The ability to resist adverse outcomes, or demonstrate resilience after exposure to trauma is a thriving field of study. Yet ongoing debate persists regarding definitions of resilience, generalizability of the extant literature, neurobiological correlates, and a consensus research agenda. Objectives: To address these pressing questions, Drs. Christy Denckla and Karestan Koenen (co-chairs) convened a multidisciplinary panel including Drs. Dante Cicchetti, Laura Kubzansky, Soraya Seedat, Martin Teicher, and David Williams at the 2019 annual meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS). Questions included (1) how have definitions of resilience evolved, (2) what are the best approaches to capture the complexity of resilience processes, and (3) what are the most important areas for future research? Methods: The proceedings of this panel are summarized in this report, and prominent themes are synthesized and integrated. Results: While different definitions emerged, all shared a focus on conceptualizing resilience at multiple levels, from the biological to the social structural level, a focus on the dynamic nature of resilience, and a move away from conceptualizing resilience as only an individual trait. Critical areas for future research included 1) focused efforts to improve assessment that has international and cross-cultural validity, 2) developing within-study designs that employ more intensive phenotyping strategies, 3) examining outcomes across multiple levels and domains, and 4) integrating conceptualizations of resilience from the individual-level to the larger social context at the population health level. Conclusion: Increasingly sophisticated and nuanced conceptual frameworks, coupled with research leveraging advances in genetics, molecular biology, increased computational capacity, and larger, more diverse datasets suggest that the next decade of research could bring significant breakthroughs.