At a time when the United States faces the most complex security environment in its history, we do not have the privilege of alienating purpose-driven people who wish to contribute to this consequential sector – especially those who have been historically marginalized and still elect to pursue a pathway.
The recent attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump has incited a maelstrom of misogynistic and dehumanizing rhetoric targeting the female Secret Service agents assigned to protecting the former president and women writ large in the security workforce.
Rather than focus on the identity or possible motive of the shooter, several high visibility leaders have capitalized on this violent incident to bolster their position that Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives harm America.
The concept of DEI in national security has increasingly come under attack in recent years. The backlash has had implications for the national security workforce. For example, the most recently passed National Defense Authorization Act prohibits the establishment of new DEI positions and the consideration of an applicant’s commitment to DEI in hiring for certain positions. The swift reactions to eliminate DEI have cut short an important opportunity to analyze the return on investment of such programs.
The DEI backlash has also truncated critical discussions about what it means to create accessible pathways in national security. This week, girls and women across the United States — and around the world — are consuming an onslaught of blatantly misogynistic comments on social media. What message does it send to U.S. adversaries that it is acceptable for people in positions of power to degrade and dehumanize more than half the population?
The rhetoric by non-experts also underscores a lack of understanding of the capabilities required to perform all security careers, which extend beyond physicality and include critical thinking, for example.
Women have effectively excelled in security positions across the more visible physical security positions in law enforcement, the military and the intelligence community for decades. Physical force neither caused nor could have prevented the attempted assassination.
More significantly, this backlash highlights the unique constraints women in national security have long-navigated, despite their contributions throughout history. But the risks of “othering” women in security today are far more detrimental than ever before.
Since World War I, women’s participation in security has been defined by several factors, including the position that women are more peaceable. For decades, one statistic has been repeatedly cited in support of this position: Women’s participation in conflict resolution increases the probability of lasting peace by 20 percent.
However, women have remained excluded from conflict resolution processes and continue to be underrepresented in the national security decision-making hierarchies that create the need for peace processes in the first place.
In addition, women have historically been excluded from some national security pathways, either due to policies prohibiting their engagement such as the Combat Exclusion Policy (which was lifted in 2013), or due to inflexible or unsafe workplaces characterized by discrimination or sexual violence. “Women are life-makers, not life-takers,” has been a common refrain from those who believe that a woman's place is in the home, not on the battlefield — or the campaign trail or the Situation Room or the C-Suite.
Despite the challenges women have confronted, their participation in all national security careers has always been vital to America’s economy and democracy. Women have made important gains, especially in national security leadership, which a recent study found contributed to creating more well-rounded, comprehensive decisions, a culture of collaboration and a policymaking process that considered a wider range of possibilities outside the traditional national security policy options.
Harmful gender stereotypes, which the recent criticism of women in security perpetuates, pose a threat to our democracy at a moment when our nation requires a workforce whose skills, experiences and cultural expertise are as diverse as the variety of threats we confront.
With the advent of artificial intelligence and other technologies, the U.S. has a critical opportunity to prioritize and invest in girls’ and women’s participation in both emerging and developing national security arenas — such as building a more trustworthy internet and protecting space — before the gendered norms that have long-pigeonholed women in security impede the leadership and entrepreneurship of future generations. This requires investing in skill-building, apprenticeships and professional training for girls and women, supported by the private sector and local, state and federal government.
Increasing the inclusion of girls and women in shaping the national security and defense landscape can include encouraging girls and women to run for office, where responsibility for implementing America’s national security priorities is divided between the executive and legislative branches.
Women have been underrepresented in decision-making positions across the executive and legislative branches throughout America’s modern national security history. During the 77th Congress of World War II, for example, women represented 1.88 percent of 531 total members. Today, members who identify as women represent 27.3 percent of total members.
Advancing the insights and perspectives of girls and women on U.S. national security can also include public education on what national security is and how national security decisions are made. When we survey teens in the organization I founded, Girl Security, about what “national security” means to them, they respond with many of the same general perceptions likely shared by most Americans: the military, spies, the film “Men in Black,” and “CSI,” the crime drama. These perceptions are not inaccurate, but partially informed.
We explain that national security also includes the whole of government, such as Congress and the U.S. Department of State, as well as the United Nations and increasingly the private sector, among other institutions. In addition to the military, national security also includes diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and today, technology.
Additionally, one-third of America’s federal budget is allocated to national security and defense, totaling $816.7 billion. According to a recent compendium, Resourcing the National Security Enterprise, the individual taxpayer pays an estimated $2,400 each year for U.S. national security and defense.
Women’s engagement in national security must extend beyond the establishment to include the perspectives and experiences of women from across the United States whose tax dollars, livelihoods and lives are impacted every day by national security decisions that invoke the attention and investment of the most powerful political sector in the world, over other societal challenges.
Girls and women grow up in a world where they are secured from nothing and taught to fear everything. From childhood to adulthood, they are security experts. At a time when the U.S. faces the most complex security environment in its history, we do not have the privilege of alienating purpose-driven people who wish to contribute to this consequential sector — especially those who have been historically marginalized and still elect to pursue a pathway. The future of our democracy requires girls’ and women’s engagement in national security.
Lauren Bean Buitta is founder and CEO of Girl Security, a national nonprofit advancing girls and women in national security pathways.
