Top image credit: A woman walks past the wreckage of a car at the scene of an explosion on a bomb-rigged car that was parked on a road near the National Theatre in Hamarweyne district of Mogadishu, Somalia September 28, 2024. REUTERS/Feisal Omar
US trashed Somalia, can we really scold its people for coming here?
January 13, 2026
The relatively small Somali community in the U.S., estimated at 260,000, has lately been receiving national attention thanks to a massive fraud scandal in Minnesota and the resulting vitriol directed at them by President Trump.
Trump’s targeting of Somalis long preceded the current allegations of fraud, going back to his first presidential campaign in 2016. A central theme of Trump’s anti-Somali rancor is that they come from a war-torn country without an effective centralized state, which in Trump’s reasoning speaks to their quality as a people, and therefore, their ability to contribute to American society. It is worth reminding ourselves, however, that Somalia’s state collapse and political instability is as much a result of imperial interventions, including from the U.S., as anything else.
The Somali speaking peoples, whose traditional homeland is in the Horn of Africa, had their lands colonized and divided between competing colonial powers at the turn of the 20th century. Somali territories were carved up between British, Italian, French, and the expanding Ethiopian state. When independence came in 1960, two of these regions (British and Italian colonized regions) joined to form the postcolonial Somali state.
Thus, the initial formation of Somali communities outside of what became Somalia was a direct result of the colonial partition of the Somali people. Soon after independence, Somalia and the Horn of Africa region in general, became one of the central arenas in the geopolitical competition between the U.S. and the USSR during the Cold War. As a result, by the 1970s Somalia was a Soviet client state and one of the most militarized countries in sub-Saharan Africa, despite its meager economy.
Cold War geopolitical machinations partly created the contextual background to the 1977-78 Somalia-Ethiopia war. Somalia’s defeat in this war set the stage for the disintegration of the state in 1991. This threw the country into a prolonged state of conflict, resulting in mass displacement and migration out of Somalia, many of whom settled in the United States. The record indicates there were only about 2,000 people of Somali descent in the U.S. prior to 1990.
While some parts of Somalia established a modicum of stability, other areas of the country, including the capital city of Mogadishu, remained mired in endless cycles of violence. The militia leaders and warlords responsible for most of this violence and instability were of course motivated by personal ambitions, but they were often backed by external actors, including the U.S.
Starting in the early 2000s, following the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa and the 9/11 attacks, the CIA began to directly funnel money to Mogadishu-based warlords to ostensibly capture suspected Islamist ideologues and militants, as part of the U.S. global renditions program. This policy backfired when the warlords were defeated and evicted from the city in a popular uprising in 2006. The uprising was led by a group of community-established and neighborhood-based adjudication centers that were known as Sharia courts, which later unified under the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC).
Many people in Mogadishu and knowledgeable commentators believed the UIC represented the best hope for security and stability in Mogadishu since the fall of the state in 1991, equating its rise with a miracle. The UIC experience, however, did not last long as it was disbanded in a U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion of Mogadishu in 2007. The Ethiopian invasion and subsequent insurgency created the second largest displacement and migration of the population since 1991, as well as the emergence of al-Shabaab, a radical Islamist organization. This latest phase of U.S. intervention in Somalia continues to this day in the name of counterterrorism.
U.S. counterterrorism initiatives in Somalia are today presented by the U.S. government and in mainstream media as a selfless U.S. support to the fragile central government in Mogadishu, but these initiatives are part of a much longer history of U.S. interventions that have contributed to the emergency of the very conditions and problems it claims to be struggling against. For example, U.S. drone strikes in Somalia have continued over the past two decades with varying degrees of intensity at different times.
Since Trump returned to office, his administration has dramatically increased the drone campaign, while the transparency of the decision-making process and consequences of these strikes have become more opaque. Inevitably, as drone strikes have increased, so have civilian casualties, made more egregious by the absence of admission or explanation from the U.S., or any of the other parties that conduct drone strikes in the country.
For instance, in September 2025, a well-known and respected clan elder and conflict mediator from a remote part of northeastern Somalia was traveling in a vehicle when he was killed in a drone strike. Four days later, the U.S. military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) claimed that it had killed an al-Shabaab operative in the area. Everyone who knew the elder was stunned by this claim. So were the regional authorities and the federal government, who contradicted the U.S. story.
Even if he was suspected of being an al-Shabaab member, he could have easily been apprehended. In fact, when he was killed, the elder was on his way back from a meeting with the regional president of Puntland.
To this day, AFRICOM has provided no further information on this killing. For the people of the region, they are left with fear, confusion, and anger, and deprived of a respected conflict mediator in a context where elders have become integral to maintaining stability.
Recent scholarship has noted the link between U.S. militarism in Somalia and the policing and surveillance of Somali immigrants in the U.S. Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric that maligns the Somali people because they come from a place where people are just “walking around killing each other” conveniently omits the U.S role in fomenting instability.
