Donald Trump

Immigration benefits the United States while hewing to the nation's founding principles. 

The White House-orchestrated campaign to discredit the World Health Organization amid the coronavirus pandemic has been unfair and disingenuous.

The Trump administration has largely continued U.S. policies in Africa aimed at building economic ties, political stability, and health care, but it lacks a strategy for the continent’s looming geopolitical and national security challenges.

Contrasting the current pandemic with past crises underscores U.S. President Donald J. Trump's abdication of global leadership.

As the oil price war continues, markets are hanging on every word coming from Washington, Moscow and Riyadh, amid signs that diplomacy could be afoot. A statement by the Kremlin’s presidential spokesperson, that Russia would like to see higher prices, signaled that Russia might be willing to blink in the Russia-Saudi oil price standoff. It appears that the fall in the ruble is larger than Moscow expected, prompting them to use up foreign currency reserves at a faster clip than anticipated. Russia could also be finding it more difficult to sell its oil in China and Europe.

Can the world still work together to address today’s most pressing global challenges? A broken economic order, Trump’s incoherent foreign policy, and the corrosion of trust offer little to be optimistic about.

Despite President Donald Trump’s ban on Nigerian immigration to the United States, he apparently remains popular among Nigerias. The Washington Post headline was “Trump Trashes Nigeria and Bans Its Immigrants. Nigerians Love Him for It.” The article, by Nigerian writer and journalist Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani, ascribes Trump’s popularity to the perception that he is “tough, no-nonsense, blunt, pro-religion, and entertaining.” He also says what Nigerians believe to be true: the international community does not want to welcome a wave of Nigerian immigrants, of which there are many. Nwaubani cites a Pew survey from 2018 that indicates that 45 percent of Nigeria’s adults planned to move to another country in the next five years. For friends of Nigeria, Nwaubani makes the important point that Nigerians blame the travel ban on their own government, that of Muhammadu Buhari, rather than President Trump. It is Nigeria’s fault that it did not implement necessary security procedures and thereby avoid the ban. Nwaubani notes that when the Trump administration announced the ban, the Buhari government immediately appointed a task force to address the ban’s criticisms and get Nigeria removed from it. Why the lethargy up to then? The answer is not clear, but the simple lack of bureaucratic capacity likely plays an important role.  Trump’s popularity in Nigeria would seem to be a manifestation of the widespread disillusionment in a country characterized by growing poverty, multiple security threats, an expanding crime wave, and a government seen as unresponsive and corrupt. Trump’s relative popularity in Nigeria is likely to be characteristic of the small percentage of urban Nigerians who participate in the modern economy. For the majority of Nigerians, who live in rural areas or urban slums with little connection to the outside world, they are unlikely to have strong views one way or the other.

President Trump's successor can rejuvenate the liberal international order by reconsolidating the West, giving globalization a human face, and bolstering support for democracy and human rights around the world.

As the 2020 presidential campaign heats up, U.S. politics is getting harder and harder to explain to the rest of the world.

