Memorial Day, an occasion to honor America’s war dead, originated from attempts to heal from war and prevent its recurrence. First called Decoration Day, the holiday involved decorating the graves of Civil War soldiers and commemorating their sacrifices. Some leaders at the time promoted the idea that the holiday could advance post-war reconciliation between the North and the South. (Though that desire for reconciliation conflicted, to some extent, with advancing redress for the injustices of slavery). A century and a half later, the imperative of focusing on repair and building peace across America’s polarized communities is urgent once again, but seems regularly overwhelmed by a push toward conflict, whether at home or abroad.
Throughout U.S. history, veterans, understanding the risks taken by those who paid the ultimate price, have been at the forefront of efforts to limit war fighting, constrain militarism, and shape policies for peace. World War II veterans played leading roles in the campaign for a National Academy of Peace, which led to the creation of the U.S. Institute of Peace. Advocacy by Vietnam War veterans helped prompt Congress’s passage of the War Powers Resolution. And today, some veterans and their families are speaking out and mobilizing protests against the war in Iran.
The United States faces a changing, more contested world order that will continue to require deterrence against adversaries and a willingness to use military force when core U.S. interests are under threat. But modern human history has shown that unilateral acts of military aggression, projections of force and “strength,” and escalating arms races do not lead to durable peace. Managing conflicts to prevent violence and wars requires skillful diplomacy, demonstrated restraint, and investment in dedicated capacities and institutions.
Keynoting a conference convened by the University of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs on the future of American peacebuilding in March 2026, former U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral (ret.) Gary Roughead stated:
Durable peace does not emerge solely from deterrence or transactional deals. It depends on cultivating mechanisms for diplomacy, dialogue, transparency, and cooperative problem-solving…Strategic investments in conflict prevention, mediation capacity, governance strengthening, and research are not acts of idealism. They are acts of prudence.
Rhetoric Notwithstanding, Peace Loses in Current U.S. Policy
Despite his pledge to be a “peacemaker and unifier” and his self-declaration as the “President of Peace,” President Donald Trump’s actions routinely subordinate peace to other interests, both at home and abroad.
Trump has launched or significantly escalated military operations in at least seven countries — Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen — while conducting lethal strikes against suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that have killed more than 190 people as of May 8. As recently verified by fact checkers, Trump has ordered more strikes against more countries than any U.S. president in the 20th century. And he has threatened new wars against Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, and Mexico.
To sustain this expanded war activity and prepare to wage future wars (including with artificial intelligence), Trump’s administration is seeking to increase the military budget to an unprecedented $1.5 trillion a year, up from approximately $1 trillion in the current fiscal year 2026 and $860 million in fiscal 2025. Coupled with this militarism, the diminishment of U.S. diplomatic capacity, alliances, and international law is ushering in a more volatile world order — one that will be more dangerous for America’s soldiers.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s harshly partisan domestic policies and rhetoric –matched by some Democrats — do little to stem rising political violence or unite Americans across divisions. Aggressive federal immigration raids are stoking confrontations between ICE and Border Patrol agents and protestors on U.S. streets. Research suggests that more Americans on both sides of the aisle view political violence as acceptable, even if a strong majority continues to oppose it. And as documented in an article published by Just Security last month, the Trump administration has dismantled critical community programs and early warning infrastructure intended to track and disrupt political violence and extremist activity. The Global Peace Index, which has comparatively measured “peacefulness” across countries for nearly two decades, now ranks the United States as 128th of 163 nations.
Pursuing Peace at Home
Despite these negative trends, many organizations and individuals across the United States are engaged in important efforts to build peace at home. Civil society organizations such as Common Ground USA, the Horizons Project, Urban Rural Action, and the Alliance for Peacebuilding’s “Peacebuilding Starts at Home” campaign are working to bridge divisions and reduce harms caused by political violence. Veterans are leading the way in this work, too. The Brickyard, founded and led by veterans, is working through local chapters across the country to cultivate civic leaders and strengthen community bonds. Indeed, new research from a Penn State university professor shows that fostering more “socially cohesive neighborhoods” can help protect democracy from growing political violence.
These efforts are promising, but they need to be scaled. While action at the federal level is unlikely in the near term, state or local policymakers — ideally, in coordination with philanthropic and private donors — could allocate new funds for grants that promote dialogue and cohesion across communities. They could support the type of grants previously awarded by the Office of Prevention Programs and Partnerships in the Department of Homeland Security. States and cities could experiment with new constructs for promoting local peacebuilding, building on offices for neighborhood safety and community engagement. Their engagement would ideally be linked with investments in peace education at U.S. schools, work previously supported by the U.S. Institute of Peace that the Trump administration has gutted.
Peace at home also depends on leadership. The public pays attention to how its leaders respond in the wake of political violence. There is some research suggesting bipartisan acts and statements of unity to reject violence can make a difference, in tandem with other efforts. The National Governors’ Association’s “Disagree Better” Initiative, launched by Utah Governor Spencer Cox, is fostering important partnerships and dialogue to that end.
Pursuing Peace Abroad
At the same time, the United States urgently needs foreign policy leaders and influencers to articulate — and members of Congress to elevate — an alternative policy agenda that emphasizes the imperative of peacemaking and conflict prevention as a cornerstone of a future national security framework. That agenda should include:
- Passing and adopting the bipartisan Conflict Prevention Act introduced in the House in January to “create a permanent and dedicated staff and a Center for Conflict Analysis, Planning, and Prevention within the State Department.”
- Restoring the U.S. Institute of Peace or establishing a successor institution with an enhanced mandate to support research, training, and innovation in peacemaking practices.
- Pursuing new diplomatic initiatives to engage allies and adversaries alike on reducing emerging risks associated with the use of AI in militarized systems, unconstrained nuclear weapons development, and tensions fueled by global biodiversity loss.
- Recommitting to respect and strengthen national and international laws regarding armed conflict and the use of force, including greater accountability and oversight of decisions to initiate wars and how those wars are conducted. This includes restoring programs approved by Congress to reduce civilian casualties, as recommended just this month by the Defense Department’s Inspector General.
- Promoting reforms and modernization of the United Nations to better foster peace and security for the uncertain era ahead, including by pressing member nations to provide needed funding they have pledged and via strategic engagement with the new secretary-general who will be selected in the fall and take office Jan. 1.
Marking Memorial Day
This Memorial Day, to honor the memory of the many who have suffered at the hands of war, Americans should consider how to help mold a more peaceful future at home and abroad. That could involve supporting and joining the many organizations noted above and others that are working on alternatives to war, developing new approaches to resolve conflicts, or building community networks to stem violence at home. It also could include American citizens raising their voices with elected officials and candidates to demand that peacemaking be more explicitly promoted and resourced within foreign and domestic policy platforms. Every candidate for office in 2026 and 2028 should have to answer: What is your concrete vision for building future peace and security?
Of course, there are no easy or sure answers to that question. But forging peace starts with truly prioritizing and investing in it. In the years ahead, Americans must push for a greater level of resources invested in peacemaking that will enable transformative changes — at least enough to provide a sufficient balance to the trillions of dollars now being spent on militarized approaches that ostensibly aim for security but too often seem to fail. As the United States pursues innovation in the military realm to deter, wage, and win the wars of the future, it must innovate just as boldly in crafting the broader ecosystem and tools to build an enduring peace. That is a pursuit worthy of the sacrifices made by the generations of Americans who have given their lives so that the dreams of future generations might be realized.
