Likely supportive: views the Department as a structural investment to prevent violence, address systemic drivers, and expand restorative practices.

Embraces education, community grants, arms control focus, and federally backed research as tools to reduce harm and promote equity.

Would seek stronger links to redirect military spending toward peacebuilding, and ensure programs prioritize communities most impacted by violence.

Cautious, pragmatic approval of goals but wary of costs, duplication, and measurable effectiveness.

Sees potential in prevention and research but wants clear budget estimates, performance metrics, and interagency coordination to avoid redundancies.

Would favor pilots, independent evaluations, and statutory guardrails clarifying authorities.

Likely opposed: sees the bill as a major expansion of federal bureaucracy and federal intrusion into education and local policing.

Worries about ideological content in curricula (patriarchy teaching), constraints on arms sales, and creation of unarmed civilian 'peacekeepers.' Opposes creating a new cabinet department without clear cost offsets or demonstration of necessity.