Despite pledges to end the United States’ “forever wars,” President Donald Trump’s second term has ushered in a sharp escalation in drone strikes across Somalia, stirring concern among analysts and humanitarian advocates.
According to data from New America, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has launched at least 43 air strikes in Somalia in 2025 alone, more than doubling the previous year’s total. While most of these operations targeted IS-Somalia factions in the northeast, others were aimed at al-Shabab fighters, particularly amid a renewed offensive by the group in central regions of the country.
Trump’s military actions come despite campaign rhetoric emphasizing withdrawal from prolonged global conflicts. His first international strike as president in his second term was launched just ten days after inauguration, targeting alleged ISIL leaders in Somalia.
Experts warn that while the strikes are framed as counterterrorism measures, they may deepen instability on the ground. “This strategy may offer short-term gains but fails to address root causes,” said Jethro Norman, a senior researcher with the Danish Institute for International Studies. “Airpower alone cannot replace diplomacy or sustainable peacebuilding.”
Resurgence of Armed Groups
Al-Shabab has recently reversed government gains by reclaiming towns in Middle Shabelle, even establishing checkpoints near Mogadishu. This resurgence underscores the Somali government’s military fragility, analysts say, and helps explain the timing of increased U.S. intervention.
Still, critics argue that drone strikes – particularly when they cause civilian casualties – can empower the very groups they aim to defeat. “Drone attacks risk becoming a recruitment tool for al-Shabab,” said Abukar Arman, a former Somali diplomat to the U.S. “They provoke public anger and reinforce narratives of foreign aggression.”
Human rights organizations remain especially critical of the opaque nature of these operations. Reports of civilian deaths have gone largely unacknowledged or uncompensated, prompting calls for greater transparency. “There’s a glaring absence of accountability,” said Eva Buzo of Victims Advocacy International. “Communities affected by strikes are often ignored or left without redress.”
Policy at a Crossroads
Trump’s approach has been described as high-impact but low-engagement. Experts note that the current strategy lacks parallel investments in governance, development, and local legitimacy—elements essential to long-term peace.
“The pattern mirrors what we saw in Afghanistan,” Norman noted. “Drone strikes suppress, but they don’t transform the conflict landscape.”
Analysts suggest that while IS-Somalia poses a rising threat, particularly in financing and transnational connections, defeating such non-state actors requires more than targeted eliminations. “The goal is often not full defeat, but containment,” explained David Sterman, deputy director at New America. “However, without a coherent strategy, even that becomes questionable.”
As Trump’s military footprint in Somalia expands, the U.S. faces a critical choice: continue with a remote-controlled war that risks civilian blowback and geopolitical entanglement, or pivot toward a policy centered on long-term peacebuilding and Somali sovereignty.