However, disagreements over aid, Somalia’s political instability, responsibility for national security, and the future of international support for the African Union mission have created new tensions.

The relationship has not been severed, but Washington is reassessing the scale and structure of its support for Somalia.

The shift reflects both U.S. concerns about Somalia’s governance and security capacity and broader changes in President Donald Trump’s approach to foreign assistance and international security commitments.

The January aid dispute

One of the clearest signs of the changing relationship emerged in January, when the Trump administration temporarily suspended U.S. assistance benefiting Somalia’s federal government.

The State Department said Somali authorities had demolished a U.S.-funded World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse at Mogadishu port and seized about 75–76 metric tons of food intended for vulnerable Somalis.

Washington said the incident demonstrated serious problems with the oversight and protection of U.S.-funded humanitarian assistance.

The Somali government disputed the U.S. characterization of the incident, saying port expansion and construction activities had not affected the custody or distribution of humanitarian supplies. The WFP later said it had retrieved the food.

The suspension was subsequently lifted, with the United States saying it would resume WFP food distribution while continuing to review its broader assistance policy toward Somalia.

The episode nevertheless exposed a significant difference between Washington’s expectations regarding accountability for U.S.-funded programs and Mogadishu’s position on the port incident.

The dispute also came at a difficult moment for Somalia’s humanitarian situation. In February, the WFP warned that it could be forced to halt food assistance within weeks because of severe funding shortages.

The agency said 4.4 million people were facing crisis-level food insecurity.

Disagreement over who should carry Somalia’s security burden

A more fundamental issue concerns Somalia’s ability to assume greater responsibility for its own security.

The United States has spent years supporting Somalia’s campaign against Al-Shabaab through military assistance, training, intelligence cooperation and air operations.

Washington has also been a major contributor to the broader international security architecture supporting Somalia.

But U.S. officials have increasingly questioned how long international partners should continue providing extensive logistical and financial support while Somalia’s security institutions remain dependent on outside assistance.

That concern became particularly visible in July, when the United States announced that it would stop supporting UN logistics and operational contributions to AUSSOM from 2027.

Reuters reported that Washington’s decision was linked in part to frustration over political infighting in Somalia and the country’s continued reliance on international support.

AUSSOM, which has roughly 12,000 personnel, relies heavily on the UN Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS) for essential services, including food, fuel, water, medical support and transportation.

Any reduction in that logistical system therefore has implications not only for the UN but also for the African Union mission’s ability to operate.

Washington extends the transition period, but not its commitment

The situation became more nuanced in September.

Rather than ending the UN’s logistical support immediately, the United States agreed to give the UN an additional year to phase out its support for AUSSOM, with the transition beginning in January 2027.

Reuters reported that Washington still did not intend to fund or support UNSOS beyond that transition period.

The decision therefore represents less a complete withdrawal from Somalia’s security environment than a change in the model of international support.

For Mogadishu, the challenge is that Somalia’s security forces are still fighting an active insurgency while the government faces financial and institutional constraints.

For Washington, the question is increasingly whether international mechanisms created to support Somalia’s security transition can continue indefinitely.

Somalia’s political divisions are another source of concern

Domestic political tensions have also complicated the relationship.

The United States and other international partners have repeatedly encouraged Somalia’s federal government, federal member states and opposition groups to resolve disputes over elections, constitutional arrangements and the distribution of political authority.

Those tensions became particularly serious in 2026, including clashes in Mogadishu between government-aligned forces and militias associated with opposition politicians.

Reuters reported that the violence followed growing tensions over President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s decision to remain in office after the expiration of his term, while opposition figures accused the government of constitutional violations.

The government rejected those accusations and blamed opposition forces for destabilizing the capital.

Such political disputes have security consequences because Somalia’s fight against Al-Shabaab requires coordination between the federal government, regional administrations and security forces.

From Washington’s perspective, prolonged political confrontation can make it more difficult to build coherent national security institutions and implement a unified strategy against Al-Shabaab.

Trump’s broader foreign-policy approach

The tensions also need to be viewed within the wider foreign-policy approach of the Trump administration.

Washington has been reassessing overseas spending, foreign assistance and international security commitments, raising questions about the future of long-standing U.S. support for international missions.

