US state-building aid is provided to countries to reduce violent crime and terrorism. US money usually comes with pressure to conform with US strategic rationales, namely, building military and coercive capacity. This militant approach, however, has often produced mixed outcomes or fails entirely, leading to more bloodshed. Yet, only a few recipient countries reform their policies to effectively reduce violence. It is unclear why many recipients neglect to change their approach. By using comparative-historical methods to analyze Colombian peace-building and Mexican military escalation, this dissertation examines why some countries who receive US state-building aid double-down on ineffective military policies, while others pivot to alternatives. Scholars attribute different state-building outcomes to legitimacy problems regarding recipient acceptance of initiative rationales. However, traditional lenses do not account for the closed-door negotiations that shape recipient decisions. I offer a novel approach, drawing on sociological theories to capture how diverse recipient policy actors compete to translate initiative rationales and debate security decisions. Drawing on over 110 interviews, participant observation, and archival analysis of involved policy actors in Colombia, Mexico, and Washington, I argue that different outcomes partly depend on the availability of alternatives in recipient decision-making. Accordingly, there must be sufficient policy consensus, inclusion, knowledge, and infrastructure for reform to be possible. As different factions of recipient security officials and politicians debate policy options, US initiatives overwhelmingly support militant projects, and thereby code militant approaches as the only “acceptable” solutions. Reform cannot succeed without available alternatives to shape perceptions of these policies as effective and feasible solutions, and thus influence decisions. Available alternatives not only enable domestic reform but can also influence changes in US rationales, increasing the likelihood of US cooperation to advance opportunities for reformers and contribute to reform efforts. By specifying why countries fail to pivot, this project illuminates ways to improve the sustainability of policies that effectively reduce violence related to crime and terrorism, and save lives.