The atrocity prevention field has been through a shock. Recent efforts to streamline U.S. foreign policy resources have significantly reduced dedicated atrocity prevention expertise and tools. Other countries, especially in Europe, are now following suit with similar cuts. This comes on top of several years of declining international resolve to confront and halt genocide and related crimes against humanity.
The atrocity prevention field now faces fundamental questions about its ability to shape the future. Many are preparing for an extended period in which we will need to work creatively and differently. We face an unknown future, but there is still much we can do to lay the foundation for a stronger atrocity prevention field. We can cultivate a more expansive set of non-governmental champions, whole-of-society approaches, and political coalitions to advance a durable atrocity prevention agenda.
Over the past decade, advocates in the United States have focused on enhancing atrocity prevention expertise and tools within government, for example, through the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocity Prevention Act of 2018. We can and should continue to engage remaining and potential champions within government, including policymakers in State Department regional bureaus who are focused on high-risk contexts and places where mass atrocities are currently unfolding. But technical-level engagement with government actors will be limited without the necessary political will.
We must ask who else outside of government can lead the charge on atrocity prevention and help advance new approaches. Religious leaders, for example, can be powerful voices for and agents of atrocity prevention – including by leveraging their community connections and transnational networks. Health professionals are another set of potential atrocity prevention advocates and leaders who have been overlooked. Health workers are often seen as partners in humanitarian assistance delivery, but they also have specific and powerful perspectives on the risks and impacts of atrocities. The atrocity prevention community should consider ways for health workers to safely and confidentially share their concerns with policymakers.
The private sector is another area for engaging and cultivating new leaders. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide recently convened a discussion on the role of the private sector in atrocity prevention. We are fielding increasing inquiries from companies, business associations, and their advisers about how to approach places at high risk for mass atrocities. Companies may be interested, for example, in protecting their employees from violence or making sure their investment practices do not exacerbate underlying atrocity risks.
In tandem with engaging a more expansive set of non-governmental champions, we should explore and promote more whole-of-society approaches to mitigating atrocities. Civilians in a variety of atrocity contexts have found effective ways to protect themselves in the absence of government support, thanks to the involvement of religious leaders, health workers, and private sector entities. Protection includes the Emergency Response Room networks in Sudan and the Early Warning and Early Response Network in Central Africa, as detailed in another article in this issue. The Simon-Skjodt Center is currently researching external support to civilian self-protection as a general theme, as well as in the specific cases of Sudan and Burma/Myanmar.
Ultimately, to strengthen the atrocity prevention field against future disruption, we must begin to build broader coalitions that can influence politics and promote durable change. This will require advocates to engage the broader public about the values of prevention and saving lives, what has worked in the past, and how we can improve in the future. While stressing that atrocity prevention is a moral responsibility, we should also make the case that prevention carries a strategic benefit. This work has been bipartisan before and can continue to be a source of common ground for both Republicans and Democrats.
There may or may not be renewed openings to mobilize resources and expertise for atrocity prevention within the U.S. government in the coming years. No matter the future developments in the foreign policy arena, I believe we should continue to strengthen the field by pursuing a variety of partners, approaches, and coalitions. This kind of broadening of the field – both in research and practice – will enable us to adapt to fast-changing global dynamics and challenges, and fight for human dignity in the face of mass atrocities.
This article is based on remarks that Andrea Gittleman provided at an experts’ roundtable convened by the Keough School’s Washington Office in December 2025 on possible futures for atrocity prevention research and advocacy.
Download a PDF of this issue »
About the Author
Andrea Gittleman is the policy director at the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Recommended Citation
Gittleman, Andrea. “The Future of Atrocity Prevention: Fostering Broader Champions and Coalitions.” Peace Policy: Solutions to Violent Conflict, No. 64, (April 2026). https://doi.org/10.7274/32108533
