The Erosion of U.S. Infrastructure for the Environmental, Gender, and Peacebuilding Fields

Jul 16, 2025 | Emily Sample and Nick Zuroski

A year ago, Marisa Ensor outlined the increasing codification of the environmental peacebuilding field and its well-recognized intersections with race, gender, and age. In this piece, she highlighted the interconnected nature of the environmental peacebuilding field and the institutional recognition the field and its work were receiving. A year later, the realities of the environmental peacebuilding field, its future, and especially its intersectionality, have come under nearly catastrophic pressure. 

It is well documented that during times of crisis within the climate-environment-conflict nexus, women and girls are more likely to be deprived of scarce resources, experience displacement, and fall victim to gender-based violence. Despite this, there has been an overall weakening of institutional leadership available for addressing this nexus, including the effective dissolution of USAID, the effective elimination of the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues, the dramatic reduction of the Woodrow Wilson Center to statutory minimums, and the ongoing legal battle by the Trump Administration to shut down the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP).

These concerning developments come amidst a broader deprioritizing of U.S. soft power diplomacy and commitment to human rights, the U.S. Government’s termination of climate adaptation, resilience, and mitigation programs, and broader cuts to conflict prevention assistance. Concurrently, the global landscape has become less conducive to environmental peacebuilding, with a shrinking pool of international partners willing to cooperate on large scale cross-border projects, other bilateral governmental donors cutting foreign aid in favor of increased military spending, and multilateral institutions growing increasingly weak and ineffective. 

The collapse of these institutions, coupled with reduction of foreign assistance for the peacebuilding and conflict prevention sector, poses a serious threat to the intersectional fields of gender, environment, and peacebuilding in three distinct ways. First, these actions undermine U.S. global leadership by both leaving international conventions and defunding U.S.-led projects worldwide. Second, the experts responsible for the care and keeping of the field and its institutional memory are unemployed, scattered to new organizations with potentially different priorities and mandates, forced to find jobs in entirely different professions, or made to retire. Third, and possibly the most existential, long-term threat, is that the professional pipeline in the gender, environment, and peacebuilding sectors has been significantly weakened, with up-and-coming professionals scared or unable to enter this work.

Global Leadership

In the first five months of the Trump administration, the U.S. has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement  (UNFCCC), the World Health Organization, the UN Loss and Damage Fund launched at COP28, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and formally rejected the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. These withdrawals also have significant funding implications for these frameworks and institutions, with the Trump Administration proposing cuts to the Contributions to International Organizations account by a staggering 83 percent in the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Presidential Budget Request. In addition to imperiling the mission of these international agreements and institutions through sudden disengagements and subsequent budget shortfalls, the U.S. has lost its seat at the table to help guide future decisions and strategy within the international community.

As of July 1st, the dismantling of USAID has halted all but 14% of its global programs, devastating foreign assistance critical for climate and environmental adaptation, conservation, addressing climate- and environment-driven displacement, conflict prevention, and health initiatives. Such drastic cuts have jeopardized longstanding climate resilience efforts in Africa, Asia, and Central America. These programs were fundamental to the U.S. maintaining an integrated approach to foreign assistance that addresses the underlying drivers of conflict and instability, all in the national interest of the U.S. In this sudden aid vacuum, the U.S. has ceded soft power to other countries, like China, who can surge their development capacity and salvage these projects and relationships to build their own soft power and pursue their own strategic interests. 

The Trump Administration’s reorganization of the State Department eliminates the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the Office of Global Women’s Issues, which are designed to support evidence-based reforms to address the drivers of conflict globally, including through prevention-oriented legislation such as the Global Fragility Act (GFA), the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Act, and the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, the State Department is dismantling its office responsible for international climate change negotiations, eliminating climate change advisers, and doing away with the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. Without these structures and their expertise in place, the U.S. Government will find it extremely difficult to ensure U.S. foreign policy and assistance is fit-for-purpose for the increasing and changing dynamics of today’s violent conflicts and instability.

Simultaneously, attempts to dismantle USIP have destabilized America’s role in global conflict prevention and peacebuilding. Over the last 40 years, USIP’s innovative research, programs, and convenings—including the Climate, Environment, and Conflict Program—helped develop a better understanding of best practices to prevent and reduce violent conflict in conflict-affected states, all of which are in the national and financial interests of the U.S. USIP suspended operations in multiple conflict zones, undermining both institutional stability and U.S. soft power. While the Wilson Center has not been formally dissolved, its reduction to statutory minimums has also eliminated its ability to continue its leadership in environmental diplomacy, climate security, and strategic international dialogue, particularly through its Environmental Change and Security Program.

Taken together, these actions erode the institutional backbone supporting U.S. leadership in environment–climate policy, WPS, and conflict prevention. Without these platforms to convene experts, fund field programming, or shape norms, U.S. influence in international conventions and sustainable development frameworks is significantly diminished.

Professionals Disjected and Institutional Memory Loss

The reorganization of the State Department and likelihood of a massive reduction in force, the dismantling of USAID, the ongoing legal battle for who controls USIP, and the hobbling of the Wilson Center not only eliminated thousands of jobs and halted countless projects, but also fragmented decades of institutional memory—undermining the continuity of U.S. expertise in women’s empowerment and equality, environmental diplomacy, and conflict resolution. These institutions have long served as critical hubs for intergenerational knowledge transfer, field-based programming, and global convening. 

