Prepared by the researche : Amr Rashad Ismail – Expert in African Affairs
DAC Democratic Arabic Center GmbH
For decades, the Horn of Africa has stood as a strategic pivot in both regional and international security equations. Its geographic sensitivity intersects with networks of terrorism, irregular migration, and persistent internal conflicts. At the heart of these dynamics lies Somalia, a state plagued by institutional fragility and enduring insecurity. Against this backdrop, the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) has played a pivotal role in containing al-Shabaab, while simultaneously supporting Somali state-building in coordination with the United Nations and other international stakeholders.
In a decision that raised widespread questions, President Donald Trump refused to extend U.S. financial and military support to AMISOM. This move aligned with the “America First” policy, through which Washington sought to scale back overseas commitments and redirect resources to domestic priorities.
U.S. support for AMISOM had long been considered a crucial element of peacekeeping efforts designed to assist the Somali government in confronting al-Shabaab’s insurgency. With the Trump administration’s withdrawal, the burden shifted onto the African Union and its member states to secure alternative funding and sustain operational capacity, in order to prevent deterioration of Somalia’s already fragile security landscape.
This decision was not a passing political gesture; rather, it carried broad ramifications for the architecture of regional security in East Africa. The effects ranged from weakening the capacity of African peacekeepers on the ground, to emboldening militant groups, and ultimately deepening distrust between the United States and its African partners.
From “withdrawal” to “marginalization,” this paper maps the cascading consequences of Washington’s refusal to back AMISOM—seeking to provide deeper insight into how shifts in global power engagement directly reshape African security, and recalibrate balances of power in one of the world’s most fragile and contested regions.
Reasons Behind the U.S. Refusal to Support the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM):
- Republican Pressure on the Administration to Halt Support Due to Financial Costs: Some Republican members of Congress criticized the financial burden of U.S. support for military missions such as AMISOM. They argued that such commitments conflicted with America’s domestic economic priorities, particularly amid economic challenges at the time. As the vote on renewing funding approached, Republican pressure on the administration intensified, pushing for an end to support. They insisted that the United States should avoid further entanglement in African conflicts and that African states themselves must assume responsibility for their own security ([1]).
- Reassessment of the U.S. Security Role in Somalia and Growing Doubts About AMISOM’s Effectiveness: Washington reassessed its security role in Somalia in light of new strategic considerations. Although the U.S. had previously provided substantial funding and training to AMISOM to combat al-Shabaab, doubts grew over the mission’s effectiveness in achieving long-term stability.
- Trump Administration’s Focus on Reducing Overseas Spending Under the “America First” Policy: There was a conviction among some U.S. lawmakers that funding peacekeeping missions in Africa did not yield tangible long-term results for American security. They argued that the United States should not continue to bear the financial burdens of peacekeeping operations in regions that might remain unstable despite external support. Republican factions pressed the Trump administration to scale back involvement in African conflicts, emphasizing instead that African states should shoulder responsibility for regional security rather than relying on sustained U.S. assistance ([2]).
- Concerns Over Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s Foreign Policy Orientation and Its Impact on U.S.–Somali Relations: Another significant reason behind Washington’s decision was unease over President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s foreign policy direction. Some of his statements regarding closer ties with countries such as Russia and China raised concerns in Washington, as these relations were perceived as misaligned with U.S. foreign policy priorities in the region, which focused on supporting traditional allies.
Consequences of the U.S. Decision to Halt Support for the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM):
- Escalating al-Shabaab Activity in Somalia
The suspension of U.S. support for AMISOM risks fueling the expansion of al-Shabaab, Somalia’s most significant security threat. As Washington reduced its financial and military assistance, armed groups such as al-Shabaab began exploiting the resulting security vacuum to consolidate control across various regions. Recent months have witnessed a surge in the group’s attacks, not only in Mogadishu but also in southern and southeastern areas, underscoring AMISOM’s diminishing capacity to counter such threats.
