Follow us on social

google cta
US trashed Somalia, can we really scold its people for coming here?

US trashed Somalia, can we really scold its people for coming here?

Trump’s vitriol against the African state dates back long before the current aid scandal, but in the context of recent history, it makes little sense.

Analysis | Africa
google cta
google cta

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.


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
google cta
Analysis | Africa
Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota
Top photo credit: Federal police tackle and detain a person as demonstrators protest outside the Whipple federal building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 16, 2026. (Photo by Steven Garcia/NurPhoto)

Why Israeli counterterrorism tactics are showing up in Minnesota

Military Industrial Complex

In the past few weeks, thousands of federal law enforcement officials have descended on Minneapolis. Videos show immigration officers jumping out of unmarked vans, tackling and pepper-spraying protesters, and breaking windows in order to drag people from their cars.

Prominent figures in the Trump administration have defended this approach despite fierce local backlash. When federal agents killed a protester named Alex Pretti on Saturday, for example, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem quickly accused him of “domestic terrorism.”

keep readingShow less
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

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.