Sportswashing is the next frontier of foreign influence in the United States. Authoritarian regimes are investing billions of dollars in the sports that Americans love — from the NBA to WWE, UFC, and, the PGA Tour.
In many cases these investments come with strings attached. Foreign powers aren’t just trying to make money, they’re hoping to launder their reputations and censor their would-be critics in the U.S. This can have potentially dire consequences for Washington foreign policy, given that many of these regimes seek to pull the agenda in a decidedly unrestrained direction via U.S. military entanglements.
(Video production by Khody Akhavi)
Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure
that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream
orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and
outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily.
Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage
— which you will find nowhere else —
into 2026. Happy Holidays!
Ben Freeman is Director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute. He investigates money in politics, defense spending, and foreign influence in America. He is the author of The Foreign Policy Auction, which was the first book to systematically analyze the foreign influence industry in the United States.
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump holds a copy of an executive order in address to Congress 04 Mar 2025 Credit: POOL via CNP/INSTARimages.com
I take a back seat to no one in my disdain and loathing of state-sponsored socialism.
In fact, I wrote a book, The Case Against Socialism, describing the historic link between socialism, communism and state-sponsored violence.
I wish the people of Venezuela well and sincerely hope they will not repeat the mistake of electing the type of socialist regime that has plagued that nation since the 1970s.
Whether or not socialism is evil, however, is not the debate today. The debate to about one question and one question only. Does the Constitution allow one man or one woman to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress? Full stop.
That question is bigger than regime change in Venezuela, bigger than any claims of the ends justifying the means, bigger even than the depredations and evils that multiple socialist autocrats have perpetrated upon the once great country of Venezuela.
Even those who celebrate the demise of the socialist, authoritarian regime in Venezuela, as I do, should give pause to granting the power to initiate war to one man. The power to initiate war is so vast a power that it must be confined by checks and balances.
The debate today would not be happening if our leaders read and understood the Federalist Papers. The constitutional power to initiate war is placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress.
Current congressional leaders squirm and would like to shift the burden of initiating war to the President. Less than courageous members of Congress fall all over themselves to avoid taking responsibility, to avoid the momentous vote of declaring war.
But make no mistake, bombing another nation’s capital and removing their leader is an act of war plain and simple. No provision in the Constitution provides such power to the presidency.
No Supreme Court has allowed Congress to abdicate its role in the decisions of war and peace and no congressman of any self-respect will argue otherwise.
Our founders debated fully whether or not to grant the power to declare war to Congress or the president. To a man, from Jefferson to Hamilton, they all agreed with the words Madison wrote that the Executive is the branch of government most inclined to war, therefore, the Constitution with studied care, vested that power in the legislature.
Founding-era arguments in support of ratifying the Constitution demonstrate that our government does not entrust the decision to go to war to just one person.
At the Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney argued that uniting the war powers under a single executive would grant to the president monarchical powers.
James Wilson assured Americans at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention that the proposed Constitution would not allow one man, or even one body of men, to initiate hostilities.
In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton stated the Constitution gave the presidency fewer war powers than those of the British monarch and the American president would be restricted to conducting the operations of the armies and navies. The founding generation was largely united in the opinion that the American president would not be endowed with the monarchical power to initiate war unilaterally.
These founders were not just engaged in a sales pitch; they were accurately representing the Constitutional Convention’s decision on how to divide the war powers. An early draft of the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “make war” rather than the power to “declare war.”
During the debate over war powers at the Constitutional Convention, South Carolina’s Pierce Butler rose to defend the proposition that the new American government should vest the war-making power with the president.
Elbridge Gerry, a delegate from Massachusetts, was so aghast by Butler’s suggestion that he rose to say that he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.” In response to Butler’s proposal to vest all war powers with the President, Gerry joined with James Madison to successful propose amending the draft Constitution to give Congress the power to “declare war” to ensure the President would be able to defend the country against foreign attack without waiting for congressional action.
In other words, while the Constitution empowers the president to defend the country against sudden attacks initiated by a foreign power, the initiation of hostilities by the United States requires deliberation and authorization by the people’s representatives in Congress.
Our founder's intent is not a close call open to equivocation. Pundits argue that presidents have been ignoring this restriction for many decades. That is not an argument but more of an excuse.
The Constitution is clear — only Congress can declare war. The power to declare war was too important to be left in the confidence of one man. As Jefferson wrote, “in questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Our founding fathers were explicit and yet they still worried that a branch of government might resist the chains of the Constitution.
In pondering how the Constitution would be enforced, our founders took to heart Montesquieu’s maxim that if the powers of the Executive and Legislature are combined, there can be no liberty.
