As the presidential inauguration approaches, many grant makers are rightly concerned about how the second Trump administration will affect U.S. democracy. The president-elect has consistently demonstrated strongman tendencies, contempt for democratic norms, and a desire to amass power and wield institutions against his enemies.
Militarism and military force are intrinsic to these threats. President-elect Trump has promised to use the military to go after his political opponents, or “the enemy from within,” and has said he would deploy troops to carry out mass deportations — without due process and in violation of human rights. To ensure that his plans proceed, Trump has promised to fire military officers who might oppose him. And just last week he said he wouldn’t rule out using military force to gain control of Greenland and the Panama Canal.
While Trump’s rhetoric — and potential actions — may seem extreme, they reflect a long-held emphasis on militaristic solutions that is hindering democracy in the United States and throughout the world. A 2020 study of 36 OECD countries found that high levels of militarism were a strong predictor for lower levels of democracy, as measured by civil liberties, economic equality, and political, cultural, and intellectual freedoms. The U.S. was second only to Israel as the most militarized country in the sample.
The impact of militarism on democracy has been particularly apparent in the U.S. since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as both Republican and Democratic presidents have expanded their authority to use military force without meaningful checks by Congress. The “War on Terror” has also been used to justify criminalizing dissent domestically in the name of national security, most recently with the House of Representatives’ passage of the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act. That legislation, which is widely understood as targeting nonprofits protesting U.S. support of Israel’s war on Gaza, would give the executive branch the authority to revoke the charitable status of any organization it deems supports “terrorism.”
The harms of American militarism of course extend far beyond our borders. While professing to defend democracy worldwide, the U.S. has long supported autocratic regimes or supplied military aid that undermines democratic governance when it’s perceived to serve national security interests.
The message couldn’t be clearer: Militarism is bad for democracy. Fortunately, it also isn’t inevitable. Across the globe, highly effective but under-recognized grassroots efforts, made up largely of feminist organizers, are confronting militarism and advancing democracy — even in authoritarian environments. U.S. grant makers and advocates can draw important lessons from their successes about how to effectively bolster democracy and push back against autocracy.
The Feminist Approach
During the five decades that the three of us have collectively worked on democracy and peace issues, feminist activists have led some of the most inspiring movements we’ve witnessed. That includes playing an instrumental role in combating militarism and authoritarianism in dozens of countries, such as Colombia, Liberia, Hungary, and Brazil.
Most recently in South Korea, young women took to the streets in massive numbers to demand President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment after he declared martial law. The declaration came in the context of increasing military tensions and democratic backsliding. During his term, Yoon staged massive war drills with the U.S. and Japan, and his administration has targeted critics, journalists, labor unions, and peace activists. In fact, one of us, Christine, has twice been banned from entering South Korea because of her activism, most recently in November while on her way to deliver a keynote address to the International Youth Peace Forum.
Yoon’s presidency was also buoyed by a backlash against feminism, including support by his administration of anti-feminist policies such as abolishing the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, women in their 20s and 30s comprised the largest demographic of pro-impeachment protesters. They joyfully played the protest anthem “Into The New World” by the K-pop group Girls’ Generation, and their daily protests created the political pressure that succeeded in blocking the martial law order and eventually impeaching the president.
These protests are part of a 20-year tradition of candlelight vigils led by women against U.S. militarism and authoritarianism in Korea. Their efforts were also supported by diaspora groups such as the Korean American feminist nonprofit Women Cross DMZ, which Christine founded and which has provided crucial information to the media and Congress, mobilized solidarity protests, and has been working to end U.S. militarism on the Korean peninsula.
Feminist peace activists have also taken a leading role in speaking out against military escalation in the Philippines, where the U.S. is expanding its military presence as part of a broader escalation with China in the Asia-Pacific region. These groups argue that increased military cooperation with the United States makes the Philippines more vulnerable to retaliation from China and endangers community safety.
In response, the Philippine government has targeted activists, human rights defenders, and feminist organizations with increasingly repressive tactics. Those who criticize military agreements or push back against government policies are labeled terrorists or “red-tagged” as communist sympathizers in an attempt to delegitimize and suppress their voices. To defend themselves and their democracy, feminist activists have documented these threats, engaged in legal advocacy against repressive laws, established mutual aid networks, and more. Their struggle is ongoing.
Lessons At Home
Funders dedicated to securing U.S. democracy can learn much from these examples and similarly powerful stories of feminist organizing for peace in this country — from the role of the Women’s Strike for Peace in passing the nuclear ban treaty in the early 1960s to the recent leadership of queer Black women in creating Black Lives Matter to confront police violence.
In our experience, feminist movements are a powerful antidote to militarism and authoritarianism because of the values they operate under. At their best, they are inclusive, nonhierarchical, optimistic, committed to justice, and deeply concerned with the impact of politics on people’s everyday lives. This fundamentally democratic approach to organizing threatens authoritarians around the world and has led many to deploy reactionary gender politics to consolidate power, including abortion bans and challenges to gender-affirming care for trans people.
U.S. funders concerned with defending democracy need to take notice. That means recognizing the connection between militarism and other philanthropic priorities, such as racial, climate, and gender justice — and democracy itself.
Grant makers can start by connecting with and learning from advocates who have long confronted militarism and authoritarianism at home and abroad. That includes feminist funds such as MADRE, where Diana works, Urgent Action Fund, and the Global Fund for Women, which for years have partnered with and funded global feminist organizing. They can also join affinity organizations like the Peace and Security Funders Group, a network of funding organizations advancing peace in the United States and around the world. By connecting with these feminist funds and allied funder networks, they can seek out and support the many grassroots feminist organizing networks that already exist in the U.S.
Too often, such organizations are excluded from decision-making tables because of a biased view that policy, especially foreign policy, is too complex to be addressed by anyone without advanced degrees or Beltway credentials. In our experience, that exclusion worsens when organizations call for feminist values of justice and care to guide policy decisions.
As holders of institutional power, grant makers can play an important role in supporting these often-marginalized organizations. This can mean funding gatherings such as the Feminist Peace Summit held in Denver last May, where peace advocates can exchange strategies; facilitating introductions to potential allies among policymakers; or providing resources to overcome obstacles to participation, including through travel funds, childcare stipends, or language translation support.
In a time of global disruption, addressing problems at their roots, instead of automatically resorting to violence, is more important than ever. In preparing for a second Trump presidency, grant makers must boldly challenge the assumptions and harms of U.S. militarism and stand up for a more peaceful and just vision of safety throughout the world.
The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their organizations.
