Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Dismantlement of US Institute of Peace

 The Associated Press published on 19 May 2025 an article titled "Judge Bars Trump Administration from Shutting Peace Institute that Sought to End Violent Conflicts" by Gary Fields.

A US District Court judge blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with the dismantling of the US Institute of Peace in Washington.  The judge ruled that the think tank was created and funded by Congress and was taken over illegally by DOGE through "blunt force backed up by law enforcement officers from three separate local and federal agencies."  The administration has 30 days to appeal.

Comment:  This was one of the most egregious decisions by the Trump administration to dismantle a foreign affairs related organization. Although the administration may appeal the ruling, it probably faces an uphill battle in the case of USIP.   

Has US Given Up on Preventing Wars in Horn of Africa?

 The New York Times published on 9 May 2025 a commentary titled "The Wars We Still Can Stop" by Cameron Hudson, Center for Strategic and International Studies.

As the Trump administration steps back from the Horn of Africa and guts existing diplomacy tools, it raises the question whether Washington has abdicated its peacemaking role in the region.  The author asks, "how many American warriors do we intend to commit to wars we could have stopped before they started?"

DOGE Targets First Trump Administration's International Development Finance Corporation

 Politico published on 28 April 2025 an article titled "DOGE Targets US Foreign Aid Agency Created under First Trump Administration" by Robbie Gramer and Sophia Cai.  

The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) was created with bipartisan congressional support during the first Trump administration to provide private sector funding for development projects in lower- and middle-income countries--offering an alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative.

A team of DOGE personnel went to the DFC headquarters in Washington this week to begin assessing the agency's effectiveness and alignment with the president's agenda.  

Comment:  Because the DFC was created during the first Trump administration, it may be left intact.  In any event, it was a good initiative that should be retained.  But that has not stopped DOGE from dismantling other good institutions such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, U.S. Institute of Peace, and the Woodrow Wilson Center.  

How Dismantling U.S. Foreign Policy Institutions Appeases Russia (and China)

 The New York Times published on 26 April 2025 an article titled "How Trump Plays into Putin's Hands from Ukraine to Slashing U.S. Institutions" by Peter Baker.

While the focus of the article in on Trump's Ukraine policy and how it plays into the hands of Vladimir Putin, it also argues that plans to dismantle the following foreign policy organizations have the same effect: National Endowment for Democracy, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, US Agency for International Development, International Republican Institute, and National Democratic Institute.

Comment:  Institutions in the process of dismantlement that should be added to this list are the U.S. Institute of Peace, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Woodrow Wilson Foundation, and other media services under the U.S. Agency for Global Media such as the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks.  

While Peter Baker's article only deals with the impact on Russia of the elimination of these pro-democracy foreign policy institutions by Elon Musk and the Trump administration, the decisions will be equally welcomed in Beijing.  

DOGE Fires US Institute of Peace Washington Staff

 The New York Times published on 29 March 2025 an article titled "Many at U.S. Institute of Peace Fired as Trump Seeks Nonprofit's End" by Aishvarya Kavi.  

Elon Musk's DOGE fired on 28 March nearly all of the US Institute of Peace's (USIP) staff members in the United States.  DOGE plans to "relocate" international staff by 9 April.  USIP is effectively closed, although court cases will follow.  

The Washington Post published on 29 March 2025 an article titled "DOGE Fires Nearly All Staff at U.S. Institute of Peace Headquarters" by Abigail Hauslohner and Derek Hawkins.  

This account provides some additional detail on this development.

The Takeover of the US Institute of Peace

The New York Times published on 25 March 2025 an article and extensive photographs titled "Showdown at the Institute of Peace" by Aishvarya Kavi. 

The article describes in detail the forcible takeover of the US Institute of Peace in Washington, removal of acting president George Moose, and firing of all 10 voting members of the organization's board--5 Democrats and 5 Republicans.  The White House press secretary described USIP's ousted staff as "rogue bureaucrats."

DOGE Invades US Institute of Peace

 This is a short clip from the 19 March 2025 Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC concerning the invasion and closure of the US Institute of Peace.  

The US Institute of Peace is an independent, non-profit agency created by the US Congress to host programs and fund research designed to reduce conflict around the world.  For whatever reason (or perhaps there is no reason), DOGE decided to forcibly shut it down.  

Comment:  I have attended many events over the past 25 years at USIP and never witnessed one that in any way could be considered contrary to the foreign policy interests of the administration occupying the White House at the time. One has to wonder what is going on in Washington.   

