring American military presence cost billions per year.

For example, the contrast between prevention and intervention costs in Afghanistan is stark. U.S. military intervention cost $840.7 billion from 2001-2018 through the Department of Defense alone, with total estimated federal costs reaching $2.3 trillion through 2024. Meanwhile, the Office of Global Women’s Issues invested just $2-3 million a year — roughly 0.0001 percent of that total — on programs supporting Afghan women’s education, leadership, and participation in peacebuilding. Our initiatives funded scholarships for over 120 women after the Taliban takeover, created platforms for women’s voices in policy discussions, and helped place Afghan scholars in safety abroad. Despite the modest investment, these efforts protected women’s rights defenders, enabled women to comprise 20 percent of Afghanistan’s peace negotiating team, a historic first, and built enduring networks of women leaders who continue advocating for their country’s future. It proved that targeted investment in women’s leadership delivers impact far beyond its cost.

Like so many public servants, this wasn't just my job. It was my calling. Working on WPS was my dream career. Having that ripped away has been devastating.

Before January 20, I believed government service was where expertise, evidence, and bipartisan consensus could drive meaningful outcomes. I was cautiously optimistic this administration would at least uphold its constitutional oath. I couldn't have imagined things could get this bad this quickly.

I still believe in public service and the thousands of dedicated professionals who continue serving. But I now understand that impact must come from multiple sectors. The civil service needs rebuilding after this administration, and that should be a top priority for preserving what remains of our democracy.

What Happens Next

While the U.S. government eliminated its WPS and broader gender infrastructure, our closest allies, like the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia, continue robust implementation. They view gender equality as fundamental to security. 

We now treat it as disposable ideology.

Canada, for instance, has made WPS a cornerstone of its foreign policy through its Feminist International Assistance Policy, dedicating at least 15 percent of its international aid — about CAD $1.4 billion — to advancing gender equality and embedding WPS across diplomacy, development, and defense.

This investment has produced measurable results: Canadian support established the Elsie Initiative, which trained and deployed hundreds of women peacekeepers who improved mission outcomes in Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo; Canadian-backed women mediators helped secure peace in the Philippines; and the country’s National Action Plan prioritizes Indigenous women’s leadership in conflict prevention. By treating WPS as operationally essential, not ideological, Canada has shown that integrating gender perspectives leads to more effective military operations and more sustainable development outcomes — an approach once championed alongside the United States, until Washington chose to walk away.

But there’s still time, and Congress can act: Hold hearings on WPS Act compliance. Demand accountability for ignoring statutory mandates. Use appropriations power to restore what was eliminated. Investigate whether withholding appropriated funds violates the Impoundment Control Act.

Civil society also has a part to play. They can document impacts, strengthen coalitions, and educate Americans about connections between foreign policy and domestic wellbeing. The American public has the power to demand that elected representatives value evidence-based policy and Congressional authority.

The fight for gender equality, effective security policy, and democratic governance continues. It just requires different venues and sustained commitment from citizens who understand what's at stake.

My office is gone. The work isn't finished.