Madison wrote that by dividing the powers, by separating the powers the Constitution would pit “ambition against ambition.”
The ambitions of a President would be checked by the ambitions of the legislature. The natural allure of power would be checked by each branch jealously guarding their prerogative of power.
Who among our framers would have ever guessed or conceived of a time when Congress would lack any ambition at all? Who would have predicted a time when Congress would be so feckless as to simply and obediently abandon all pretense of responsibility and any semblance of duty so as to cede the war power so completely to the President?
It’s as if a magical dust of soma has descended through the ventilation ducts of the Congressional office buildings.
Vague faces, permanent smiles and obedient applause indicate the degree that the majority party has lost its grip and become eunuchs in the thrall of presidential domination.
A president is never truly checked by the minority party other than through elections. Meaningful checks and balances require the president’s party to stand up to and resist unconstitutional usurpations of power.
Until that happens, the dangerous precedent of unlimited, war-making power will continue to be abused by Presidents of both parties.
This article was adapted with permission from Senator Rand Paul's floor speech on January 7, 2026. See here:
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: U.S. Air Force crew chiefs watch as F-35A Lightning II’s taxi following military actions in Venezuela in support of Operation Absolute Resolve, Jan. 3, 2026. (U.S. Air Force Photo)
The U.S. military certainly put on an impressive display Saturday during the raid to capture Nicolás Maduro.
It’s a testament to the professionalism of the staff and operators that they were able to design such a complex operation, coordinating ground and naval forces with all the supporting air, communications, and logistical elements. The 140-minute operation apparently went off without a significant hitch as evidenced by the fact that the mission was accomplished without losing a single American.
Senior civilian and military leaders also showed courage in ordering such an audacious plan. They certainly channeled the spirit of the movie “Patton,” with the line mistakenly attributed to Frederick the Great: “L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace” (audacity, audacity, always audacity).
The same leaders should now embrace the spirit of another iconic movie quote. During the first game of the season in the second-greatest baseball movie of all time, “Major League,” the character Willie Mays Hayes makes a basket catch at center field. Upon returning to the dugout, his manager shakes the outfielder’s hand and tells him, “Nice catch Hayes, don’t ever f&%#ing do it again!” (“Bull Durham” is No. 1.)
In some way, the success of Operation Absolute Resolve makes the episode more dangerous than if the mission had failed. That is because success can lead to overconfidence — and costly mistakes.
In the wake of a spectacular military operation involving a lot of fancy aircraft and special forces, it is easy to start believing that warfare is nothing more than the proper application of technology. But what happened in Venezuela is the exception, not the rule.
Wars rarely unfold as either side anticipated. If you disagree, ask the French about the Maginot Line, or Vladimir Putin about the march to Kyiv. Better yet, ask Maduro how his air defenses and Praetorian Guard performed over the weekend.
The same is true for the more limited use of force. For every raid on Entebbe there is an Operation Eagle Claw, the botched 1980 hostage rescue operation in Iran.
The high chance of setbacks matters — and not only because a failure might undermine a tactical objective. More significant is the risk of accidental escalation. Undoubtedly, the Pentagon developed tactical-level contingency plans for Operation Absolute Resolve, including a potential response to a downed helicopter or captured soldiers. But what about contingency plans at the strategic level of war? If U.S. commandos had failed to locate or apprehend Maduro, what would leaders in Washington have done next?
President Trump and his advisers wanted to remove the leader of Venezuela, drag him to New York City to stand trial for alleged drug trafficking, and give greater access for U.S. companies to the world’s largest oil reserves. To achieve those objectives, they were unwilling to commit to a Normandy-style invasion involving massed troops, so the military presented an alternative that relied mainly on aviation and special forces teams. The strike force went in with a bang to blind the enemy and then commandos were flown in to capture Maduro and his wife and leave the Venezuelan capital, all in less than three hours.
But had that precision operation failed, the president would have faced a dilemma. And therein lies the real danger with a mission of this kind.
Any military action not only burns readiness, but also political capital. If the Maduro raid failed, would the president have simply walked away, with the Venezuelan leader fulminating against U.S. imperialism and dancing on state television? Or would he have escalated by ordering an invasion and risking the lives of young infantry soldiers, with uncertain consequences in a country twice the size of California, including territory patrolled by armed militias and battle-hardened Colombian guerrillas?
That question should be debated before any administration contemplates any military action. The threshold for moving ahead should be the infantry standard. That is to say, a president who greenlights a surgical strike must either be willing to fail, or otherwise willing to send in ground forces to achieve the strategic objective.
