Follow us on social

President_trump_meets_with_israeli_prime_minister_benjamin_netanyahu_49452464996-scaled

Trump continues to mock int'l law with move on Israel-Morocco

The U.S. agreed to become the only country in the world to recognize Moroccan control over Western Sahara.

Analysis | Middle East

The Trump administration’s decision to recognize Moroccan control over Western Sahara in exchange for Moroccan normalization of relations with Israel marks a shameful day for America’s commitment to international law, human rights, and diplomacy.

With this decision, the United States becomes the only country in the world to recognize Morocco’s unilateral annexation of Western Sahara and further isolates itself on the international stage through its wanton disregard of the international norm of self-determination. Further, while Trump may claim this is an essential move toward peace in the Middle East, in fact this decision threatens to plunge an already volatile region deeper into crisis.

Located along the Atlantic Ocean and sandwiched between Mauritania and Morocco, Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony and current disputed territory. Roughly 70 percent of the territory is under de facto Moroccan control with the remaining 30 percent controlled by the Polisario, a local Sahrawi independence movement backed by Algeria and recognized by 39 other nations and the African Union as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Large-scale conflict between Morocco and the Polisario began in 1975 following Spain’s withdrawal from the region. After a ceasefire in 1991, a U.N. peacekeeping force, MINURSO, was established with a primary mandate to “organize and ensure a free and fair referendum” on independence for the territory. Yet to date, no referendum has been held, and more than 100,000 refugees remain in camps located in the southern Algerian desert, with an additional 20,000 in Mauritania.

The International Court of Justice, in a major advisory ruling, supported this right for a free and fair referendum on self-determination in Western Sahara. A multitude of subsequent U.N. General Assembly and Security Council resolutions reaffirmed the right to self-determination for the Sahrawi people.


As the United Nations notes at the start of each resolution on Western Sahara, there is an “inalienable right of all peoples to self-determination and independence.” The Trump administration’s decision to unilaterally disregard this international norm dangerously undermines international law and the ability of peoples around the world to determine their own political status.

This decision not only subverts the power and authority of international law, but it also flies in the face of the long-held U.S. policy in support of a just and lasting political solution between Morocco and the Polisario.


Washington has consistently held the position that Morocco and the Polisario must come together to determine a mutually acceptable political solution to put an end to their conflict. In fact, from 1997 to 2004, former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker served as the U.N. Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy to Western Sahara and consistently pushed for a referendum on independence. The decision by a lame-duck president to disregard this policy damages U.S. credibility by calling into question Washington’s commitment to other long-held American positions elsewhere in the world.

Trump’s pronouncement also threatens to upend regional peace and security at an extraordinarily volatile time. While President Trump crowed on Twitter that this decision was “a massive breakthrough for peace in the Middle East,” in reality it is the opposite.

This unilateral decision will fuel recently renewed fighting between Morocco and the Polisario, which last month led to the collapse of the 29-year ceasefire. At a time of rising tensions in the Maghreb, this is a decision that will likely have far-reaching consequences for stability in the region, deeply complicate U.S. relations with Algeria, and stifle any chance for the Sahrawis to determine their own political future.

Undermining international law, disregarding long-standing U.S. policy, and contributing to the risk of regional conflict just to add a veneer of legitimacy to the Abraham Accords is a deal not worth making. As one of his first moves as president, Joe Biden must walk back this rash decision to recognize Moroccan control of Western Sahara.

At the same time, the Biden administration should work to ensure that Morrocco remains a close and valued American ally. The issue here is the recognition of the importance of following international law and maintaining global norms. Regardless of whether the people of Western Sahara choose autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty or independence, the decision must remain theirs alone.


President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence participate in an expanded bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday, Jan. 27, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen)
Analysis | Middle East
Lockheed Martin NASA
Top photo credit: Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Littleton, Colo. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

The Pentagon spent $4 trillion over 5 years. Contractors got 54% of it.

Military Industrial Complex

Advocates of ever-higher Pentagon spending frequently argue that we must throw more money at the department to “support the troops.” But recent budget proposals and a new research paper issued by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University suggest otherwise.

The paper, which I co-authored with Stephen Semler, found that 54% of the Pentagon’s $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending from 2020 to 2024 went to military contractors. The top five alone — Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion) – received $771 billion in Pentagon contracts over that five year period.

keep readingShow less
China Malaysia
Top photo credit: Pearly Tan and Thinaah Muralitharan of Malaysia compete in the Women's Doubles Round Robin match against Nami Matsuyama and Chiharu Shida of Japan on day five of the BWF Sudirman Cup Finals 2025 at Fenghuang Gymnasium on May 1, 2025 in Xiamen, Fujian Province of China. (Photo by Zheng Hongliang/VCG )

How China is 'eating our lunch' with soft power

Asia-Pacific

In June 2025, while U.S. and Philippine forces conducted joint military drills in the Sulu Sea and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, another story deserving of attention played out less visibly.

A Chinese-financed rail project broke ground in Malaysia with diplomatic fanfare and local celebration. As Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim noted, the ceremony “marks an important milestone” in bilateral cooperation. The contrast was sharp: Washington sent ships and speeches; Beijing sent people and money.

keep readingShow less
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Top photo credit: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and President of Russia Vladimir Putin appear on screen. (shutterstock/miss.cabul)

Westerners foolishly rush to defend Azerbaijan against Russia

Europe

The escalating tensions between Russia and Azerbaijan — marked by tit-for-tat arrests, accusations of ethnic violence, and economic sparring — have tempted some Western observers to view the conflict as an opportunity to further isolate Moscow.

However, this is not a simple narrative of Azerbaijan resisting Russian dominance. It is a complex struggle over energy routes, regional influence, and the future of the South Caucasus, where Western alignment with Baku risks undermining critical priorities, including potential U.S.-Russia engagement on Ukraine and arms control.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.