Follow us on social

Rand Paul: Why do we still have troops in Niger?

Rand Paul: Why do we still have troops in Niger?

The Kentucky senator also demands to know how many countries the US military is operating in, under what authority, and why.

Reporting | QiOSK

There are 1,016 U.S. troops still in Niger — a virtual powderkeg of political and military unrest since an armed junta overthrew its president and locked him and his family in the basement of the government palace in late July.

As a result, regional governments under the banner of ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) is threatening to intervene militarily until the still-imprisoned leader is restored to office. The coup leaders have responded by rallying the people to their cause, as well as other armed juntas in the region.

One of the Niger junta leaders, by the way, Brig. Gen. Moussa Salaou Barmou, trained with U.S. military forces at Fort Benning, Georgia and the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.

In fact, the U.S. military has been in Niger and training Nigeriens since 2013 when Washington signed a status of forces agreement with Niger to conduct “non-combat” operations in the country. Since then the U.S. has built a strategic drone base there from which to conduct its counterterrorism operations in that part of the world.

What are U.S. troops actually doing there now besides training future coup leaders? Under what authority does the administration and the Pentagon continue to rotate American servicemembers in and out? Is it the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, designed to fight al Qaeda and “associated forces,” or the secretive authorities that are far more off the books and do not require as much Congressional review?

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asks this question and several more in a letter sent to Secretary of Defense Loyd Austin yesterday. Like:

How many countries is the U.S. military operating in under the 2001 AUMF? How many are operating under Sections 333 and 127e of the U.S Code, and who specifically is receiving aid and training in those countries? How much money went to Niger?

Aside from the tragic deaths of four American soldiers in October 2017 in an ambush, how many service members have come under fire in Niger since 2013? Under what authorities are being used to keep a U.S. military footprint there now?

Maybe Paul will have more luck than investigative journalist Nick Turse, who has been thwarted at all attempts to get a record of the military’s African trainees, particularly those associated with the region’s many coups in the last decade since Washington has been pouring military assistance into the region. He had to file a Freedom of Information request to find out how many 127e operations the U.S. had across the globe — it turns out, 23 from 2017 to 2020. Just the tip of the iceberg, no doubt.

Last year, the Brennan Center issued a report on the Section 127e and 333 authorities, stating plainly that there is no transparency and Congress knows very little about where the money and personnel are actually going:

The Department of Defense provides congressionally mandated disclosures and updates to only a small number of legislative offices. Sometimes, it altogether fails to comply with reporting requirements, leaving members of Congress uninformed about when, where, and against whom the military uses force. After U.S. forces took casualties in Niger in 2017, for example, lawmakers were taken aback by the very presence of U.S. forces in the country.

Paul says this is unacceptable. Let’s see if a U.S. Senator on the Foreign Relations Commitment can get a little more light on the situation.

“As citizens of a Constitutional republic,” said Paul in his letter, “Americans must be informed of hostilities involving the Armed Forces so that the people can participate in national debates over war and peace. “


Rand Paul (Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons) and General Abdourahmane Tiani, who was declared as the new head of state of Niger by leaders of a coup,July 28, 2023. (REUTERS/Balima Boureima)
Reporting | QiOSK
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.