U.S. Airstrikes in Somalia Under Trump’s Second Term: Strategy, Impact, and Consequences

1. Introduction

Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, U.S. military operations in Somalia have escalated sharply. Within just the first few months of his second term, the U.S. has launched multiple airstrikes targeting al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia, marking a decisive shift from the more limited and politically cautious approach of the Biden administration. The most recent strike, conducted on March 15, 2025, eliminated enemy combatants northeast of Mogadishu, reinforcing America’s continued military presence in the region.

Trump’s presidency—both his first and second terms—has been defined by an aggressive, results-driven counterterrorism strategy that prioritizes direct military action over nation-building or prolonged diplomatic engagement. His administration’s justification for these airstrikes is straightforward: eliminate terrorist threats before they reach American soil. This doctrine, reminiscent of his first-term drone campaigns, suggests that the U.S. is once again embracing a heavy-handed, interventionist approach in Africa, particularly in Somalia, where extremist groups continue to threaten regional stability.

However, this resurgence of U.S. military activity raises important questions. Are these airstrikes truly weakening groups like al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia, or are they simply a short-term solution to a long-term insurgency problem? How do these strikes impact Somalia’s fragile government and its ability to establish sovereignty? And perhaps most crucially, is Trump’s military intervention in Somalia a strategic necessity or merely political theater aimed at reinforcing his tough-on-terror image?

This article examines the latest U.S. airstrikes in Somalia, analyzing their strategic intent, effectiveness, and broader geopolitical consequences. By contextualizing these attacks within the shifting landscape of U.S. foreign policy under Trump’s second term, we can better understand what this military campaign means—not just for Somalia, but for the future of American interventionism in Africa.

2. The Strategic Shift Under Trump’s Second Term

Comparing Biden vs. Trump on Somalia

The U.S. approach to Somalia has varied dramatically between administrations, reflecting broader shifts in American foreign policy priorities. Under President Joe Biden, counterterrorism efforts in Africa were largely deprioritized in favor of diplomatic engagement and military restraint. While Biden did approve some targeted operations against al-Shabaab, his administration emphasized reducing the U.S. military footprint and transferring security responsibilities to Somali forces. This policy aligned with Biden’s broader shift away from direct interventionist strategies, mirroring his approach in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Donald Trump’s second term, however, has reversed this stance entirely. His administration wasted no time in ramping up airstrikes in Somalia, mirroring the heavy drone campaigns of his first presidency. Trump’s national security advisors have framed this shift as a necessary course correction—arguing that Biden’s policies allowed terrorist networks to regain strength, requiring a more aggressive approach to prevent Somalia from becoming a safe haven for extremist groups.

Moreover, Trump’s return to office has brought with it a renewed emphasis on military deterrence. His administration’s messaging is clear: the U.S. will not hesitate to use force against any group threatening American interests. This posture aligns with Trump’s broader foreign policy strategy—one that prioritizes displays of strength, unilateral action, and a rejection of multilateral diplomacy when it conflicts with direct military engagement.

Why Somalia? Strategic Interests and Threats

At first glance, Somalia may not seem like a top-tier priority for U.S. foreign policy. Unlike conflicts in Ukraine or the South China Sea, Somalia’s security challenges rarely make headlines in mainstream American discourse. However, the country remains strategically significant for several key reasons:

1. The Threat of al-Shabaab – Al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate, has long been the dominant insurgent group in Somalia. It controls significant territory, conducts frequent attacks in Mogadishu, and poses a persistent threat to both Somali and international security. The group has also attempted attacks beyond Somalia’s borders, particularly in Kenya, making it a regional concern.
2. The Rise of ISIS-Somalia – While al-Shabaab remains the primary extremist group in Somalia, ISIS-Somalia has gained traction in Puntland and the Golis Mountains. Trump’s decision to target ISIS strongholds in early 2025 suggests a broader counterterrorism strategy aimed at preventing a new Islamic State resurgence in Africa, akin to what was seen in the Middle East.
3. Somalia’s Geopolitical Location – The Horn of Africa remains a critical region for global trade and security. Somalia’s coastline along the Gulf of Aden makes it a key player in maritime security, particularly in countering piracy and protecting shipping lanes. A destabilized Somalia could disrupt regional trade and provide terrorist groups with a strategic launching point for operations beyond Africa.
4. U.S. Military Influence in Africa – Trump’s decision to re-engage militarily in Somalia also reflects a broader competition for influence on the continent. China has been expanding its economic presence in Africa through infrastructure projects and resource deals, while Russia has been actively backing paramilitary groups in countries like the Central African Republic and Mali. Maintaining a strong U.S. military presence in Somalia ensures that American influence in Africa is not diminished by these rival powers.

