Follow us on social

google cta
Senate shoots down effort to withdraw US troops from Niger

Senate shoots down effort to withdraw US troops from Niger

In an 11-86 vote, lawmakers voted to block a measure that would remove American soldiers from the country following a recent coup.

Reporting | Africa
google cta
google cta

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to reject a bill that would have mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Niger, where a coup has left the country in crisis since July.

The 11-86 vote followed a heated floor debate in which Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made an impassioned speech in favor of bringing U.S. soldiers home from the country.

“Does it make sense to station over 1000 troops in a country ruled by a military junta?” Paul asked. “We're in the middle of a potential war with 1100 troops in Niger where the democratically elected president has been deposed, and they're being ruled by a military junta and still our troops are there.”

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), who voted against the bill, argued on the floor that “a swift withdrawal from Niger, as proposed in this resolution, would weaken our regional reconnaissance efforts” and open the door to Russian influence in the country. Sen Ben Cardin (D-Mary.) also argued against the measure, contending that U.S. troops are not engaged in active hostilities and that American soldiers are there with the permission of local authorities.

Paul led the bill alongside co-sponsors Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Kennedy (R-La.), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) also voted in favor of a floor vote on the bill.

The proposal was endorsed by Just Foreign Policy, the Friends Committee for National Legislation, the Heritage Foundation’s advocacy arm, and the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS.

The news comes amid growing pressure to reevaluate America’s war on terror, which has quietly hummed along in places like Somalia, Niger, and Syria in recent years with little attention from the U.S. public. Most deployments are justified under the broad authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress just days after the September 11, 2001, attacks.

“Using an AUMF from 22 years ago, an authorization to get the people who attacked us on 9/11, to justify a war in Niger is a ridiculous notion and should be rejected out of hand,” Paul argued.

While these operations are largely confined to training and intelligence gathering, American soldiers have been involved in recent skirmishes in Somalia, and Islamic State fighters killed four U.S. servicemen in Niger in 2017. The father of one of those soldiers recently pleaded with lawmakers to reconsider America’s presence in the country.

“If a conflict is not worth the death of your own son or daughter, if you are not willing to send your own son or daughter to death’s door to return home in a flag-draped coffin, don’t send ours,” he wrote.

Observers initially speculated that the coup in Niger could make it more challenging for the U.S. military to operate, especially given the junta’s decision to expel French troops from the country. But U.S. officials reportedly struck a deal with coup leaders that has allowed the 1,100 American soldiers deployed in the country to return to their regular intelligence and surveillance work.

Further complicating the issue is the State Department’s decision earlier this month to officially designate the takeover as a coup, restricting the extent to which U.S. forces can provide security assistance to and coordinate with the Nigerien government. It is unclear whether the U.S. military continues to arm and train the Nigerien military.

Paul has previously raised questions about the secretive nature of the U.S. presence in Niger. As he noted in a recent letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, it remains unclear what authority underpins the operations, which must be authorized legally by an act of Congress.

Recent presidents have largely justified such operations using the broad authorization for the use of force passed in the days after 9/11. But legal experts have recently raised doubts as to whether that law remains applicable after more than two decades of global war.

New threat assessments “raise the question of whether the United States has passed the ‘tipping point’ such that U.S. counterterrorism efforts are no longer considered an armed conflict,” noted Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group and Heather Brandon-Smith of the FCNL.

In the case of Niger — a country that, by all accounts, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks — Paul argues that operations “circumvent our constitution, which was designed to ensure that the decision to engage in hostilities would be made only after serious deliberation in the legislature.”


Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. (Christopher Halloran/Shutterstock)
google cta
Reporting | Africa
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
Ro Khanna Jon Fetterman
Top photo credit: Ro Khanna (creative commons/WebSummitt ) and Jon Fetterman (shutterstock/EB Photos)

Fury and fanboys: US, world leaders react to US-Israeli war on Iran

QiOSK

The reactions are already coming in following the early morning attacks on Iran by U.S. and Israeli forces in what is being called "Operation Epic Fury." The reports are fluid, but as President Trump announced on his Truth Social, the U.S. is taking aim at Iran's military and senior leadership and hopes to raze both so that the Iranian people can take over. "When we are finished the government is yours to take. Your hour of freedom is at hand."

For some, like U.S. Senator Jon Fetterman, a Democrat who represents the people of Pennsylvania, this is the greatest thing to happen since the last time the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran in June. "President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel."

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.