The Somalia policy therefore cannot be viewed entirely in isolation.

The United States is also reconsidering how much responsibility it should assume for international peacekeeping and how much of the financial and security burden should be transferred to partner governments and regional organizations.

The September decision on UNSOS illustrates this approach: Washington agreed to a transition period rather than an immediate cutoff, but maintained that it did not intend to continue funding the UN support structure indefinitely.

The U.S. political climate is adding another layer

Another factor is the increasingly sensitive political environment in Washington ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.

Africa Intelligence reported on October 1 that Somalia’s efforts to strengthen relations with the Trump administration are taking place amid a politically charged debate in the United States over allegations concerning the diversion of public assistance.

The publication said conservative political circles were seeking to use the issue against Democrats.

That report does not establish that the Trump administration has formally changed its Somalia policy because of the midterm elections. Rather, it points to a political environment in Washington in which Somalia-related aid and governance issues can attract greater scrutiny.

Security cooperation remains important

Despite these disagreements, security cooperation between Somalia and the United States remains a central part of the relationship.

Washington continues to regard Al-Shabaab as a significant regional security threat, while Somalia continues to rely on American military and security assistance.

The United States also has broader interests in the stability of the Horn of Africa and the security of maritime routes connecting the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.

This means the current tensions should not necessarily be interpreted as the collapse of the bilateral relationship.

Instead, the relationship is undergoing a renegotiation of expectations.

Washington increasingly wants Somalia to assume greater responsibility for security, governance and the financing of its own institutions. t

Mogadishu, meanwhile, continues to argue that international assistance remains necessary while Somali forces confront Al-Shabaab and the country deals with humanitarian and economic pressures.

What happens next?

The future of the relationship will depend heavily on how Somalia responds to these concerns and how the Trump administration defines its long-term priorities in the Horn of Africa.

AUSSOM and the transition away from UNSOS will be particularly important. If Somalia and its international partners can develop alternative arrangements for financing, logistics and security operations, cooperation could continue under a different framework.

If those arrangements are not secured, the pressure on Somalia to assume a larger share of the security burden is likely to intensify.

The relationship between Mogadishu and Washington is therefore best understood not as a complete diplomatic breakdown, but as a period of significant adjustment.

The January aid dispute, U.S. concerns over Somalia’s security capacity, political divisions inside Somalia, changes in Trump administration policy and the increasingly sensitive political environment in Washington have all contributed to the current strain.

At the same time, the two countries continue to share important interests, particularly in combating Al-Shabaab and maintaining stability in the Horn of Africa.

The direction of the relationship will depend on whether Somalia can demonstrate greater institutional and security capacity while Washington determines what level of long-term support it is prepared to maintain.

The post Explainer : Why Somalia-U.S. Relations Are Under Strain in 2026 appeared first on Kaab TV.

The final U.S. troops departed Iraq, bringing to a close a military footprint that began in March 2003, when U.S. and coalition forces launched an invasion of Iraq and overthrew the regime led by former president Saddam Hussein.

This withdrawal marks the end of one of Washington’s longest-running military engagements in the Middle East.

Throughout the duration of the U.S. deployment, Iraq endured wars, uprisings, insurgencies by armed groups, and a protracted campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS).

U.S. forces entered Iraq in March 2003 under the American argument that Saddam Hussein’s government posed a direct threat to regional and international security.

The invasion swiftly dismantled the military capabilities of Saddam Hussein’s regime within a short timeframe, allowing U.S. and allied forces to seize control of key cities across the country.

Saddam Hussein was subsequently captured, tried by an Iraqi tribunal, and sentenced to death, culminating in his execution in late 2006.

However, the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government did not bring an end to conflict in Iraq.

The country subsequently plunged into a cycle of warfare and attacks perpetrated by armed factions opposed to foreign forces and the newly established Iraqi government.

For years, U.S. forces faced persistent attacks launched by armed groups across many parts of Iraq.

American and allied forces also engaged in major military operations aimed at curbing armed factions, with fierce battles erupting across various cities and districts.

Throughout the conflict, U.S. forces suffered significant casualties.

A number of troops were killed in combat, while others lost their lives in bombings and attacks targeting military bases and convoys.

The war also exacted a massive financial cost on the U.S. government.