At USIP, the freezing of field offices and training programs in conflict zones severed pathways for emerging peacebuilders, both American and international, who relied on fellowships and practitioner networks to access mentorship and build careers. USIP’s Women Building Peace Award that provides an essential platform for recognition of local women peacebuilders who were working to end violence and prevent, mitigate, and resolve conflict, which could in turn promote further funding and connections for these leaders, has been postponed. USIP has also suspended professional training programs, including disruption to its online Gandhi-King Global Academy, severing mentorship and career development pathways for emerging peacebuilders and conflict resolution experts globally. The Wilson Center, though not formally shuttered, has seen its budget gutted and influence diminished, shrinking its once-robust platforms for research on women’s equality, the environment, and diplomacy. This collapse of institutional support has left a generation of early- and mid-career professionals without guidance, community, or funding—particularly women and people from traditionally marginalized groups who often depended on these spaces for legitimacy and visibility.

In addition to the material losses, these closures represent an erasure of tacit knowledge—trusted relationships, regional insights, and lessons learned from decades of U.S. global engagement. This exodus threatens lasting damage to decades of learning and knowledge, from climate‑conflict mitigation lessons to on-the-ground expertise of women‑centered programming and peace mediation strategies, which face serious risk of being permanently lost. The resulting “brain drain” will in the long-term weaken America’s leadership in peace and undermine the global community’s ability to respond to compounding crises of climate, conflict, and inequality.

Pipeline Collapse

In addition to the thousands of contractors and employees now unemployed, thousands more interns and early‑career professionals are suddenly without career pathways. Major non-governmental organizations and federal contractors like Chemonics and DAI announced massive layoffs, erasing the traditional pipeline into peacebuilding, climate adaptation, and humanitarian sectors. College offices across Washington, DC noted students having internships rescinded and offers withdrawn, deepening anxiety over entering the field. 

Without institutional support or funding, early-career scholars and practitioners lose both credibility and opportunities. This loss will invariably disproportionately affect women and people from traditionally marginalized groups who may have more limited access to professional connections or the ability to work in unpaid internships and volunteer positions. These institution-level disruptions translate to individual and sectoral losses as both newly graduated students and mid-career professionals struggle to find viable entry points or career stability. Many are shifting to adjacent sectors or leaving international development entirely, resulting in the disruption of the pipeline of skilled professionals to continue to build on past scholarship, learning, and best practices, who cannot sustain their careers amid program closures and funding freezes.

With fewer mentorship structures, convening platforms, and funding, the next generation of practitioners and researchers faces disorientation in a field suddenly unmoored. Without access to internships, fellowships, or institutional pipelines, the climate, gender, and peace professions risk losing an entire cohort of dedicated professionals from a field dependent on a steady, diverse, and skilled workforce.

Moving Forward

Considering these institutional and professional disruptions, the future of the environmental peacebuilding field—and its intersections with gender, climate, and conflict—stands at a precipice. What was once a growing, collaborative, and interdisciplinary field with strong U.S. leadership has fractured under the weight of defunded institutions, lost expertise, and a severed professional pipeline. Yet, this moment also calls for reflection, reimagination, and resilience of the peace and security sector. While U.S. Government, bilateral donors, and multilateral support may be eroding, the values and need for environmental peacebuilding remain as critical as ever.

In crisis, there is also opportunity. Think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and consultant groups have surged with the sudden swell of available talent. The Stimson Center has opened its doors to provide New Security Beat a new home, hiring a Wilson Center alum to direct their Environmental Security Program. Other organizations like Alliance for Peacebuilding have stepped in to carry the mantle of USIP’s leadership in the U.S. Civil Society Working Group on WPS. Peer-to-peer groups have also sprung up to provide mutual aid, community, and share job openings. 

Despite the tremendous challenges that exist, the peacebuilding field has a chance to realign its infrastructure as major institutions—such as the U.S. Government, the UN, and the OECD—are reformed and windows for structural change remain open. Financing for environmental peacebuilding that enables local investment and leverages blended and catalytic capital can bring in untapped sources of funding that support interventions in the long-term. Multilateral organizations like the African Development Bank (AfDB) are helping shape the future of development finance by investing in conflict-affected regions through blended finance mechanisms like the Transition Support Facility, while integrating climate resilience and gender equity as core priorities. By aligning infrastructure and institutional investments with inclusive, climate-conscious, and gender-responsive approaches, the AfDB is creating a more sustainable and equitable foundation for long-term development and stability. This is the moment for peacebuilders to work with the private sector to bridge language and trust gaps and explore longer-term partnerships with development finance institutions and impact investors to illustrate how environmental peacebuilding is a strategy for stability and value creation, not charity.

The field can also strengthen and build decentralized networks by working with local leaders and groups who know what their communities need, and staying connected through regular communication and shared learning. International membership-based organizations like the Environmental Peacebuilding Association, Transparency, Accountability, and Participation (TAP) Network, Mediators Beyond Borders International, Alliance for Peacebuilding, and InterAction can help facilitate these relationships to broaden and diversify the institutions in cohort with one another. The environmental peacebuilding field can grow stronger by building on these networks and local initiatives based on trust and solidarity—not just funding. The commitment and creativity of those left in the field, particularly young professionals, women, and marginalized voices, will be critical in shaping what comes next. Without institutional anchors, it is our shared relationships, knowledge, and vision that must carry this work forward.

---

Dr. Emily Sample is the Director of Research, Evidence, & Learning at the Alliance for Peacebuilding. Her research spans climate change adaptation, environmental justice, gender, and mass atrocity prevention.

Nick Zuroski is the Senior Manager for Policy & Advocacy at the Alliance for Peacebuilding. Nick’s interests lie at the intersection of peace and stability, gender equality, and grassroots-oriented understandings of human security.