Ultimately, Trump’s return to a more aggressive counterterrorism stance in Somalia reflects both a strategic necessity and a political calculation. While the administration frames these strikes as essential for U.S. national security, they also serve as a demonstration of Trump’s broader philosophy: that America should lead with military strength, not diplomatic restraint.

With these considerations in mind, the next section will examine the timeline of recent U.S. airstrikes in Somalia, assessing the immediate impact and strategic objectives behind these operations.

3. Recent U.S. Airstrikes: A Timeline of Escalation

Since Trump’s return to office, the tempo of U.S. military operations in Somalia has dramatically increased. The following timeline highlights the key airstrikes and counterterrorism actions taken by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) in early 2025, shedding light on the evolving military strategy under Trump’s second term.

February 1, 2025: U.S. Strikes ISIS-Somalia Strongholds in Golis Mountains

Target: ISIS-Somalia operatives entrenched in the Golis Mountains

Outcome: Multiple militants killed, no reported civilian casualties

The first major airstrike of Trump’s second term targeted ISIS-Somalia positions in the Golis Mountains, a rugged region in northern Somalia known to harbor jihadist elements. U.S. intelligence identified these locations as key hubs for ISIS recruitment and operational planning. The strike marked a significant escalation, as previous U.S. administrations had primarily focused on al-Shabaab rather than ISIS-affiliated groups in Somalia.

This operation signaled that Trump’s counterterrorism doctrine in Africa would be broader than Biden’s, aiming to eliminate all extremist factions—not just those aligned with al-Qaeda. The strategic implication was clear: the U.S. would not allow ISIS to establish a new stronghold in East Africa after its territorial defeat in Iraq and Syria.

February 11, 2025: Puntland Clashes with ISIS-Somalia – 70+ Insurgents Killed

Target: ISIS-Somalia militants in Togga Jacel, Puntland

Outcome: 70+ ISIS members and 27 Puntland soldiers killed

This was not a direct U.S. airstrike, but rather a key battle in which Puntland’s security forces engaged ISIS-Somalia militants. However, U.S. surveillance and intelligence reportedly played a major role in identifying ISIS positions before the confrontation. The heavy casualties on both sides underscored the growing intensity of the fight against ISIS in northern Somalia.

Trump’s administration quickly praised Puntland’s efforts, framing them as a critical regional partner in the war on terror. This battle also raised questions about whether the U.S. would increase its support for Somali federal and regional forces, potentially shifting from airstrikes to a more hands-on military presence.

February 17, 2025: Joint U.S.-UAE Operation Kills 16 ISIS-Somalia Members

Target: ISIS cells operating in Puntland

Outcome: 16 militants killed

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been steadily increasing its influence in Somalia, particularly in Puntland, where it has been funding and training local security forces. This joint operation between U.S. and UAE military forces highlighted a new level of military cooperation in Somalia’s counterterrorism efforts.

The presence of the UAE in Somalia is significant—not just for its military implications, but also for the broader geopolitical dynamics. With Trump fostering closer ties to Gulf allies, the UAE’s role in Somalia could expand, leading to greater regional involvement in the fight against jihadist groups.

February 25, 2025: Somalia Finalizes AUSSOM Peacekeeping Force Structure

While not a direct U.S. military action, this date marked a crucial development in Somalia’s security landscape. The African Union announced the final troop distributions for its new peacekeeping mission, the African Union Somalia Mission (AUSSOM), which replaced the previous African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

The U.S. has historically supported African-led security initiatives, but Trump’s administration has expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of multinational peacekeeping forces. Instead, the administration has prioritized direct military strikes and bilateral security cooperation with key regional allies like Kenya, Ethiopia, and the UAE.

This shift away from multilateral peacekeeping raises questions about the long-term sustainability of security efforts in Somalia. While U.S. airstrikes may eliminate high-value targets, they do little to address the underlying governance and stability issues that fuel extremist recruitment.

