This op-ed was published by the Daily Caller on February 12, 2026.
The Pentagon’s recent warning to Scouting America—cut certain diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or risk losing federal support—has placed the organization in an unenviable position. Comply, and it alienates one constituency. Refuse, and it risks funding at a time when membership and finances are already under strain.
But the real issue exposed by Scouting America’s dilemma is much older and far larger than any single policy dispute.
When institutions responsible for forming young people allow their core convictions to shift with cultural or political pressure, they lose moral authority—and young people lose trust. Character formation requires moral steadiness, not constant reinvention.
For most of its history, Scouting was not primarily a political institution. It was a formative one. Its purpose was widely understood: to help boys grow into capable, principled men—marked by responsibility, courage, service, and self-discipline. While disagreements existed at the margins, the core mission was stable enough to survive changes in administrations, cultural moods, and public opinion.
That stability has eroded.
Over the past decade, Scouting America has repeatedly revised its policies to align with prevailing cultural trends—on leadership standards, program structure, and even how young people are encouraged to understand their own identities. Each shift was presented as necessary for relevance or inclusion. Taken together, however, they have left the organization vulnerable to precisely the moment it now faces: a reversal of political winds demanding yet another adjustment.
The problem is not adaptation itself. The problem is what happens to character formation when moral standards appear negotiable.
You cannot build character in young people if you teach them—explicitly or implicitly—that core convictions ebb and flow based on external pressure. Character requires moral grounding. Roots set in something solid. When institutions model uncertainty about first principles, they undermine the very formation they claim to offer.
Institutions built primarily on adaptability rarely age well. When values are tethered too tightly to the priorities of a particular moment, they become brittle. The moment shifts, and the institution must either reverse itself or defend positions it adopted only recently. Either way, credibility erodes.
Young people notice this far more than adults often realize. Instinctively, perhaps, they understand that building one’s house on the sand is not a wise idea. The wise man builds his house on the rock. Formation depends on steadiness—on leaders and institutions that demonstrate coherence over time.
As the CEO of Trail Life USA, a boy-focused scouting organization, I have seen firsthand how acutely boys sense whether the adults and institutions around them actually believe what they say. When standards change every few years—when moral guidance feels provisional, negotiable, or externally imposed—it undermines trust. Formation requires more than good intentions; it requires consistency.
This helps explain why many young men today are gravitating toward older sources of meaning: church, classic literature, history, craftsmanship, ritual, and communities that emphasize continuity rather than constant reinvention. They are not searching for novelty. They are searching for something solid—something that does not need to be updated every election cycle.
This does not mean rejecting all change or ignoring social realities. But it does mean acknowledging a basic truth: you cannot teach responsibility while modeling uncertainty about first principles. You cannot cultivate conviction while signaling that beliefs are temporary accommodations.
The same is true when it comes to discussions about sex and difference. Regardless of political or cultural trends, boys and girls are not interchangeable in development, perception, or temperament. These differences are observable, measurable, and consistent across cultures. Treating them as irrelevant—or purely constructed—does not create freedom; it creates confusion.
I often say that the “Y matters,” because there is a “why” behind that Y chromosome. That was true yesterday. It remains true today. And it will still be true tomorrow. Administrations come and go. Cultural moods ebb and wane. But truth does not shift with the tides.
Boys need challenge. They need purpose. And if they are going to grow into dependable men of conviction, they need adults and institutions willing to plant their flag on enduring truths—and stay rooted even when the winds change.
Scouting America’s current predicament is more than a funding dispute. It is the predictable outcome of an organization that gradually outsourced its moral compass to cultural consensus—and now finds that consensus divided.
The lesson is not limited to Scouting. Any institution tasked with forming the next generation should take note. When values shift with the seasons, young people do not become more open-minded; they become unmoored. When leadership lacks conviction, the void does not remain empty—it gets filled by cynicism, confusion, or apathy.
That is not good for boys. It is not good for institutions meant to serve them. And it is not good for a society that depends on adults who know what they stand for—and why.
Find a Troop near you or Learn how to bring Trail Life to your community at TrailLifeUSA.com
