Key takeaways
– The US shut down key counterterrorism prevention offices this year
– Only military and law enforcement now handle terrorism threats
– Experts warn this shift may fuel more violence and instability
– A bipartisan bill seeks to revive and fund prevention programs
Why Prevention Matters
Preventing terrorism means stopping violence before it starts. It relies on local leaders, social services, and community dialogue. Over time, US programs built strong networks in risky regions. They helped people spot early signs of extremism. Then they taught communities how to respond safely. By doing this, they reduced support for violent groups.
Such work takes time and skilled teams. Yet it costs far less than wars. Experts say prevention stops radical ideas in their tracks. It also builds trust between citizens and their governments. When people feel heard and helped, they are less likely to join extremist gangs.
How the Cuts Unfolded
In February, the US began to pull back on its prevention work. First, USAID’s Bureau of Conflict Prevention and Stabilization put staff on leave. Next, the Department of Homeland Security cut a third of its counterterrorism prevention team. By July, the State Department shuttered its Office of Countering Violent Extremism. At the same time, the US Institute of Peace lost its prevention team.
These units once ran programs around the world. They taught online safety to youth, backed local peacebuilding groups, and trained journalists to cover conflict fairly. They even worked with schools to spot early signs of radicalization among students. Now, only military and police forces handle terrorism. They react after attacks occur rather than stop them beforehand.
The Cost of a Military-Only Approach
After September 11, 2001, the US spent eight trillion dollars on wars against terrorism. Researchers estimate it caused nearly one million deaths. Yet extremist groups have spread to more countries and caused more deaths.
Military victories can remove leaders or destroy bases. But they cannot fix the root causes. Extremist groups thrive in places with weak governments and little hope. When soldiers leave, these groups often return stronger. They recruit new members from frustrated youths who lack jobs or basic services.
A growing trend is for groups like the Islamic State to work as loose networks. They run smaller cells in Africa and Asia. These cells need little funding and can shift quickly. This makes them hard to track or defeat with force alone.
What We Have Lost
With prevention offices gone, the US no longer has experts who understand local conflicts. This know-how took decades to build. For example, one program in West Africa trained villagers to talk through land disputes. That simple step cut recruitment by violent groups in half. Now, similar projects have stopped.
Another case focused on social media. Prevention teams taught teens to spot recruitment tactics online. They worked with parents and teachers to create safe spaces for discussion. This work was due to expand in 2025. Yet the State Department canceled it for lack of funding.
Caught without prevention tools, the US risks repeating past mistakes. In Iraq and Afghanistan, military actions sometimes harmed civilians. That eroded trust and fueled anger. Some detainees in secret facilities turned extremist while held. Without prevention teams, there is no guardrail to limit such harms.
Voices from Experts
Experts who lost their jobs warn of dire consequences. A former director of the State Department’s prevention office said the US is poised to “shoot its way out of the problem again.” He added that ignoring prevention makes the overall threat worse.
Another expert noted: “Prevention work is not cheap, but it costs far less than decades of failed wars.” He argued that early interventions kept many communities peaceful. He fears that without them, instability will rise again.
Additionally, a bipartisan task force on extremism warned that military victories alone cannot end the cycle of violence. They urged leaders to invest in social services and local conflict resolution. Their recommendations shaped laws like the Global Fragility Act. But now, the act’s programs lie dormant.
Path to Rebuilding Prevention
Some lawmakers want to bring prevention back. Representatives from both parties introduced a bill to renew the Global Fragility Act until 2030. They hope to secure new funding and rebuild staff across agencies.
For this to work, Congress must act soon. Agencies need experts, training, and clear authority to run community programs. They must also coordinate smoothly to avoid overlap or gaps. If successful, the US can regain its edge in stopping violence before it starts.
Communities around the world need hope and support to resist radical groups. Prevention programs offer that support. They show people that the world cares about their well-being. They teach practical skills to solve local problems. And they build lasting relationships between governments and citizens.
Without prevention, the US risks heading back to a cycle of conflict and reaction. This time, it could face even more determined and decentralized threats. On the other hand, renewed focus on prevention can save lives and money. It can also strengthen global stability in the long term.
Now, political leaders must decide if they want to invest in prevention or rely solely on force. The choice will shape America’s counterterrorism approach for years to come.