One also wonders if Trump’s anti-Somali rhetoric is setting the stage for yet another seismic intervention in Somalia. This could come with the recognition by the U.S. of Somaliland, as Israel has recently done. This of course is closely connected to Red Sea politics, and access to military facilities aimed at countering the Houthis in Yemen. The potential adverse consequences of this intervention for stability in Somalia/Somaliland and the subsequent displacement and migration, however, does not appear to be part of the calculations of Israel or the U.S.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: prochasson frederic via shutterstock.com
War porn beats out Venezuela peace messages in DC Metro
January 12, 2026
Washington DC’s public transit system, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), is flooded with advertisements about war. Metro Center station, one of the city’s busiest stops, currently features ads from military contractor Applied Intuition bragging about its software’s ability to execute a “simulated air-to-air combat kill.”
But when an anti-war group sought to place an ad advocating peace, its proposal was denied. Understanding why requires a dive into the ongoing battle over corruption, free speech, and militarism on the buses and trains of our nation’s capital.
In 2022, the same anti-war group, World Beyond War (WBW), received approval to place advertisements on the DC Metro system that read “PEACE ON EARTH.” In December 2025, it approached Outfront Media (the company handling WMATA’s advertizing) with a proposal for an ad that was identical, except for one detail: an asterisk at the bottom that read “*Including in Venezuela.” According to emails provided to Responsible Statecraft by WBW Executive Director David Swanson, Outfront Media replied in early January to say that the ad had been rejected by WMATA: “The ad review panel has determined that the [proposal] is prohibited by Advertising Guidelines 9 and 14.
The “advertisement review Panel” is the WMATA board that decides whether ad proposals comply with the Metro’s guidelines. This panel apparently determined that broad calls for peace are permissible, but that any specification — even just naming a country — breaks the rules.
To World Beyond War, this denial is an act of hypocrisy. Pointing to the countless advertisements from military contractors on the Metro, the group’s statement claims that “[a]n exception is being made for peace.” Indeed, in a little-noticed change made in 2024, the transit authority adjusted its rules to provide special treatment to government contractors, including the arms industry
The war over words
The debate over acceptable advertising within the DC transit system has grown into a major controversy over the last decade. One source is the constant presence of military contractors like Lockheed Martin and RTX (formerly Raytheon), which buy ad space in hopes of pushing their products on congressional budget staff and Pentagon procurement officers.
Several years ago, RS conducted a survey of military contractor advertising in the WMATA train system and found not only that contractor ads were common, but that they were also concentrated in the places frequented most by government policymakers: the stations closest to the Pentagon and Congress. At first glance, this arrangement seemed to violate both federal law and WMATA’s own Guideline 14 against ads “intended to influence public policy.” The only reason that contractors have dodged Guideline 14 so far is a bizarre insistence that ads encouraging the government to buy weapons systems with public funds do not count as “political advocacy.”
In the time since that survey was published, military contractors have become even more prominent within the transit system, and WMATA’s marketing guidelines have become even more controversial.
WMATA tried to avoid political controversy altogether in 2015 by temporarily joining the transit systems of cities like Chicago in banning all “issue-oriented” ads. Though successful in stemming paid propaganda, the strict policy also drew criticism from free speech advocates, including a largely unsuccessful 2017 lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
In 2024, the ACLU found some success in another case against WMATA’s advertising restrictions. A DC district court judge ruled that Guideline 9 against ads “intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions” — one of the two guidelines used to reject WBW’s peace ad proposal — “does not provide objective, workable standards,” and that WMATA’s application of the rule “has been far from consistent.”
WMATA sought to address this problem by issuing a new set of “internal procedures” in November 2024, providing detailed guidance about how ads were judged. Though this document was supposedly meant to clarify the rules, it effectively changed the rules by enumerating a number of new restrictions and permissions.
Contractors only
Under the old rules, military contractor ads were in apparent violation of Guideline 14’s straightforward ban on ads “intended to influence public policy.” But under the new rules, government contractors are now exempt from Guideline 14 via a carveout for advertisers that are “offering goods and/or services to the government.” No such exemption was made for peace groups like World Beyond War, who typically take the opposite position of military contractors in debates over Pentagon policy.
WMATA’s new rules gave military contractors other exemptions as well. Guideline 9 — the legally questionable rule that WBW was accused of violating — now explicitly prohibits advertisers from taking a position on any “governmental action or inaction, other than offering goods and/or services to the government” [emphasis added]. In other words, for-profit advertisers with money at stake are now one of the only groups allowed to share their opinions on political issues surrounding military spending and acquisitions.
The ACLU seems to regard WMATA’s “internal procedures” with skepticism, requesting a discovery process into its “development and meaning.” It’s easy to see why: if upheld, these new rules would effectively legalize for-profit advertising in favor of militarism while banning most non-profit advertising critical of militarism.
There is also another reason to be skeptical of the new rules: WMATA does not seriously enforce them. In the year since its “internal procedures” document was released, WMATA has accepted multiple ad campaigns that are in clear violation of Guidelines 9 and 14.
Last month, crypto company Block placed an ad on bus stops arguing that Bitcoin transactions “deserve a… tax exemption.” This month, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments put up an ad saying that “The EPA’s attack on vehicle emissions standards is an attack on our health.” Both ads break Guideline 9 by “Supporting… a law… or policy” and Guideline 14 by “seek[ing] to influence lawmakers… in the conduct of their duties.” Yet unlike WBW’s relatively tame proposal, both were apparently approved by the ad review board. When WMATA fails to enforce its own rules in accepting ads, each rejection appears all the more suspicious. WMATA did not respond to a request for comment.