These expenditures included funding allocated for military operations, weaponry, aircraft, combat vehicles, base infrastructure, healthcare for wounded soldiers, and compensation for disabled veterans.

In 2011, the U.S. government withdrew the majority of its troops from Iraq, declaring at the time that the American military mission in the country had concluded.

However, that withdrawal did not mark the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

In 2014, after the Islamic State (ISIS) overran vast territories in Iraq and Syria, the United States returned to the country, leading an international coalition to wage war against the group.

ISIS rapidly expanded across multiple regions of Iraq in 2014, seizing strategic cities, including Mosul.

The United States and partner nations subsequently provided military support, training, intelligence, and airstrikes to Iraqi forces and Kurdish fighters.

Intense battles took place in cities held by ISIS, and Iraqi forces ultimately succeeded in reclaiming most of the territory previously captured by the group.

Here is the accurate, professionally polished English translation of the final segment of the report, meticulously reviewed to ensure natural flow, correct military and geopolitical terminology, and zero translation errors:

Mosul, which had served as the largest city under ISIS control within Iraq, was liberated from the group in 2017.

Although ISIS was stripped of the territory it once administered, residual members and clandestine cells of the group continue to operate in parts of Iraq.

In recent years, the Iraqi government has sought to ensure that its national security forces assume full responsibility for the country’s security architecture.

Washington and Baghdad held extensive negotiations concerning the future posture of U.S. forces and the operations of the international anti-ISIS coalition.

Both sides ultimately agreed upon a structured framework to conclude the international coalition’s military operations in Iraq, facilitating the gradual departure of foreign forces.

Today’s withdrawal marks the execution of that plan, as the final contingent of U.S. troops departs Iraqi soil.

Spanning more than two decades of warfare and military campaigns, the U.S. engagement in Iraq exacted a heavy toll in both human lives and material resources.

Historical combat records indicate that thousands of American service members and contractors were killed or wounded during operations in Iraq.

The conflict also claimed the lives of numerous civilian contractors and personnel caught in the crossfire.

For years, the U.S. government bore extensive financial expenditures associated with long-term medical care for wounded veterans, compensation, and specialized services for disabled soldiers.

Overall expenditures for the Iraq war soared to extraordinary levels, with various independent assessments estimating that the total financial cost of the conflict and its enduring obligations reached trillions of dollars.

The complete departure of U.S. forces ushers the Iraqi state into a pivotal new security phase.

Iraqi armed forces and national security agencies now bear the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding the nation’s sovereignty and maintaining internal security against lingering armed threats.

The Iraqi government stated that its national forces are fully capable of defending the country and will continue their ongoing campaign against ISIS and other armed factions.

Nevertheless, the departure of U.S. troops has also raised significant questions regarding Iraq’s future security landscape, particularly concerning the influence of armed groups and the persistent threat still posed by ISIS.

Although U.S. forces have withdrawn from Iraq, bilateral relations between the two countries are not coming to an end.

Washington and Baghdad maintain active political, economic, and security ties, with both governments aiming to anchor their future relationship in mutual bilateral cooperation.

The United States also remains invested in the security stability of Iraq and the broader Middle East, while the Iraqi government strives to strengthen the operational capacity of its state institutions and national armed forces.

Today’s withdrawal thus closes a long and definitive chapter in the shared history of Iraq and the United States—one that originated with the 2003 invasion.

Iraq now bears the profound responsibility of independently safeguarding its national security in the absence of a permanent U.S. military presence.

The post United States Withdraws Its Final Troops from Iraq After 23 Years appeared first on Kaab TV.

The post Hassan Sheikh Travels to U.S. for UN General Assembly Meetings appeared first on Kaab TV.

The post Deadly Shooting at San Diego Mosque Leaves Five Dead, Including Two Suspects appeared first on Kaab TV.

“We have charged 98 individuals related to corruption in Minnesota. More than 60 of them have pleaded guilty. Others are coming,” the department said in a statement posted on the U.S. social media platform X.

Federal authorities have recently highlighted Minnesota’s Somali community, describing it as the center of allegations involving the misuse of millions of dollars in federal funds intended for social services. Meanwhile, immigrant rights organizations have said the investigation unfairly targets Somali people.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that 85 of those charged so far are individuals of Somali origin.

