MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
Let's revisit a dramatic scene that just unfolded at the United States Institute of Peace. That is a congressionally funded think tank here in Washington. The White House says the institute's acting president and CEO, George Moose, was fired last week, along with most of the board, for failing to comply with an executive order that effectively dismantles the USIP. Well, Moose has challenged his dismissal. And this Monday, he was holed up in his office when he says DOGE staffers broke into the building, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. D.C. police helped escort Moose outside, which is where our colleague, Michele Kelemen, caught up with him. Standing outside on the steps of the institute he had run until just a few days before, George Moose told Michele it was a sad day for the institute and its mission to prevent conflict around the world.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)
GEORGE MOOSE: And I have to believe that in the long-term, that purpose, that mission will be reaffirmed and that we will, in one way or another, be allowed to continue it.
KELLY: I want to talk through that mission with someone who sponsored the legislation to create the USIP. Former Democratic Congressman from Kansas, also former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. Secretary Glickman, welcome.
DAN GLICKMAN: Thank you, Mary Louise. A pleasure to be with you.
KELLY: What went through your mind this week as you watched a hostile takeover of the USIP?
GLICKMAN: Well, I think the actions of the DOGE group of the administration were unconscionable, in my view. I was very involved in the creation of this organization, not the only sponsor, but the lead House sponsor back in the late 1970s, early 1980s. And in my case, I came from central Kansas where there were a large number of Mennonites who wanted to see the United States establish a peace academy, kind of like a military academy. So we worked on that for years and years. And ultimately, it was decided that instead of an academy, an institute that would try to promote conflict resolution techniques, try to deal with extremism in the world and try to do our best to assert American power responsibly, along with other soft power aspects of the American government, including USAID and Millennium Challenge Corporation, you know, and other things. And so it worked. I thought it worked very well.
KELLY: I mean, at the risk of oversimplifying, because obviously a lot of things go into what prevents or enables a conflict, but is there a specific example you would point us to where the USIP played a role in helping to avert a conflict?
GLICKMAN: I think in South Asia, in the Middle East, certainly in the entire continent of Africa, there have been all sorts of ways where we have tried to improve the governance systems of the countries to make it so that their systems there are much more stable. USIP will contract with various organizations, including the U.S. military, to try to deal with these problems as they occur.
KELLY: So to the Trump administration's stated concern, take that head on. Why should Congress fund a think tank? I mean, what's the need in a town where there is no shortage of think tanks, plenty of which get by on private funding?
GLICKMAN: Well, and those think tanks do a very good job, but this is kind of unique. Imagine, you know, we have this big building in downtown Washington near the State Department. It says U.S. Institute of Peace, and its goal is to promote peace and conflict resolution around the world. It works with the State Department. But it's a wonderful thing that the United States not only has this great military establishment - the Defense Department does a spectacular job - but also has a entity that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the results of conflict.
KELLY: If I'm hearing you right, your argument boils down to the U.S. should fund this using taxpayer money because it directly benefits the United States?
GLICKMAN: It directly benefits the United States. It establishes our influence as engaged in the world. We work with other governments in this regard. It doesn't have the restrictions that a lot of bureaucracies have, and the State Department and the Defense Department, but it does work with them as well. And the big scheme of things, when we're talking about spending close to a trillion dollars a year on our military, that we're spending, you know, a tiny, tiny percentage of that funding to try to deal in advance with the causes of conflict, the causes of extremism, and trying to prevent those bad things from happening which ultimately may lead us into war.
KELLY: So, Secretary Glickman, if the USIP is scaled back, if it outright disappears, what might be the impact?
GLICKMAN: Well, first of all, I hope it's not disappearing. There is no entity of government that should escape scrutiny, so I want to make that clear. And I think the USIP is probably - shouldn't escape scrutiny either. But if it's gone, then we lose the opportunity to make the case for conflict resolution and peaceful ways to resolve these conflicts before war occurs, before death occurs. And, you know, you're not always successful. But in many cases, you move the ball forward. And it's the United States of America that's moving the ball forward.
So you take this USIP, you add all the stuff that the Agency for International Development does. You add all the stuff that the Voice of America does to try to project America's influence around the world. This is part of our soft power. We need hard power, too. We desperately need our government to have an adequate military, but we also need soft power. And, by the way, this was created in a very bipartisan atmosphere. I remember how it was created. It was added to the Defense Authorization bill, and so it's one of the few things that we've had bipartisanship on in this area.
KELLY: It is indeed true that both Republican and Democratic lawmakers pushed to create this institute. It prompts a bigger question, though, which is can the U.S. Institute of Peace, can any institution, truly be nonpartisan in such a hyperpartisan moment?
GLICKMAN: Well, that's a problem we all have right now. I mean, how does the Congress work in this moment that we're dealing with? And, you know, back in the historic period when I was in the Congress, it was more bipartisan than it is now, and I wish that we had a lot of that same environment that we did back then. But, yes, it can do some good. I don't think it does any harm at all. It can do some good. We have potential conflicts around the world, and, you know, this is an area where we have a lot of competitors. So if we're not involved in this, it either doesn't happen or countries like China and North Korea and Iran and Russia are involved. China's influence around the world in the soft power area has grown rather significantly in the last several years. And so, in my judgment, it deserves scrutiny like every other agency, but let's do it the right way.
KELLY: That's former Democratic Congressman Dan Glickman. He was the principal House sponsor of legislation which led to the creation of the U.S. Institute of Peace back in 1984. Dan Glickman, thank you.
GLICKMAN: Thank you for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