Worryingly, the good planning, good conditions, and good fortune that permitted Maduro’s smooth capture appear to have tempted Trump to test his luck again. He has previously threatened to seize the Panama Canal and, in the days following the raid in Caracas, he has threatened military action against three more countries in Latin America: Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico.
In at least two of those cases, he seems to have regime change in mind. He warned the Colombian president, whom the United States sanctioned in October for alleged drug running, to “watch his ass.” And he described Cuba’s government as “ready to fall.” In Mexico, his apparent goals are only slightly more modest: crushing multibillion dollar drug cartels.
Any military operation in any of those countries could easily go south, and lead to far costlier U.S. involvement than anyone anticipated. Unlike the Venezuelan military, for example, Colombia’s armed forces are battle-tested, U.S.-trained, and employ U.S.-made weapons.
In a previous era, for better or worse, the United States was willing to shoulder far greater military burdens in the Americas. Beginning in 1912, the United States occupied Nicaragua on and off for more than 20 years. Today, notwithstanding the return of the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. public does not have the stomach for that type of commitment, and nor does Trump. He should consider that as he evaluates other potential targets for what he is told will be short-duration, surgical strikes.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar and Somaliland President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi participate in a joint press conference during Saar's visit to Somaliland on January 6, 2026. (Screengrab via X)
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar arrived in Somaliland Tuesday for an official visit to the disputed territory, just 10 days after Israel became the first country to recognize its independence from Somalia.
The trip, which Somaliland officials quickly trumpeted on X, highlights Israel’s enthusiasm about its budding ties with the breakaway state, which lies on the northern side of the Horn of Africa, roughly 160 miles from Yemen by sea. “No one can ignore the strategic location of Somaliland,” Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, told the Wall Street Journal. “The straits are a strategic point,” he added, referencing the territory’s position at the mouth to the Red Sea, through which 30% of global shipping trade travels.
Both countries have a lot to gain from the new relationship. Israel gets a rare ally in Africa and a strategic outpost on the Red Sea, and Somaliland gets a first step toward the global recognition that it has sought for the past three decades, following atrocities committed by Somalian authorities against its people.
But the costs of the surprise move have already started to come into focus. The decision drew sharp backlash from the international community, with 14 of the 15 United Nations Security Council members condemning Israel’s decision. (The sole exception is the United States, which defended Israel but refrained from recognizing Somaliland itself.) Somalia, which is a member of both the African Union and the Arab League, warned that the move may be part of a plot to relocate Palestinians from Gaza, slamming it as a sign of “utter disdain for law and morality.”
So it is that, by recognizing Somaliland, Israel has made a bold bet — one premised on the idea that mere diplomatic blowback should not deter it from expanding its military influence into the Horn of Africa, where other Middle Eastern powers have been jockeying for influence in recent years. Somaliland, for its part, has made an ambitious bet of its own, based on the theory that recognition by a regional pariah is better than no recognition at all. But, given the possible destabilizing effects of the move, could both countries come to regret their decision?
“The potential fallout from this, if it does go ahead, in terms of instability in the region — I just cannot imagine how bad this can get,” said Samar Al-Bulushi, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS. “The potential for backlash from groups in the region, who I think would have popular support, is tremendous and frightening.”
Beggars can’t be choosers
Supporters of an independent Somaliland have a lot of evidence in their favor. During the colonial period, British authorities governed Somaliland as a separate entity from the rest of the territory that would one day become Somalia, which Italy controlled at the time. Somaliland even briefly existed as an independent state in 1960, garnering recognition from roughly 30 other countries.
But, within days of declaring independence, Somaliland officials made the consequential decision to enter into a union with neighboring territories and form what we now know as Somalia. Profound political problems plagued the state from the start. These challenges eventually grew into a civil war, during which the Somalian military killed at least 50,000 Somaliland civilians in acts later described as genocide.
This violence led Somaliland to declare its independence in 1991, with its capital in Hargeisa. Despite never gaining international recognition, it has functioned as a de facto independent state ever since, according to Matt Bryden, a former United Nations official who now works as a strategic consultant in Kenya. The local government has even managed to create a fairly democratic system for its 6 million inhabitants, spread across a territory roughly equivalent to the size of Florida.
Supporters of Somaliland independence also point out that reintegration with the Somali government would likely lead to bloodshed. “They don't want to rejoin the larger federal state of Somalia, and to make them do that would require force,” said Peter Harris, a political science professor at Colorado State University.
Still, the international community has held strong in its opposition to Somaliland’s independence. One reason for this is widespread fear that recognizing Somaliland will bolster efforts by other separatist movements, undermining stability across Africa and the Middle East, where such movements proliferate. (Just last week, separatist forces in Yemen attempted to declare an independent state in the country’s south.)