South Sudan: A Facebook Discussion

The US Institute of Peace (USIP) is organizing a discussion on its Facebook page that begins at 9:00 a.m. EST on 15 December.  The focus of the discussion is the war in South Sudan over the past year.  The following experts will be available to answer questions:

--David Deng, research development, South Sudan Law Society
--Jackline Nasiwa, constitutional advisor, Public International Law and Policy Group
--Susan Stigant, director of Africa programs, USIP

USIP Panel Discussion on South Sudan

The US Institute of Peace (USIP) and the Wilson Center held on 10 January 2014 a panel discussion on the crisis in South Sudan with Ambassador Princeton Lyman, former US Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, Ambassador Alan Goulty, former UK Special Envoy and ambassador to Sudan, Kate Almquist Knopf, former USAID assistant administrator for Africa, and Jon Temin, director of the Africa program at USIP. The one and one-half hour program is available by webcast.

Crisis and Opportunity in South Sudan

The Washington-based US Institute for Peace (USIP) published on 8 January 2014 a policy brief titled "Crisis and Opportunity in South Sudan" by Ambassador Princeton Lyman, former US Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan, Jon Temin, director of the Africa program at USIP, and Susan Stigant, senior program officer  at USIP.

The brief analyzes the crisis in South Sudan and strategies for building lasting peace in the country.  It emphasizes that ongoing negotiations cannot simply return South Sudan to the previous status quo.

South Sudan Peacekeeping Mission

Hilde Johnson, special representative of the U.N. Secretary General and head of the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS) spoke at the US Institute of Peace on 8 March 2013 about the UN peacekeeping operation there.  She singled out Jonglei Province, where five UN peacekeepers and seven civilians were recently killed, as an especially troublesome area.

Click here to read a summary of her remarks.

Gender Implications of Sudan-South Sudan Agreements

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) did an analysis in January 2013 of the gender implications of the September 2012 Sudan-South Sudan agreements and made recommendations for gender-sensitive implementation.  The analysis is titled The 2012 Sudan-South Sudan Agreements through a Gender Lens.

Sudan-South Sudan Oil Deal

The U.S. Institute of Peace published on 7 August 2012 two brief commentaries on the Sudan-South Sudan oil deal. Click here to read the first one by Jonathan
Temin. Click here to read the second one by Gordon Lubold.

Problems facing youth in South Sudan

The U.S. Institute of Peace issued in November 2011 a good report on the role of youth in state building in South Sudan.

It focuses particularly on the problems caused by rising dowry or bride price. The authors are Marc Sommers, a visiting researcher at Boston University’s African Studies Center, and Stephanie Schwartz, a doctoral student at Columbia.

Study on the role of oil in South Sudan

The U.S. Institute of Peace published in July 2011 a report titled “Oil and State Building in South Sudan” by Jill Shankleman.

The author focuses on recommendations that will improve the way that South Sudan’s oil can contribute positively to state building.

The report identifies the opportunities and challenges for South Sudan to manage its oil sector and use its wealth to bridge the gap between its informal and formal economies consistent with South Sudan’s stated objective to strengthen the management of petroleum resources in a way that contributes fully to economic prosperity and development.

Southern Sudanese official comments on future of two Sudans

Dr. Jok Madut Jok, a Jennings Randolph fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, is currently on leave from the Institute to serve as undersecretary of the government of Southern Sudan’s Ministry of Culture and Heritage.

On Jan. 11, 2011, he wrote a short piece (PDF) titled “Independent Southern Sudan and How the Two Sudans Become Stable Nations.”

He properly emphasizes that the hard part comes after the referendum. The most complex issues include nationality and citizenship, division of assets and international debts, border issues and managing cross-border movement and trade, and sharing the wealth from the southern oil in exchange for the use of the oil facilities in the north, including the pipeline to Port Sudan on the Red Sea.

More tellingly, he warns that the ruling National Congress Party in northern Sudan will face serious internal challenges due to what will be seen as a legacy of failure for losing Southern Sudan. The biggest obstacle for Southern Sudan may be the tendency to engage in exclusionary practices based on ethnic differences that could have a detrimental impact on its viability as a nation.

I would add that corruption is another serious concern. Jok’s comments, written from a southern perspective, offer a brief but useful look into the near future of both Sudans.

More recommendations for assuring peace in Sudan

The U.S. Institute of Peace issued a short paper on January 22, 2010 titled "Negotiating Sudan’s Post-Referendum Arrangements by Jon Temin, USIP’s Sudan program officer, which is based on meetings in Khartoum, Juba, Washington and elsewhere between August 2009 and January 2010. These balanced and thoughtful suggestions merit close attention.

New USIP report on Sudan

I was one of 20 people who participated in three workshops to explore ways to avoid political violence in Sudan through the end of 2011. The workshops, which took place in April and May of 2009, were sponsored by the USIP. I contributed raw material to the final report, "Scenarios for Sudan: Avoiding Political Violence Through 2011," written by by Alan Schwartz. Obviously, not all participants agreed with every conclusion contained in the report, nor did we participate in the drafting of the report. It does, however, reflect the consensus of the participants. You can read the report in PDF format here.