March 15, 2025: U.S. Airstrike Eliminates Al-Shabaab Militants

Target: Al-Shabaab operatives northeast of Mogadishu

Outcome: Several enemy combatants killed, no reported civilian casualties

This latest strike, conducted 150 km northeast of Mogadishu, reaffirmed the Trump administration’s commitment to using air power to weaken al-Shabaab. Unlike previous strikes targeting ISIS-Somalia, this operation was focused on al-Qaeda’s main African affiliate, underscoring the ongoing dual-front battle against both extremist factions in Somalia.

AFRICOM’s official statement emphasized that the strike was conducted at the request of the Somali government, reinforcing the narrative that U.S. military actions are in support of Somali sovereignty. However, critics argue that continued reliance on U.S. airpower undermines Somalia’s long-term efforts to build an independent security apparatus.

What This Timeline Reveals About Trump’s Somalia Strategy

The pattern of U.S. military engagement in Somalia during the first few months of Trump’s second term reveals several key strategic trends:

1. Expanded Targeting of ISIS-Somalia: Unlike Biden, who focused primarily on al-Shabaab, Trump’s administration has aggressively targeted ISIS-affiliated groups, indicating a broader counterterrorism mandate.
2. Strengthened Military Ties with Gulf States: The joint U.S.-UAE operation suggests an increased reliance on regional allies to manage security in Somalia.
3. Shifting Away from Multilateral Peacekeeping: The U.S. appears less interested in supporting African Union-led stabilization efforts, instead favoring unilateral military actions.
4. Maintaining Airstrike-Heavy Operations: While Trump has not yet redeployed U.S. ground troops to Somalia, the frequency of airstrikes suggests a continuation of his first-term strategy—using drones and air power to neutralize threats without committing large-scale American forces.

These developments raise important questions: Is this strategy achieving tangible security gains, or is it simply a short-term tactic that fails to address the root causes of insurgency? The next section will explore the broader geopolitical consequences of this renewed U.S. military campaign.

4. The Geopolitical Implications of U.S. Strikes in Somalia

As the Trump administration intensifies military operations in Somalia, the ripple effects extend far beyond the immediate battlefield. These airstrikes are not occurring in a vacuum—they are reshaping regional alliances, impacting Somalia’s internal political landscape, and altering the global balance of power in the Horn of Africa. The question is not just whether these strikes are effective in eliminating terrorists, but how they are influencing Somalia’s long-term security and U.S. strategic interests in Africa.

Regional Stability and the Role of Somalia’s Government

The Somali government publicly supports U.S. airstrikes, framing them as essential to its ongoing fight against al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia. Each operation is officially conducted at the request of Somali authorities, reinforcing the perception that these attacks are part of a coordinated counterterrorism strategy. However, beneath the surface, Somalia’s reliance on U.S. military support raises significant concerns about sovereignty and long-term stability.

Is Somalia Strengthening or Becoming More Dependent?

• The Somali National Army (SNA) remains under-equipped and fractured, relying heavily on U.S. intelligence and air support.
• A continued U.S. military presence could discourage the Somali government from investing in its own self-sufficient security apparatus.
• Al-Shabaab and other militant groups exploit this reliance, portraying the Somali government as a puppet of the U.S.—a propaganda narrative that fuels recruitment.

Somalia’s leadership faces a difficult balancing act: maintaining U.S. military support while avoiding the perception of foreign dependency. If Trump’s airstrike campaign continues at this pace, Somali politicians may struggle to claim full control over their own counterterrorism efforts.

Impact on Neighboring Countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, UAE’s Growing Role)

U.S. military operations in Somalia inevitably affect its neighbors, particularly Kenya, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—all of whom play active roles in the region’s security landscape.

Kenya: A Key U.S. Ally in Counterterrorism

• Kenya has been a frontline state in the fight against al-Shabaab, facing frequent cross-border attacks.
• Nairobi welcomes U.S. military support, but increased airstrikes in Somalia could provoke retaliatory attacks against Kenyan cities and security forces.
• Kenyan policymakers must balance the benefits of U.S. intervention with the risk of escalating violence at home.

Ethiopia: A Country in Crisis, Distracted from Somalia

• Ethiopia has historically played a major role in Somali affairs, but its internal conflicts (Tigray, Amhara, Oromo insurgencies) have diverted its focus.
• The Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) has reduced its military footprint in Somalia, creating a security vacuum that al-Shabaab has partially exploited.
• The Trump administration’s approach to Somalia may push Ethiopia to re-engage, particularly if the U.S. increases pressure on Addis Ababa to contribute troops.