While the WMATA guidelines might be an unevenly enforced mess, federal law is still quite clear about military contractor ads. It is explicitly illegal for government contractors to use the public funds they receive for efforts “attempting to influence an officer or employee” of the federal government in an effort to acquire more contracts. It is unclear if WMATA has any process in place to ensure that this law is being followed.
As it stands today, the DC transit system’s advertising rules effectively ban many pro-peace advertisements while bending over backwards to allow ads from the military-industrial complex. Such an absurdity suggests that WMATA’s legal troubles might not be over any time soon. Meanwhile, Swanson says that World Beyond War is “interested in the possibility of a lawsuit!”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold a bilateral meeting at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka, Japan June 28, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
What can we expect from a Trump-Putin meeting
Trump on New Start nuke treaty with Russia: if 'it expires it expires'
January 12, 2026
As the February 5 expiration date for New START — the last nuclear arms control treaty remaining between the U.S. and Russia — looms, the Trump administration appears ready to let it die without an immediate replacement.
"If it expires, it expires," President Trump said about the treaty during a New York Times interview given Wednesday. "We'll just do a better agreement."
But as experts tell Responsible Statecraft, allowing New START to lapse without some kind of contingency plan in place could unleash an unconstrained arms race between the world’s greatest nuclear powers.
About New START
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which went into effect in 2010, caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads the U.S. and Russia can each have at 1,550. In addition, the two countries can only maintain 700 deployed delivery vehicles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and heavy bombers, and 800 launchers (missile launchers and bombers) for those weapons, under the treaty.
New START was extended in 2021 for five years, but Russia suspended its participation in 2023, citing U.S. military assistance to Ukraine; the U.S. also partially stopped observing it. A clause in the New START treaty bars it from being formally extended again, but Russia proposed in September that both countries voluntarily maintain the treaty’s “central quantitative restrictions” on deployed nuclear warheads, and relevant delivery systems, for a year from its expiration — a measure Russia says does not require formal U.S. diplomatic engagement.
The U.S. initially seemed amenable to that idea but Trump’s recent remarks suggest disinterest in it.
Nuclear negotiations: easier said than done
Anticipating New START’s end, Trump has signaled intent to garner a “better agreement.” But experts tell RS, his own track record indicates this is easier said than done.
“If the Trump administration thinks that getting a new ‘better’ treaty after this one lapses will be easy, they are mistaken,” Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, told RS. “This is the same message that the first Trump administration provided when the decision was made to pull out of the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] with Iran. How did that turn out?”
“Almost 8 years later and there's no new deal, and Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon even after the June 2025 airstrikes than it was before Trump exited the agreement,” Kavanagh said.
Meanwhile, Russia and the U.S. are of different minds on what a new treaty could look like. For example, whether to prioritize reining in China’s growing nuclear stockpiles is a point of divergence. New START, a bilateral agreement, does not include China.
“The United States has pushed to include China in a trilateral [treaty] format, which Beijing rejects due to arsenal size asymmetries, and to cover novel systems and nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Russia frames potential talks around the overall strategic balance, including missile defenses and long-range conventional strike capabilities,” Stephen Herzog, professor of the practice at James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, told RS. “These priorities are difficult to reconcile.”
Simply continuing to observe New START’s weapons and delivery systems limits would set aside its critical weapons verification mechanisms, such as on-site nuclear weapons inspections and biannual weapons inventory updates, and avoid the issue of China’s expanding arsenal. But experts say that arrangement, or another informal commitment, would be better than nothing.
“Even if Trump wants a better agreement, he should offer some informal commitment for now to maintain the caps while negotiating. Walking away with nothing serves no one's interests,” Pavel Devyatkin, a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute and senior associate at The Arctic Institute, told RS.
“Trump is right that extending New START won't address China's growing nuclear stockpile,” Kavanagh concluded. “But this is not a reason to [avoid seeking] common ground with Russia on this issue.”
A new nuclear arms race?
With only weeks left before New START expires, even a lapse in voluntarily observing its central tenet — maintaining its quantitative limits — paves the way for an unconstrained arms race.
“Once New START is gone, there are no international arms control agreements between the world's two largest nuclear powers anymore,” Geoff Wilson, distinguished fellow and strategic advisor for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, warned RS. “There is nothing controlling what the United States and Russia can or cannot do with their nuclear weapons.”
“The stakes are high. If Trump fails to respond positively to Russia’s proposal for an interim deal to maintain the New START limits, each side likely will begin increasing the size of its deployed nuclear arsenal for the first time in more than 35 years by uploading additional warheads on existing long-range missiles,” Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, wrote. “Many members of the nuclear weapon establishment are lobbying for such a buildup.”
The State Department declined to say whether the Trump administration would adhere to Russia’s proposal to keep New START’s quantitative limits; the White House did not respond to the same question.
keep readingShow less
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.
















