The Boy Scouts of America — now renamed Scouting America in an effort to align with the spirit of modern inclusivity — may soon lose its century-old partnership with the United States military. Why? Because, according to a reported draft memo from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, the organization has abandoned its original purpose: cultivating character, discipline, and masculine virtue in the next generation of American boys.
Hegseth’s proposal, as outlined in documents allegedly obtained by NPR, isn’t just symbolic. It would sever military medical and logistical support to Scouting America’s high-profile National Jamboree, a ten-day gathering that historically included skydiving shows, trucks, medics, and hands-on interaction with the armed forces — all at no cost to the Scouts.
It would also prohibit Scout troops from meeting on U.S. military bases both at home and abroad. And perhaps most consequentially, it would end the long-standing practice of giving Eagle Scouts a leg up in military rank and pay upon enlistment.
The reasoning? Hegseth reportedly believes that the Scouts no longer align with the Department of Defense’s values — or, more pointedly, with the mission of preparing young men for military service and leadership. His draft memo reportedly claims that the organization now exists to “attack boy-friendly spaces” and promote “gender confusion,” citing its name change, its acceptance of girls into formerly male-only troops, and its full embrace of DEI ideology. Hegseth, never one to mince words, has said bluntly that the organization has become “a shell of its former self.”
The Pentagon hasn’t officially confirmed the documents, but internal deliberations are clearly underway. The Navy Secretary has reportedly pushed back, warning that cutting ties could harm recruitment efforts. Indeed, Scouting America has historically been a major pipeline of disciplined, motivated enlistees — nearly 1 in 5 cadets at military academies are Eagle Scouts. For many kids, it’s their first exposure to rank, service, structure, and civic duty.
Scouting America, for its part, has issued a measured statement, calling itself “nonpartisan” and reaffirming its commitment to leadership, service, and responsibility. But Hegseth’s point is less about political affiliation and more about cultural mission. The question he raises is fundamental: can an organization that no longer holds young men to a clear, traditionally masculine standard still claim to be preparing them for the rigors of military service?
This controversy isn’t just about uniforms and campouts — it’s about competing visions for what kind of citizens we want to raise, and what kinds of institutions are worthy of the military’s time, resources, and endorsement.
And that’s why Hegseth’s challenge is resonating. He’s not trying to “cancel” the Scouts — he’s asking why the Department of Defense should continue supporting an organization that, in his view, no longer supports the defense of this nation by preparing its future defenders.
Whether Congress agrees is another matter. Planning for the next Jamboree is already underway, and the law does require Pentagon support — unless the Secretary of Defense can cite national security reasons to withhold it. Hegseth appears ready to do just that.