UAE: A New Power Broker in Somalia

• The United Arab Emirates has significantly expanded its influence in Puntland and Somaliland, funding local security forces and infrastructure projects.
• The joint U.S.-UAE strike on February 17, 2025, signaled a new era of military cooperation, with Gulf states playing a more direct role in counterterrorism.
• Trump’s close ties with the UAE mean that Emirati-backed forces could receive increased military aid and training, further shifting the balance of power in Somalia.

If the UAE’s role in Somalia grows under Trump’s second term, it could reshape the country’s security landscape—potentially marginalizing Somalia’s federal government while strengthening regional actors like Puntland.

China and Russia’s Stance on Somalia

While the U.S. has taken a direct military approach, China and Russia have pursued different strategies in Africa, prioritizing economic and political influence over overt military intervention. However, Trump’s renewed focus on counterterrorism in Somalia could lead to greater strategic competition between these global powers.

China: Economic Expansion, Not Military Intervention

• China has avoided direct military engagement in Somalia, instead focusing on economic investments through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
• Chinese companies are involved in port development and infrastructure projects in the Horn of Africa, particularly in Djibouti, where Beijing operates a military base.
• Increased U.S. military action could push Somalia closer to China economically, as Somali leaders seek alternative sources of investment.

Russia: Weaponizing Instability

• Russia has taken a more opportunistic approach, backing paramilitary groups and political factions that challenge Western influence in Africa.
• Moscow could exploit Trump’s aggressive military tactics by portraying the U.S. as an imperialist force—an argument that resonates with some African leaders.
• If Trump deepens U.S. military involvement in Somalia, Russia may respond by increasing covert support for anti-U.S. factions, further complicating the conflict.

The U.S. airstrikes in Somalia are not just about fighting terrorism—they are also about maintaining American influence in a region where China and Russia are actively expanding their presence. Whether Trump’s strategy succeeds in securing U.S. interests or accelerates Somalia’s shift toward alternative global powers remains to be seen.

Conclusion: The Consequences of an Aggressive U.S. Military Approach

Trump’s second-term strategy in Somalia reflects his administration’s broader foreign policy philosophy: military strength over diplomatic engagement. While airstrikes can eliminate high-value targets, they do not address the deeper issues fueling insurgency—poverty, governance failures, and regional instability.

By escalating U.S. military action, Trump is reinforcing America’s short-term dominance in counterterrorism operations. However, the long-term consequences remain uncertain:

• Will Somalia’s government become more stable, or will it remain dependent on U.S. air support?
• Will Kenya, Ethiopia, and the UAE align more closely with U.S. military interests, or will they pursue their own security strategies?
• Will China and Russia exploit the situation, using economic and political means to counterbalance U.S. influence?

As the Trump administration moves forward with its counterterrorism campaign, these questions will shape the geopolitical landscape—not just in Somalia, but across Africa. The next section will assess whether Trump’s approach is actually working or if it risks entrenching the cycle of insurgency that has plagued Somalia for decades.

5. The Military and Political Effectiveness of Trump’s Somalia Policy

With the Trump administration ramping up military action in Somalia, the core question remains: Is this strategy effective? While airstrikes can eliminate high-value targets and disrupt insurgent networks, they do not necessarily translate into long-term stability. This section evaluates both the short-term military successes and the long-term risks of Trump’s counterterrorism approach.

Short-Term Gains: Eliminating High-Value Targets

U.S. airstrikes under Trump’s second term have undeniably had tactical successes. Several key developments illustrate how these military actions have weakened extremist groups in Somalia:

1. ISIS-Somalia’s Command Structure Disrupted
   • The February 1 airstrike on the Golis Mountains targeted a crucial ISIS-Somalia hub.
   • Subsequent operations in Puntland (February 11, February 17) decimated insurgent ranks, with over 70 militants killed.
   • U.S. and UAE intelligence coordination has further disrupted ISIS recruitment pipelines.
2. Al-Shabaab’s Territorial Losses
   • The March 15 airstrike eliminated al-Shabaab operatives in central Somalia.
   • The group has been forced to alter tactics, shifting from large-scale territorial control to guerrilla warfare.
   • U.S. precision strikes have taken out several mid-level commanders, reducing al-Shabaab’s ability to coordinate attacks.
3. U.S. and Somali Military Coordination Improved
   • Somali government forces are working more closely with AFRICOM, leading to joint operations with greater success.
   • Increased drone surveillance has allowed Somali troops to plan more precise ground offensives.
   • AFRICOM reports indicate a higher number of successful counterterrorism raids in 2025 than in the previous two years.

