The conflict with Iran has escalated with startling speed, prompting an urgent policy question in Washington and beyond: What comes next? Military action, when necessary, can achieve important tactical and strategic objectives; but it cannot by itself determine the political and security outcomes that follow. History shows that a cessation of hostilities does not inevitably result in a durable peace. Without credible institutions capable of managing tensions and rebuilding relations and trust, conditions that fuel conflict often persist. Like war, just and lasting peace requires specialized knowledge, extensive planning, investment of resources, trained and experienced personnel, tested problem-solving processes, and sustained commitment.
One year ago today, the United States – and the world – lost a crucial element of this capability. That’s when the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) seized the four-decade-old, congressionally chartered U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and began to dismantle it, firing hundreds of trained and experienced peacebuilding experts and eliminating funding and technical support to thousands of their counterparts in conflict zones around the world. Just two months later, on May 19, 2025, USIP prevailed in federal district court when Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the removal of the institute’s board members, and DOGE’s subsequent takeover of USIP, was unlawful. A three-judge motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, all appointed by President Donald Trump, later granted a stay pending appeal. In September, the Appeals Court paused the proceedings while the Supreme Court considers related issues in the case of Trump v. Slaughter involving the Federal Trade Commission. My colleagues and I who are plaintiffs in the USIP suit (I as acting CEO and president) remain confident that Howell’s ruling will ultimately be affirmed.
USIP’s independence is viewed by the administration as a threat to its assertion of direct control over all elements of government that are not explicitly legislative or judicial. But USIP’s independence is a deliberate element of Congress’ ingenious design when it created the institute in 1984 to be the foremost American institution dedicated to peacebuilding. Congress, led by World War II veterans familiar with the devastating costs of war, established USIP as an independent, nonpartisan institution governed by a bipartisan board so that its cost-effective work in conflict prevention, mediation, and trusted convening could endure beyond political cycles. For more than 40 years, Republican and Democratic administrations, with sustained bipartisan support from Congress, have recognized that the credibility essential to long-term peacebuilding required both political and institutional independence to build relationships across political, religious, and ideological divides in fragile contexts. Peace work should not be politicized.
From Nigeria to the Philippines
The validity of Congress’ vision has been demonstrated repeatedly. As a State Department diplomat dealing with a dozen conflict situations in Africa (before retiring and joining the institute’s board), I came to rely on USIP’s expertise — and that of the many experts it trained — in how to mitigate and resolve violent conflicts in places such as Sudan, Liberia, and Ethiopia; how to bridge the Christian-Muslim divide in Nigeria; and the most effective strategies to counter violent extremism in Mali and Somalia. Later, as a member of the institute’s board of directors, I oversaw their important work in other parts of the world. In Southeast Asia, for example, USIP’s groundbreaking research on the destabilizing activities of Chinese-backed transnational crime networks enabled governments here and elsewhere to understand and address the impact of these scam operations on their citizens. And in Central Asia, institute-sponsored research and non-governmental dialogue paved the way for an historic agreement that resolved a 35-year-long border dispute between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The seizure of USIP that began on March 17 of last year has halted much of this work and destabilized the partner institutions and organizations that have dedicated themselves to carrying it out on the ground in conflict zones. The institutional instability caused by the misguided effort to dismantle USIP has rippled through sister organizations, mediation networks, government and civil society partnerships, and the communities where their steady engagement matters most.
Such was the case in the Philippines, where the administration’s actions interrupted the critical work that institute experts were playing in helping resolve a 50-year ethnic-religious conflict on the island of Mindanao, a conflict that was being exploited by both ISIS and China. Administration funding cuts have similarly impacted the broader network of peacebuilding organizations. In Nigeria, the abrupt termination of State Department funding to a sister peacebuilding organization, Search for Common Ground, dismantled an early warning system that had been used effectively to alert local leaders to possible clashes between Muslim herders and Christian farmers. Had that system been in place five months later, it might well have helped those leaders prevent an attack that resulted in the deaths of 200 people and the displacement of 4,000 more.
A Time of Increasing Need
What is more, the dismantling and defunding of these purposefully crafted and highly effective tools and capabilities is occurring at a time when they are needed most — from dealing with the devastating impacts of Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine, to addressing the inevitable destabilization arising from a new war in the Middle East. Former USIP leaders and practitioners are finding ways to continue their work alongside civil society and academic partners, sustaining a commitment to peacebuilding and conflict resolution. But their dedication alone cannot match the effectiveness they could achieve if USIP, with its organizational experience, institutional knowledge, and trusted relationships, were allowed to resume its congressionally mandated mission.
Peace is not built by political elites or governments alone. It relies on credible, independent, and enduring institutions that can support societies emerging from conflict, bridge differences, and provide tools to strengthen fragile states. If the United States is serious about peace, it must protect the institutions that build and sustain peace. These institutions are the indispensable and cost-effective complement to the diplomatic, military, and development capabilities that are essential to keeping the United States and its partners around the world safe and secure. Independence, credibility, and continuity are not abstract ideals; they are the practical foundations that make peace possible.
– Ambassador George Moose, Published courtesy of Just Security.