FBI Director Kash Patel said on Sunday that significant progress has been made in the investigation into what he described as a “large-scale” corruption scheme in Minnesota, which involved exploiting federal food assistance programs intended for children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The FBI said it has stopped a massive fraud scheme totaling approximately $250 million. The money was meant to provide food for low-income children during COVID-19, but it was improperly taken and misused.

The post U.S. Charges Mostly Somali Defendants in Corruption Case appeared first on Kaab TV.

The rally, organized by COPAL, Unidos, and local labor unions, comes as the Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Metro Surge enters its third week.

DHS reports that more than 400 people have been arrested since the operation began, though the agency has not disclosed how many remain detained or have been transferred elsewhere.

Officials have also highlighted more than a dozen arrests involving individuals with prior criminal convictions.

Organizers say Saturday’s march was an opportunity for communities to unite and push back against what they describe as a harmful enforcement strategy.

“We want to make sure that people across the country and around the world know that a mass deportation agenda is not good for immigrants,” said Emilia González Avalos, executive director of UNIDOS. “It’s not good for communities, and it’s not good for local economies.”

González Avalos said the enforcement operation has already taken a toll on neighborhood businesses.

“Businesses are struggling,” she said. “People are afraid to go out and shop. They’re not even buying basic necessities like toilet paper, eggs, milk, or formula because of that fear.”

Advocacy groups at the march also challenged the narrative that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is targeting only dangerous individuals.

“Most immigrants here are working incredibly hard,” said Silvia Ibanez of the Immigrant Defense Network. “They’re here to build a better future for their families, and that’s not a crime.”

The march concluded at Karmel Mall, a location organizers said symbolized how both Latino and Somali communities have been affected by the latest wave of DHS enforcement actions.

The post Thousands Rally on Minneapolis’ Lake Street Calling for ICE Removal appeared first on Kaab TV.

The post Mexican Man Allegedly Aided By Wisconsin Judge Agrees To Guilty Plea appeared first on Kaab TV.

In an interview published Friday on the Democracy Now! YouTube channel, Omar compared the current state of the U.S. to a dictatorship, saying:

“I grew up in a dictatorial regime, but I have never seen anything like what is happening in the United States. The country that was once seen as a beacon of democracy now looks like one of the worst—military forces in the streets, no regard for constitutional rights.”

Her comments came shortly before a military-style ceremony organized by former President Donald Trump to mark the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. The event, which also coincided with Flag Day and Trump’s 79th birthday, was viewed by some as politically charged.

Unimpressed by the spectacle, Omar criticized the event as authoritarian in nature:

“Our president is spending millions of dollars to portray himself as a failed dictator. This is shocking, and the American people should be very careful. This is not the country we were born in, not the country we were proud of, and certainly not the country our founders envisioned. What’s happening does not align with our Constitution or our values.”

She also accused Trump of undermining the country:

“The person destroying this country is Trump. He has contempt for the values that built the United States. Protest and dissent are constitutional rights—it’s the very first amendment.”

Her statements sparked significant backlash, particularly from conservative circles. Fox News contributor Guy Benson labeled her comments as a “gross violation,” reflecting the deep partisan divide in reactions to Omar’s remarks.

The post Ilhan Omar: U.S. Becoming One of the “Worst Countries” Amid Political and Military Spectacle appeared first on Kaab TV.

Appointed by President Donald Trump in 2024, Musk was tasked with spearheading initiatives to reduce energy spending across federal agencies. His tenure was marked by sweeping cost-cutting measures, including significant staff reductions in agencies such as USAID.

“I am very grateful to President Trump for the opportunity to serve the country. It has been a challenging experience, but I have learned a great deal,” Musk said in a statement posted on X (formerly Twitter).

With his departure from public office, Musk is expected to refocus his attention on his business ventures, particularly in advanced technology and space exploration.

The post Elon Musk Resigns as Director of U.S. Department of Energy Efficiency appeared first on Kaab TV.

These accusations are primarily directed at the United Arab Emirates, a former strategic partner now cast by the current administration as a geopolitical adversary.

