We Must Reverse the Name “Scouting America”
back to “Boy Scouts of America”

I oppose renaming the Boy Scouts of America to “Scouting America.” To modernize our branding is to wipe it out. The new name confuses our mission, alienates our members, and signals institutional shame. Boys no longer feel protected. Girls no longer feel inspired. Volunteers no longer know what they’re defending. Parents no longer trust what we’ve become.

This isn’t reinvention, it’s retreat. A legacy once built on clarity, challenge, and character is now branding its uncertainty.

1. The boys don’t like it. It’s no longer a safe space for them.

For generations, boys relied on the Boy Scouts of America as a rare sanctuary. One of the only places where healthy masculinity could be explored without judgment or shame. Stripping the word “boy” from our name erodes that trust. It signals to them: this space is no longer yours.

This change lands in a broader cultural moment where masculinity is often labeled “toxic” from kindergarten through college. Apart from athletic teams (which don’t speak to most boys), the BSA was the last place where they could lead, grow, and struggle in their own skin.

Now, the name tells a different story. And so does the structure. Girls mature faster; the youth leadership of mixed-gender troops trends heavily female. That’s not their fault. But it deepens the unease. For boys, it’s another setting where they’re outpaced, overshadowed, and misunderstood.

Even the 2025 National Annual Meeting acknowledged this tension. A dedicated session explored the challenges boys face today, and the BSA’s duty to protect and support them. Girls deserve full access to true Scouting. But to honor that duty to both sexes, they both need space. Not dilution.

2. The girls don’t like it. They signed up for “Boy Scouts of America”, not a watered-down brand. The name change signals the very spirit they came for is slipping away.

Girls joined the BSA chasing its reputation for rugged adventure, skill mastery, and genuine leadership experience. The switch to “Scouting America” reads as a dilution of everything that once made the program bold. Yes, they appreciate being welcomed. But interview after interview reveals disappointment: the new name suggests that challenge and identity are fading, not strengthening.

3. It suggests we’re making the program easier. And we are.

A generic, catch-all name like “Scouting America” often signals lowered standards. We have indeed lowered them.

Changes to advancement requirements and merit badge criteria confirm the trend toward allowing faster advancement in an increasingly indoor (classroom) environment. See Race to First Class and Eagle Mill.

Some programs have completely disappeared. For example:

• Kodiak Challenge (phased out 2021)
• BSA Lifeguard (previously called Scout Lifeguard) (phased out 2023)
• Powder Horn (phased out 2024)

4. It signals we’re embarrassed by our legacy. That we were never a good place to help kids grow.

It gives the impression we’re ashamed of our hundred-year tradition of character development.

Worse, it suggests we’re trying to bury our sexual abuse history when healing requires transparency.

The result? We don’t appear safer. We appear duplicitous.

5. Major sponsoring organizations have departed. The name change accelerated the exodus.

BSA policies that are seen to conflict with biblical standards have resulted in widespread issues with maintaining church sponsors for many years now. The name change is being seen as a “last straw”.

Faith-based organizations have historically been Scouting’s largest sponsors. Policy changes over the past decade have strained those relationships to the breaking point. The name change, for many, was the final signal.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the largest single sponsoring organization — stopped sponsoring BSA troops entirely in 2019. The United Methodist Church dropped from over 10,000 chartered units in 2020 to about 6,600 by mid-2022. Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and Presbyterian Church in America congregations saw similar contractions.

Across councils, maintaining faith-based sponsorship has become an exercise in jumping through ever-evolving hoops. Leaders report drafting opt-out agreements, establishing “traditional” unit models, and addressing an endless list of policy accommodations. The shift is from partnership to placation. These stopgap measures have bought time in some areas. But they underscore how much strain national policy changes have placed on local relationships.

As sponsors have pulled out, councils have scrambled to fill the void — sometimes failing, watching units close as a result.

The deeper loss is quieter. Countless parents and longtime Scouters are simply walking away. No protests. No headlines. Just quiet heartbreak and resolve. If their sponsoring organization no longer trusts the BSA, what reason do they have to stay?

These aren’t just sponsorship gaps. They’re moral fault lines. Each departure reflects a conviction that the program they loved is no longer consistent with the values that brought them to it.

“I’m a third-generation Scout. There won’t be a fourth.” — posted online

For many, the name change wasn’t a rebrand. It was the last straw.

6. Endorsed by the left. Ignored on the ground.

The renaming drew enthusiastic praise from commentators and advocacy organizations. Editorials described it as overdue. Social media declared it a win.

But the praise did not translate into results. Public schools — the access point for reaching new families — did not reopen their doors. Scheduling recruitment events grows harder. Flyers face new restrictions or quiet rejection. The organizations and institutions that applauded the change did not follow up with support, partnerships, or enrollment.

The name change pleased people who write about Scouting. It did not move people who participate in it.

7. It’s a rebrand in name only. The public still calls us “Boy Scouts”, just like they did after the last name change.

Brand recognition remains stubbornly loyal to the term “Boy Scouts”. Councils, families, and even media outlets continue to use the old name (or the initials BSA) in everyday conversation, social posts, and local press. The new logos and letterheads haven’t shifted sentiment.

When a Scout in uniform was asked what organization she belonged to, she answered “Scouting America”. The questioner remained confused until she clarified: “Boy Scouts”.

The brand identity of “Boy Scouts of America” should be a legacy strength. Instead, we’ve labeled it a liability.

8. We tried this already in the ’70s. It vanished without a ripple.

In the early 1970s, there was a similar rebranding effort: “Scouting USA”. Remarkably similar to “Scouting America”. Thankfully, it quietly faded into obscurity.

9. The initials “SA” already mean something else in youth services. Sexual Abuse. That’s not a shadow any Scouter wants trailing behind.

Within weeks of announcing the launch of “Scouting America”, councils were told to avoid the abbreviation “SA” altogether. Why? Because in case management and law enforcement, those letters stand for Sexual Abuse. Rather than rethink the new name, National tried to scrub the initials from view. So we were told to continue to use “BSA” as our abbreviation.

10. Rebrand did not actually accomplish its objective.

Patches, pins, and program titles still use “BSA”. Thus, the rebrand failed to accomplish its primary objective: to remove the term “boy”.

Conclusion

We’ve stopped pretending the old values still guide us. The renaming has made it plain: this is not the program we inherited.

It did not turn the BSA around in terms of numbers. It did not attract new institutional support. The only measurable result is departures identifying it as the last straw. The sooner we reverse it, the better.

It’s a flop. Ineffective. Displeases our core constituencies. Brings attention to our mistakes. Signals our shame. Dismisses our history.

It will go down as one of the worst debacles in the history of branding.