Talk:United States Institute of Peace

Renaming of the USIP

I don't believe any name or identification changes should be made at this time, especially in regards to calling it "official," while the case is still pending in court. While a stay was issued over the takeover, due to the appeals, everything is in limbo which would include any name changes. It's likely that the change (purely out of petty spite) will be challenged or removed completely. Moreover, since Congress has not acted to change the name and it's still in the Federal Register as the United States Institute of Peace, it can be perceived that the official name remained the United States Institute of Peace. It should also be noted that while the President can change the name, it has to be done via an Executive Order, which hasn't been issued, and would still need to be codified by Congress. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Great reasoning, unfortunately Wikipedia has plenty of MAGA editors who refuse to acknowledge the illegal nature of majority of Trump's orders. ~2025-38432-89 (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please observe Wikipedia:No personal attack.〜 Adflatuss • talk 15:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The building is not named the Donald J Trump anything. Slapping his name on the front of the building does not rename the building; it is simply a form of graffiti or vandalism. Potosino (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with sources, not editor's opinions. Please don't edit war.〜 Adflatuss • talk 15:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The current administration controls the building and website. The dismantling is still being challenged in court but under a very slow process. Follow and update with citations. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 15:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This doesnt mean the administration gets to tell how we should call it. ~2025-38135-73 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. We will go by what reliable sources eventually say. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's remained to be true. An illegal change doesnt mean we are obligated to state the name of said changed name. ~2025-38135-73 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Personal opinions on what is or is not legal, particularly pertaining to the executive branch, don't really hold up as reliable sourcing. We wait and see what the eventual outcome is. I think it's legal. You think it's illegal. Neither of our opinions are relevant. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It's been stated multiple times that you need congressional approval to change the name of a federal agency. This is not opinion whatsoever, no matter how you feel about it. Cheers. ~2025-38135-73 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please cite an RS for that. I'm not disputing it, but am personally curious. I am aware that past renamings (e.g. NME to DOD) were done by act of congress but am unaware of a constraint requiring that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This is another "Department of War" and "Gulf of America" situation. Nothing is different with this. Simply note the dispute and keep the page the same until Congress officially acts or sources in several months consistently use the new name beyond the immediate controversy. BootsED (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just mentioning that Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace is a redirect to United States Institute of Peace Headquarters, while there is no mention on that page of the proposed rename. Should probably be retargetted to this page where the rename is discussed, but as an editor from the other side of the big pond I hesitate to get involved. PamD 08:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

usip.org is being "Unpublished".

https://usip.org is down to a single homepage, announcing a presidential action, while other links e.g. https://usip.org/events display the message "Unpublished" as a banner over the main home page.

Please see https://web.archive.org/web/sitemap/usip.org for an idea of the domain prior to the censorship. Opcodes (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Clarification of June 27 appellate action

I am proposing a wording change to clarify the procedural posture of the June 27, 2025 D.C. Circuit decision. The previous language stated that Judge Howell’s May 19 ruling was “overturned.” However, the Court of Appeals granted a stay pending appeal, which temporarily paused enforcement of the district court’s ruling. The appellate court did not reverse the merits decision, and the appeal remains pending. To improve accuracy and avoid confusion, I have updated the language to reflect that a stay was granted, citing Associated Press coverage of the June 27 order. If there are concerns about phrasing, I welcome discussion. Escallihan (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to correct June 27 appellate description and fix citation error

The current sentence describing the June 27, 2025 D.C. Circuit action states that the court “ruled in favor” of the administration. However, the appellate court granted a stay pending appeal, which temporarily paused enforcement of the district court’s ruling while the appeal proceeds. To improve procedural accuracy and avoid confusion about whether the May 19 merits decision was reversed, I have updated the language to reflect that a stay was granted, citing Associated Press coverage of the June 27 order. I have also quoted the court’s reasoning directly from the stay order and corrected a citation error in the previous reference. If there are suggestions for alternative phrasing, I welcome discussion.Escallihan (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)