The withdrawal of U.S. logistical and intelligence backing adds further strain on African forces deployed in Somalia, many of which lack the resources to confront al-Shabaab’s increasingly complex operations. This rollback undermines counterterrorism efforts across the region and forces a strategic rethink of how to contain the insurgency.
- Mounting Financial Shortages Threatening Peacekeeping Operations
The U.S. had been one of AMISOM’s primary funders, covering logistics, training, and troop salaries. Its withdrawal has triggered a deepening financial deficit, undermining the mission’s operational sustainability. With reduced resources, the mission faces cutbacks in field deployments and weaker capacity to prevent militant resurgence.
This financial strain is compounded by an estimated $96 million debt, largely stemming from delayed salary payments and operating costs. The crisis jeopardizes both the morale of peacekeepers and the mission’s ability to maintain a meaningful presence, raising the possibility of downsizing or even suspending some activities altogether—developments that could severely destabilize both Somalia and the wider region.
- Rising U.S.–European Tensions Over Peacekeeping Funding
Washington’s retreat has sparked disputes with European partners over alternative funding mechanisms. While the U.S. insists that African governments and regional actors should shoulder a larger share of the burden, European capitals continue to advocate coordinated cost-sharing to stabilize Somalia and prevent militant expansion.
This divergence reflects not only disagreements over financial responsibilities but also broader strategic outlooks: Europe leans toward multilateral, UN- and AU-backed frameworks, whereas the U.S. under Trump pursued retrenchment and fiscal restraint. The resulting rift complicates the international community’s ability to present a united front, undermining both credibility and effectiveness.
- Greater Space for Rival Powers to Expand Influence
The U.S. drawdown opens the door for rival global actors, notably China and Russia, to fill the vacuum. Both powers are expected to expand diplomatic and security footprints in the Horn of Africa, offering military or economic assistance tied to broader geopolitical objectives.
Through bilateral deals, intelligence support, and targeted aid, these powers can court local governments while reshaping the security architecture of the region. Western policymakers fear this trend could erode traditional alliances and introduce alternative governance models that bypass established international norms.
- Heightened Risks of State Collapse in Somalia
Perhaps the most severe consequence lies in the risk of outright government collapse. Without U.S. military and financial backing, the Somali government faces mounting pressure from insurgent advances and worsening insecurity.
As al-Shabaab consolidates territory, the central government could lose control over essential services, sparking humanitarian crises marked by mass displacement, weapons smuggling, and economic breakdown. Such a scenario would destabilize not only Somalia but the broader Horn of Africa, reinforcing the urgency of reassessing global policy toward Somalia before the situation spirals beyond repair.
In conclusion, the Trump administration’s refusal to support the African Union Mission in Somalia was not merely a financial or purely political decision; it carries profound implications for the stability of the region as a whole. The decision will widen the security vacuum, enabling an escalation of violent activity in the country, particularly by al-Shabaab, while also deepening regional and international divisions. At the same time, Washington’s retreat from deeper engagement in Somalia reflects a broader decline in U.S. influence, creating space for rival powers to assert dominance over the Somali file. As Somalia struggles to confront its security and economic challenges, the central question that remains is how the country can rebuild stability amid this growing international marginalization.
References
[1] After Washington’s Decision: Funding Crisis Hits the African Union Mission in Somalia, Report, May 12, 2025, Al-Bawaba for Islamic Movements. Available at: https://short-link.me/12kDT
[2] The Crisis of Multilateralism and African Peace Operations. Available at: https://short-link.me/Zk3c
[3] Impact of Trump 2.0 on Sub-Saharan Africa. Available at: https://short-link.me/Zk40
[4] Military Operation in Western Somalia Against al-Shabaab… and ATMIS Under the Sword of U.S. Criticism, Report, May 12, 2025, Al-Ain News. Available at: https://short-link.me/12kET
[5] Will the U.S. Leave the AU Peacekeeping Mission in Somalia Out on a Limb? Available at: https://short-link.me/12kHe