But here’s the crux of the issue: no evidence has been presented. Not a single document, bank transfer, or verifiable link. Just a barrage of insinuations, false scapegoat and politically convenient soundbites.

For a government that claims to defend Somalia’s sovereignty, this kind of reckless, baseless rhetoric exposes more about its own insecurities than it does about its opponents. These are not principled warnings—they are political distractions.

This isn’t about foreign influence. It’s about domestic pressure. Opposition leaders—many of them former officials, civil servants, and grassroots mobilizers—have returned to Mogadishu to form a united front.

Their timing is no accident. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s government is now past the halfway point of its term, and public patience is wearing thin.

The opposition isn’t calling for revolution. They’re calling for inclusion, transparency, and a credible roadmap toward elections in 2026—something Villa Somalia has so far failed to provide.

Instead of engaging with these demands, federal officials have reverted to a tired strategy: label your critics as foreign agents. Manufacture fear. Weaponize patriotism. But in the absence of facts, these tactics fall flat.

UAE as a Convenient Target

The government’s diplomatic rift with the UAE has been quietly growing for over a year, especially as Mogadishu leans more heavily on Turkey and Qatar.

The Emirates—once seen as key allies—are now portrayed in official messaging as meddlers, despite their continued humanitarian and development footprint in Somalia.

Let’s be honest: every administration in Villa Somalia, including Hassan Sheikh’s, has relied on external partners. Military support, budgetary aid, and diplomatic backing all come from abroad including but not limited, to UAE.

So why is foreign engagement only problematic when it doesn’t pass through the gates of Villa Somalia? This selective outrage is not about sovereignty—it’s about power.

What the Opposition Really Represents

Contrary to the government’s narrative, this growing opposition bloc isn’t foreign-funded—it’s publicly fueled. It reflects the frustrations of ordinary Somalis tired of political theater and eager for real accountability. It channels calls for meaningful decentralization, clarity on federalism, and an electoral process free of manipulation.

Labeling such calls as externally driven is not only dishonest—it’s dangerous. It undermines trust in democratic processes and sends a chilling message: dissent equals betrayal.

But Somalis are not naïve. They’ve lived through decades of manipulation and conflict. They can spot political projection when they see it. What the Opposition Really Represents

Contrary to the government’s narrative, this growing opposition bloc isn’t foreign-funded—it’s publicly fueled. It reflects the frustrations of ordinary Somalis tired of political theater and eager for real accountability. It channels calls for meaningful decentralization, clarity on federalism, and an electoral process free of manipulation.

Labeling such calls as externally driven is not only dishonest—it’s dangerous. It undermines trust in democratic processes and sends a chilling message: dissent equals betrayal.

But Somalis are not naïve. They’ve lived through decades of manipulation and conflict. They can spot political projection when they see it.

A Government Losing Its Moral Ground

In accusing its opponents without proof, the federal government is not defending national unity—it is eroding institutional credibility.

You cannot build a democracy by silencing opposition, stoking fear, and calling every critic a traitor. If the administration truly believes in its mandate, it should welcome political competition—not criminalize it.

If it fears the opposition, it should ask itself why. Because when you attack without evidence, people start to wonder what you’re trying to hide.

Final Word: A Fight for Somalia’s Future

This moment is bigger than party politics. It’s about whether Somalia chooses a path of open democracy—or a closed loop of paranoia and power consolidation.

The government’s latest smear campaign is a sign of weakness, not strength. It knows it cannot win on merit, so it resorts to dirty tricks. The opposition must remain steadfast, and the Somali people must see through these tactics.

The road to 2026 will be fraught with government-backed disinformation and intimidation. The 2026 election will not only test candidates—it will test whether Villa Somalia is willing to let the people decide.

The opposition’s movement must be rooted in the national interest, not foreign agendas—and no amount of propaganda will change that. If the opposition stays united and the public remains vigilant, Somalia may yet see a democratic transition—as demanded by its own citizens.

The clock is ticking. And smokescreens won’t stop the reckoning.

_

Abdirahman Jeylani Mohamed is a journalist and the Director of Arlaadi Media Network. You can reach him on X (Twitter) @JaylaaniJr.

The post Fear of Defeat: Why Somalia’s Government Is Targeting the Opposition with Foreign Agenda Claims appeared first on Kaab TV.