These short-term victories paint a picture of military effectiveness. However, airstrikes alone do not neutralize the root causes of insurgency—and that is where the long-term risks emerge.

Long-Term Risks: The Cycle of Insurgency

While airstrikes provide immediate tactical wins, history suggests that they may also fuel the very insurgencies they seek to eliminate. Several major risks are associated with Trump’s heavy-handed approach:

1. Civilian Casualties and Radicalization

• The U.S. claims that recent airstrikes have not resulted in civilian casualties, but independent verification is often limited.
• Historically, civilian deaths from drone strikes have been a major recruitment tool for al-Shabaab and ISIS.
• If civilians are killed in Trump’s air campaign, extremist groups will use these incidents as propaganda to justify further attacks.

2. Over-Reliance on Airstrikes Instead of Ground Operations

• Air power alone cannot secure territory—Somali government forces must be able to follow up with sustained ground control.
• Despite U.S. support, Somali National Army (SNA) units remain undertrained and poorly equipped, making long-term stabilization difficult.
• The risk: Airstrikes weaken insurgents temporarily, but once the strikes stop, groups like al-Shabaab re-emerge and regain strength.

3. Al-Shabaab’s Shift to Asymmetrical Warfare

• Al-Shabaab has historically adapted to military pressure by changing tactics.
• The group is increasingly using IEDs, ambushes, and targeted assassinations to counter government forces.
• Rather than engaging in direct battles, al-Shabaab may shift to urban terrorism—launching attacks on Mogadishu, Kenya, and possibly U.S. interests in Africa.

4. Undermining Somalia’s Sovereignty

• While Somali officials publicly support U.S. strikes, there is growing unease about America’s outsized role in the country’s security affairs.
• If Somalia’s government is seen as too dependent on the U.S., it could lose legitimacy in the eyes of its own citizens.
• This plays directly into the hands of insurgent groups, who can claim that they are fighting to “liberate” Somalia from foreign control.

Is Trump’s Approach Sustainable?

Trump’s counterterrorism strategy in Somalia is focused on rapid military action with minimal long-term investment. This differs from previous administrations, which combined airstrikes with economic aid, governance support, and training programs for local forces.

• The advantage of Trump’s approach: It achieves quick tactical victories and neutralizes threats before they spread.
• The disadvantage: It does not address the conditions that allow groups like al-Shabaab to thrive in the first place—poverty, political corruption, and weak governance.

The Big Question:
Will Trump’s strategy actually break the cycle of insurgency, or is it merely delaying the inevitable resurgence of extremist groups?

As of now, the answer remains unclear. However, if military victories are not paired with governance improvements, Somalia could fall back into instability the moment U.S. airstrikes stop.

6. The Media and Public Perception of Trump’s Somalia Policy

As Trump’s military campaign in Somalia intensifies, the narrative surrounding these airstrikes varies significantly depending on the audience. In the U.S., mainstream media coverage has been relatively limited, while Somali reactions are mixed—ranging from cautious support to outright resentment. Meanwhile, international observers are debating whether Trump’s approach is a necessary counterterrorism measure or another chapter in America’s endless military entanglements.

How is the Mainstream U.S. Media Covering These Strikes?

Unlike conflicts in Ukraine or the Middle East, U.S. military actions in Africa rarely dominate headlines—and the latest airstrikes in Somalia are no exception. Coverage has been sporadic, appearing mostly in defense-focused outlets and wire services like Reuters and the Associated Press.

Key Trends in U.S. Media Coverage:

1. Minimal Front-Page Attention – The Somalia strikes are often buried beneath coverage of more politically charged issues, such as domestic policy debates or conflicts in Europe and Asia.
2. Framing Trump’s Strategy as a Return to ‘War on Terror’ Tactics – Articles that do cover the strikes often compare Trump’s second-term strategy to his first, highlighting the return of drone warfare as a preferred method of counterterrorism.
3. Limited Scrutiny of Civilian Casualties – While some left-leaning outlets have questioned whether these strikes are effective, there has been little investigative reporting on their human impact, likely due to lack of access to Somalia’s rural conflict zones.

