US weighing future of military command in Africa, top general says
U.S. Marine General Michael Langley, head of Africa Command, speaks to reporters alongside Botswana Defence Force Commander Lt. Gen. Placid Segokgo at a defense conference in Gaborone, Botswana on June 25, 2024. REUTERS/Phil Stewart/File Photo
US weighing future of military command in Africa, top general says
NAIROBI - The United States is assessing the future of its military command for Africa, its top general for the continent said on Tuesday, and called on African governments to make their views on its possible elimination known in Washington.
President Donald Trump's administration is considering merging AFRICOM, which became a distinct geographical command in 2008, with the U.S. command in Europe to cut bureaucracy, American media outlets reported in March.
Speaking to reporters before a conference of African defence chiefs in Kenya, AFRICOM's commander, General Michael Langley, said he had discussed the issue with officials on the continent.
"I've talked to a number of ministers of defence and a few presidents and told them we were assessing," Langley said.
He said governments should make their views about AFRICOM's future known through their ambassadors in the U.S.
"That's what I tell them. I said: 'okay, if we're that important to (you), you need to communicate that and we'll see'."
Before 2008, U.S. military activities in Africa were handled by commands from other regions. AFRICOM's creation reflected rising U.S. national security interests on the continent, including Islamist insurgencies and competition with China and Russia.
In West Africa, where groups with ties to al Qaeda and Islamic State have grown in recent years, U.S. security influence has waned following a series of military coups.
The putsches forced Washington to pull back on security support and brought to power juntas that have turned to Russia for assistance.
Last year, the ruling junta in Niger ordered the U.S. to withdraw its nearly 1,000 military personnel from the country and vacate a $100 million drone base.
Langley said the U.S. had nevertheless maintained some intelligence sharing with the military regimes in the Sahel region and was looking for "other ways to continue to stay engaged". REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
36 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Harvard gets other universities' backing in Trump funding fight
Harvard sued in April, claiming the government freeze violates the university's First Amendment guarantee of free speech. PHOTO: BLOOMBERG BOSTON, Massachusetts – A group of 18 leading US research universities, including Princeton, MIT, Caltech and Johns Hopkins, asked a federal judge for permission to file legal arguments in support of Harvard University in its high-stakes showdown with the Trump administration over more than US$2 billion (S$2.58 billion) in frozen grant money. The institutions have all received millions of dollars from the federal government for research that has 'advanced scientific knowledge, safeguarded national security, strengthened the American economy, and saved countless lives,' they said in a court filing on June 6 in Harvard's lawsuit. Harvard sued in April, claiming the government freeze violates the university's First Amendment guarantee of free speech and federal law governing administrative rulemaking. The fight is part of a broad-based effort by President Donald Trump to force sweeping changes at Harvard and other elite US universities. The government has also frozen or is reviewing federal funding to Princeton, Cornell, Northwestern and Columbia universities, among others. Harvard claims in its suit, filed in Boston federal court, that the Trump administration illegally suspended its funding in retaliation for its refusal to bow to 'unconstitutional demands' to overhaul governance, discipline and hiring policies, as well as diversity programmes. The president claims Harvard, the nation's oldest and richest university, has failed to combat anti-Semitism on campus and encourage viewpoint diversity. 'The cuts will disrupt ongoing research, ruin experiments and datasets, destroy the careers of aspiring scientists, and deter long-term investments at universities across the country,' the universities said in a request to file amicus curiae or 'friend of the court' arguments supporting Harvard's case against the government. The request to support Harvard also comes from Boston University, Brown University, Colorado State University, Dartmouth College, Michigan State University, Oregon State University, Rice University, Rutgers University, Tufts University, University of Maryland at College Park, University of Oregon, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh and Yale University. A group of states led by Massachusetts, where Harvard is located, also asked to file arguments in support of the university on June 6. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
US Supreme Court allows Doge broad access to Social Security data
Two labour unions and an advocacy group sued to stop Doge from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on June 6 permitted the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. At the request of the Justice Department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked Doge's access to 'personally identifiable information' in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Ms Hollander found that allowing Doge unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with Doge. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticised the court's majority for granting Doge 'unfettered data access' despite the administration's 'failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards.' In a separate order on June 6, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring Doge to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by Mr Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. Doge swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by Mr Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Mr Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labour unions and an advocacy group sued to stop Doge from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration, or SSA, including Social Security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending cheques each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said June 6's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk. 'Elon Musk may have left Washington DC but his impact continues to harm millions of people,' the group said in a statement. 'We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward.' In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the Social Security Administration had been 'ransacked' and that Doge members had been installed without proper vetting or training and demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Ms Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DogeOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required 'unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems.' 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' Ms Hollander wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Ms Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited Doge staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow Doge affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information, as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Ms Hollander also ordered Doge affiliates to 'disgorge and delete' any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause ms Hollander's block on Doge's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice Department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterised Hollander's order as judicial overreach. 'The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernising government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access,' they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow Doge to access data at the US Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against Doge wrote that the case involving Social Security data was 'substantially stronger' with 'vastly greater stakes,' citing 'detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records,' such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
US, China to hold trade talks on June 9 in London, Trump says
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump on Friday said three of his cabinet officials will meet with representatives of China in London on June 9 to discuss a trade deal. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said Treasury Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will attend from the US side. 'The meeting should go very well,' Trump wrote. The scheduling of the meeting comes a day after Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping in a rare leader-to-leader call amid weeks of brewing trade tensions and a battle over critical minerals. The countries struck a 90-day deal on May 12 to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's January inauguration. Though stocks rallied, the temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and US complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. REUTERS
