Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_694894861-scaled

Why is Biden's DoD standing behind Trump's retrograde landmine policy?

In 2020, Trump reversed a total ban by Obama. According to a statement today, nothing has changed. Why?

North America
google cta
google cta

Is the Biden Administration planning to end the retrograde policy of producing landmines for the U.S. defense arsenal? For now, it seems, no.

According to a Defense Department statement received and published on Twitter by Daily Beast reporter Spencer Ackerman, the military is standing behind changes made by the Trump Administration in January 2020 that put the U.S. off the track of joining the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It also re-opened the door to "planning for and use" of these ghastly weapons, which according to one statistic, have been responsible for 120,000 people killed and maimed since 1999. The vast majority (87 percent) were civilians; half (47 percent) were children.

The DoD believes that the risk of harm due to landmine accidents can be mitigated by new technological advancements in which the weapons can  be turned on and off or go into self-destruct mode at an appointed time after they are positioned. According to the January 2020 policy statement

The United States will not sacrifice American servicemembers’ safety, particularly when technologically advanced safeguards are available that allow landmines to be employed responsibly to ensure our military’s warfighting advantage, and limit the risk of unintended harm to civilians.  These safeguards require landmines to self-destruct, or in the event of a self-destruct failure, to self-deactivate within a prescribed period of time.

This Trump policy reversed an Obama order in 2014 that banned all landmine use outside of the Korean Peninsula and kept the country on the (long) track of getting into the landmark 1997 ban that has been already ratified by 164 countries. The Trump administration instead said landmines with self-destruct/deactivation technology can be used anywhere.

My colleague Mark Perry wrote a wonderful piece for The American Conservative last year that underscored the military politics of the issue. While “there was little support for landmine use among senior officers” back in 1996 before the international ban went into effect, the Pentagon kept the weapons around, mostly due to the fact that the military saw a potential ban as a “slippery slope.” 

“Once the NGOs force the Army to get rid of landmines,” said Army Chief Dennnie Reimer, back in 1996, “which service will be next to be disarmed?” This sentiment said Perry, who worked on the landmine ban issue back then, started to “take root” among the forces, and never left. They just poured a lot of money into “safe landmines” that, Perry pointed out, have their troubles too.

“Mines that are designed to self-destruct or deactivate are no better able to distinguish civilian from combatant,” according to Human Rights Watch. “They still pose unacceptable risks for civilians. Civilians in ‘smart’ minefields not only face the danger of triggering mines that have failed to self-destruct, but the danger of those mines randomly self-destructing at unknown times.” 

Sadly the 2020 policy set back the anti-mine movement back decades. Another colleague, Jess Lee, pointed out to me that activists have been working tirelessly to de-mine the Korean peninsula, and it didn’t help that even the 2014 Obama rules carved Korea out for the ban.

“The DMZ and surrounding areas are covered with nearly a million landmines, laid by the U.S. and ROK forces during and after the Korean War,” she told me today. “It would be unfortunate if the Biden administration does not see a problem with maintaining the Trump-era policy of allowing it to be used everywhere, including on the Korean Peninsula.”

As Perry wrote, "the landmine issue is (manifestly) a footnote when compared to the globe’s other threats, like nuclear proliferation and climate change. But it remains a useful talisman of how change happens (or doesn’t) in Washington.”

Wise words indeed.

UPDATE 4/8/21: Biden's UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield issued remarks today at the UN Security Council ministerial open debate on mine action, in which he addressed this week's landmine headlines. It is clear that Spencer Ackerman's initial Tweet with the DoD statement snapped the administration into action. But in a good way, for anti-landmine efforts:

President Biden believes we need to curtail the use of landmines. Now, there has been some discussion of the previous administration’s landmine policy this week, so let me speak plainly: President Biden has been clear that he intends to roll back this policy, and our administration has begun a policy review to do just that. 

UPDATE 4/7/21: There have been some clarifications issued since yesterday's statement to Ackerman got a good drubbing throughout the social media universe and among anti-mine advocacy networks.

Alex Ward at Vox produced this statement from the National Security Council:

And Jeff Seldin at VOA, with this Pentagon update:


Shutterstock/Khorkins
google cta
North America
Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts on the day of his speech to a joint session of Congress, in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., March 4, 2025. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

Why SCOTUS won’t deter Trump’s desire to weaponize trade

QiOSK

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court today ruled against the White House on a key economic initiative of the Trump administration, concluding that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the right to impose tariffs.

The ruling was not really a surprise; the tone of the questioning by several justices in early November was overwhelmingly skeptical of the administration’s argument, as prediction markets rightly concluded. Given the likelihood of this result, it should also come as no surprise that the Trump administration has already been plotting ways to work around the decision.

keep readingShow less
Trump Iran
Top image credit: Lucas Parker and FotoField via shutterstock.com

No, even a 'small attack' on Iran will lead to war

QiOSK

The Wall Street Journal reports that President Donald Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Iran either agrees or the regime falls.

Here’s why this won’t work.

keep readingShow less
As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base
TOP IMAGE CREDIT: An aerial view of Diego Garcia, the Chagossian Island home to one of the U.S. military's 750 worldwide bases. The UK handed sovereignty of the islands back to Mauritius, with the stipulation that the U.S. must be allowed to continue its base's operation on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years. (Kev1ar82 / Shutterstock.com).

As Iran strikes loom, US and UK fight over Indian Ocean base

QiOSK

As the U.S. surges troops to the Middle East, a battle is brewing over a strategically significant American base in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he would oppose any effort to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, arguing that a U.S. base on the island of Diego Garcia may be necessary to “eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous [Iranian] Regime.” The comment came just a day after the State Department reiterated its support for the U.K.’s decision to give up sovereignty over the islands while maintaining a 99-year lease for the base.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.