Notably missing: A serious policy debate about the long-term consequences of Trump’s strategy—whether it is stabilizing Somalia or merely continuing an unsustainable cycle of U.S. intervention.

How is Trump Framing the Airstrikes?

Trump and his administration have leaned into a “tough-on-terror” narrative, portraying the strikes as evidence that he is restoring American strength. His messaging emphasizes:

• Decisiveness: Unlike Biden, who was “soft” on terrorism, Trump claims he is eliminating threats before they escalate.
• Minimal U.S. Risk: By using drones and airstrikes rather than deploying large numbers of ground troops, Trump argues he is protecting American soldiers while maintaining military dominance.
• Defending U.S. Interests: Trump’s team has linked these operations to preventing attacks on U.S. embassies, military bases, and allies like Kenya—a justification that resonates with his base.

However, critics argue that this messaging oversimplifies the complex situation in Somalia, reducing a deeply rooted insurgency to a series of “terrorist takedowns” rather than addressing the broader instability in the region.

How is Somalia Reacting?

Within Somalia, reactions are mixed—divided between the government’s official stance and the sentiment among civilians affected by the airstrikes.

Somali Government: Public Approval, Private Concerns

• Somali officials have welcomed U.S. military support, arguing that these airstrikes are essential for weakening al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia.
• However, there are private concerns that heavy reliance on U.S. airpower is undermining Somalia’s own security forces, making it difficult to establish self-sufficiency.

Somali Public: Fear, Skepticism, and Propaganda Risks

• Many support targeting al-Shabaab but fear that civilians may be caught in the crossfire.
• Some resent foreign military intervention, especially when it appears indiscriminate or causes collateral damage.
• Al-Shabaab has exploited Trump’s aggressive strikes as propaganda, claiming that the Somali government is a U.S. puppet and that resistance is necessary.

Conclusion: How the Narrative is Shaping Policy

Public perception—both in the U.S. and Somalia—matters. If Trump’s strategy is perceived as a decisive counterterrorism success, it could reinforce similar military-first approaches elsewhere. However, if these strikes backfire, creating more recruits for extremist groups, Trump’s strategy could ultimately prove self-defeating.

With no sign of these airstrikes slowing down, the real test will be whether Somalia becomes more stable or whether Trump’s military campaign simply resets the cycle of insurgency.

7. Conclusion & Future Outlook

Trump’s renewed military intervention in Somalia reflects a broader return to aggressive counterterrorism tactics, relying on airstrikes and targeted eliminations rather than long-term nation-building or diplomatic engagement. While these strikes have successfully disrupted al-Shabaab and ISIS-Somalia operations, the long-term effectiveness of this strategy remains in question.

What This Tells Us About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Trump’s approach to Somalia mirrors his broader stance on military intervention:

• Strength through force – The emphasis is on quick, decisive military action rather than prolonged engagement.
• Minimal U.S. footprint – Unlike the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump avoids deploying ground troops, preferring airpower and proxy forces.
• Unilateralism over diplomacy – Unlike Biden, who leaned on African Union and regional forces, Trump’s strategy relies on direct U.S. military action.

This doctrine prioritizes tactical victories over strategic stability, raising concerns that once U.S. airstrikes stop, insurgents may simply regroup—as they have in past conflicts.

Will This Military Approach Continue?

Given Trump’s emphasis on counterterrorism, it is likely that airstrikes in Somalia will persist for the duration of his second term. However, several factors could influence the trajectory:

1. Domestic Political Pressure – If civilian casualties increase or if Congress challenges the legality of ongoing airstrikes, Trump could face political backlash.
2. Shifts in Somali Leadership – If Somalia’s government begins to push back against U.S. involvement, it could complicate AFRICOM’s operations.
3. Regional and Global Dynamics – The roles of China, Russia, and Gulf States like the UAE could shape how Somalia’s security landscape evolves.

The biggest question is whether Trump’s strategy will truly weaken extremist networks or if it will simply reinforce the cycle of U.S. intervention and insurgency. If airstrikes alone could defeat terrorism, Somalia would have been stabilized years ago. The reality is more complex—and the long-term consequences of Trump’s renewed military campaign remain uncertain.