But perhaps most consequential is the fact that Israel, in particular, made the decision to recognize Somaliland first. Alongside the announcement of Israel’s recognition came a sea of rumors about what Hargeisa may have given up in the deal. Somali officials have made particularly attention-grabbing claims, alleging that Somaliland is now set to host an Israeli military base and perhaps even camps for Palestinians forcibly displaced from Gaza.
Somaliland officials have emphatically denied these allegations, both in public and in private conversations, according to Bryden, who recently visited Hargeisa and spoke with officials. But there is little doubt that the new relationship will increase Israel’s presence in the country, perhaps starting with a “listening post” or some other intelligence operation pointed toward Yemen, Bryden said.
Even a small Israeli presence could draw a violent response from its regional foes, according to Andreas Krieg of King’s College London. “Any perceived Israeli node in Somaliland would likely attract hostile attention from the Houthis and their partners, not only for direct retaliation but to demonstrate that the Gulf of Aden is not a sanctuary,” Krieg told RS. “The risk would be escalation by proxy, increased pressure on shipping and greater volatility around commercial infrastructure linked to Berbera [Somaliland’s primary port] and adjacent corridors.”
Somaliland also faces a risk that Israel has now poisoned the diplomatic well, given that few states in the Middle East or Africa want to be seen as following Israel’s lead in international affairs, particularly following Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Even Harris, who supports independence, conceded that the move creates a “potential liability” for Hargeisa. “If the leaders of Somaliland were going to choose a country to recognize them first, it wouldn't have been Israel,” he said.
An ever-expanding ‘cold war’
Israel may have been the state that made the first move, but there’s good reason to believe that another country is actually in the driver’s seat. “Many people argue that, behind the scenes, it's the UAE that supported and even encouraged this Israeli recognition of Somaliland,” said Cameron Hudson, an independent political analyst and a former Africa director in the U.S. National Security Council. Bolstering this argument is the fact that Emirati border officials quietly began accepting Somaliland passports, despite not officially recognizing the breakaway state.
In recent years, the UAE has dramatically expanded its presence in East Africa, investing in infrastructure and diplomatic relationships across Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Sudan. Abu Dhabi has developed a particularly close relationship with officials in Somaliland, where it has built a port and a military base. Meanwhile, Emirati officials have developed an increasingly close relationship with Israel, which they view as a useful partner in balancing against other Middle Eastern powers.
In this sense, the Israeli entry into East Africa represents a new escalation in the growing “cold war” between Middle Eastern states for influence and investment opportunities in the region, according to Hudson. “First and foremost is this confluence of security and economic interests, and overlaid on top of that is this regional competition — regional competition for markets, regional competition for legitimacy,” he told RS. “The Horn of Africa and into Africa, that's the emerging market” for Middle Eastern economies, he added.
This competition — which pits the UAE and Israel on one side against Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey on the other — has already had devastating consequences on regional stability. In Sudan, for example, Emirati support has allowed the Rapid Support Forces to fight the Sudanese military and expand its territory to include Darfur, where the RSF has carried out widespread massacres in recent months. The Sudan case could provide a frightening preview of the future for Somalia, which even today struggles to maintain security and fight the insurgent group Al Shabaab, if the troubled country falls prey to this sort of “rabid regional competition,” Hudson said. (This has already started to play out in some ways, given Turkey’s emphatic support for the government of Somalia and its territorial integrity.)
In the near term, the UAE will likely try to use its “network of client states” in East Africa to promote its interests in Somaliland, according to Hudson. These include Ethiopia and Kenya, both of which have become beholden to Emirati interests because of significant UAE investment there in recent years. But it remains unclear whether that will be enough to persuade these countries to recognize Somaliland given the strong opposition of the African Union, which is based in Ethiopia.
Realistically, the United States is the only country powerful enough to force the issue of Somaliland independence, experts told RS. Some Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), have thrown their support behind the breakaway state, but the Trump administration has yet to indicate any public interest in recognizing Somaliland. Still, analysts believe that President Donald Trump might be persuaded to back Somaliland’s independence if the country joins the Abraham Accords, which could lead to recognition from countries like Bahrain and Morocco as well.
Regardless of what happens in the near term, it is now clear that Middle Eastern powers are determined to press their interests in East Africa, whatever the consequences. “A lot of the rivalries within the Middle East are now starting to spill over into the Horn of Africa region,” Al-Bulushi said. “It will be the people of the Horn of Africa that pay the price.”
keep readingShow less
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.
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.