Nigeria has been added to a list of countries whose citizens will in some way be restricted from entering the United States. According to a White House statement, Nigeria is not complying with “the established identity-management and information sharing criteria assessed by performance metrics. Nigeria does not adequately share public-safety and terrorism-related information, which is necessary for the protection of the national security and public safety of the United States.” Therefore, "The entry into the United States of nationals of Nigeria," with some exceptions, "is hereby suspended." The new measures, announced on January 31, affect only immigrants—those who wish to live permanently in the United States—not short term visitors for business or tourism. Temporary visitors from Nigeria to the United States have already declined following the introduction of tighter visa issuing procedures in the summer of 2019. The issue, according to the statement, would appear to be technical. As such, one would have thought it could be worked out at a technical level, perhaps with enhanced U.S. technical assistance to relevant Nigerian ministries. The statement mentions such assistance, but cites insufficient progress for imposing the ban anyway. But the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy [PDF] prioritizes countering Russia and China by, among other things, strengthening economic ties with Africa, and Nigeria is the first or second largest economy and most populous country in Africa. Banning immigration from Nigeria while at the same time working for closer economic ties with Africa to counter Russian and Chinese influence indicates policy incoherence within the Trump administration. It is bound to have a dampening effect on the development of closer economic ties between the United States and the Giant of Africa. Over time, the immigration ban is also likely to reduce the remittances to Nigeria from the United States, at present about $24 billion annually. Those likely to be most negatively and personally affected are American citizens and permanent residents looking to bring close family members to join them in the United States.  Democratic presidential candidates have condemned the decision. Senator Bernie Sanders said, “It is outrageous that Donald Trump continues to push a racist travel policy that dehumanizes immigrants and their families for his own political purposes.” Senator Elizabeth Warren characterized the measure as a “racist, xenophobic Muslim ban.” Former Vice President Joe Biden said, “Three years ago he [President Trump] took aim at Muslim-majority nations. This time he targeted primarily African nations—including Nigeria, the largest economy and the most populous nation on the continent…It is a disgrace.” And former Mayor Pete Buttigieg said, “Three years ago, this president fanned the flames of hatred with his Muslim travel ban. Less than a year from now—on my first day in office—I will end it. The United States has always prided itself on its diversity, and it will again.”  In the hyper-partisan political environment in the United States—nine months before presidential elections—it may be harder for the Trump administration to walk back a bad decision. President Trump’s base is not sympathetic to immigration, and generally has applauded other administration steps to reduce foreign settlement in the United States, notably the draconian reduction in refugee admissions.

The long-awaited plan presented by President Donald J. Trump paves the way for broader Israeli annexation of occupied territories, has no real chance of Palestinian support, and risks provoking violence.

Nigeria and South Africa are the giants of Africa, with the two largest economies on the continent. Both have had long-term relationships with Iran, though South Africa’s has been the closer. Thus far, the official reaction to Soleimani’s death from Nigeria and South Africa has been muted or non-existent, reflecting caution. Though the Nigerian inspector general of police has put his forces on “red alert,” likely fearing action by the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) or other alleged Iranian proxies, there has been no apparent word from the government. In South Africa, the fiercest reaction came from the African National Congress (ANC), while Naledi Pandor, the South African foreign minister, called for calm. The South African relationship with Iran is robust and growing. Under apartheid, there was a largely clandestine trade between the two countries. After apartheid ended, Iran was one of the first countries openly to resume trade with South Africa, and the two countries have since signed a number of trade and defense agreements, and South Africa is an ally of Iran in multilateral fora.  The Iranian relationship with Nigeria is more complicated. Iran has a large diplomatic presence in Nigeria, but also funds a number of schools and cultural institutions. (So, too, does Saudi Arabia.) The most well-known is the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN), which has long received financial support from Iran. It is led by Ibrahim el-Zakzaky, a Shia cleric who received some education in Iran shortly after the Islamic Revolution. The Muslim Nigerian political class is Sunni, and is viscerally hostile to the Shia and to the IMN. Indeed, the Nigerian security services have attacked Shia religious processions and protests, and Zakzaky has been in government custody with his wife since 2015. It is no surprise that both the IMN and ANC roundly condemn the U.S. killing of Soleimani. Elites in most African states tend to dislike unilateral action by great powers and, in general, favor multilateralism. They are quick to speak out against the violation of the sovereignty of weak states by great powers. Media often portray the Iranian conflict with the United States as one of David vs. Goliath. In the case of the IMN, its statement reflected Iranian sentiments about U.S. provocation, imperialism, and genocide, and expressed sympathy for the Iranian regime.  But there are important nuances. Some media reports, relying on Western security sources, allege that in the aftermath of the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, Soleimani had ordered the establishment of a network of West Africa terror cells in Sudan, Chad, Ghana, Niger, Gambia, and the Central African Republic. Except for Ghana, all are weak states. If true, Iranian terrorist cells would be anathema to African governments, most of which face homegrown security threats and know that they are too weak to do much about them.  The bottom line is that if there are attacks on American interests in West Africa as a result of the Soleimani killing—and that is a big “if”—they are likely to come from Iranian elements, not from indigenous African groups. It is noteworthy that, thus far, there have been no mass anti-American demonstrations in West Africa following Soleimani’s killing. 

The U.S. targeted killing of commander Qasem Soleimani marks a further weakening of Iran’s regime in its struggle against the United States and its ability to project influence in the Mideast.