Hearings to examine the U.S. approach to counterterrorism in Africa.

The committee is called to order. Good afternoon. Thank you all for joining us today. Today's hearing focuses on the rising terrorism threats in Africa and the acute risk this poses to U.S. national security. For decades, when Americans thought about terrorism, they thought first about the Middle East. And for good reason. Iran is still the world's top state sponsor of terrorism, and they have built a global network of terrorist proxies. The extremism and violence they generated created a symbiotic relationship with Sunni terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda. Today, the center of gravity for global terrorism has shifted to Africa. It has shifted partly, and in fact precisely, because of the export of violent Islamic terrorism from the Middle East, as well as because of incredibly complicated and specific local dynamics. Across the Sahel, in West Africa, and in East Africa, terrorist groups are expanding, embedding, and operating with increasing capability. ISIS affiliates and Al-Qaeda-linked groups are growing, controlling territory, and exploiting weak governance. In Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, JNIM, and Islamic State in the Sahel have all expanded. In Nigeria, Boko Haram, ISIS West Africa, and Fulani extremists are mass slaughtering Christians. In Somalia, Al-Shabaab targets Americans and threatens U.S. personnel and partners in East Africa, all while receiving support from the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. In Mozambique, an Islamic State-aligned insurgency has shown that even localized militant violence can jeopardize major international energy investments and broader regional stability. In region after region, terrorist groups are outpacing the ability of local governments to respond. The failures threaten our interests globally and endanger the American homeland. The threat is rapidly growing and demands attention. For too long, however, Africa was treated as a theater where we didn't have interests. Presidential administrations either ignored it or used it as a playground for self-indulgent ideological experiments. The latter problem was particularly acute during the previous administration. That mismatch allowed terrorist groups to expand and global adversaries, in particular Russia, China, and Iran, to intervene and undermine American interests. Those dynamics now threaten U.S. interests, our allies, and ultimately the American homeland. The challenge for the United States is not simply how to disrupt immediate threats, but how to do so in a way that is sustainable, accountable, and aligned with broader U.S. interests. This hearing is about confronting that reality and asking what the United States is going to do about it. I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses, Mr. Nick Checker, Senior Bureau Official for the Bureau of African Affairs, and Ms. Monica Jacobson, Senior Bureau Official for the Bureau of Counterterrorism, as they both testify on this important issue. With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Booker for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm really grateful for both of our witnesses for being here today. What we are discussing today is not far away, it's not disconnected from American life. It's not some side issue we can afford to regulate to the margins of our senatorial and administrative focus. Africa is not peripheral to the national security of the United States and to the urgencies we face. Earlier this year, the U.S. intelligence community assessed that Africa has become, quote, a focal point for the global Sunni jihadist movement. That is not a passing warning, that is a flashing red light. Across the continent, terrorist organizations are becoming more adaptive, more networked, and more entrenched in local conflicts. In the Horn, Al-Shabaab remains a deadly and determined force that has killed civilians, killed Americans, threatened U.S. interests, and plotted a 9/11-style attack against the United States. And now it is collaborating with both AQAP and Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. ISIS Somalia is emerging as a more significant node in the broader ISIS network, with demonstrated intent and capability to threaten beyond the region, including against the United States. In the Sahel, terrorist groups linked to ISIS and Al-Qaeda are driving some of the highest levels of violence in all the world. In the Lake Chad Basin, IS West Africa and Boko Haram continue to exploit borders that are weak, states that are strained, and communities that have failed, been failed by their governments for far too long. And in Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, insurgencies are deepening humanitarian suffering, threatening stability, and putting civilian lives and economic progress at risk. In Mozambique, this includes an attack that halted a U.S.-financed natural gas project. So let's be clear. Counterterrorism in Africa is not charity, it is not a distraction, it's not optional for our country, it is a core American national security interest. And if this administration sees Africa as a whole as peripheral, then it is treating a central national security challenge as an afterthought, and that is dangerous. Because these groups do not emerge out of nowhere. They feed on corruption. They feed on broken governance. They feed on despair. They feed on the absence of state legitimacy, the weakness of institutions, the pain of exclusion, and the vulnerability of young people who see too few pathways to dignity, work, and hope. And that means ultimately you cannot bomb your way to lasting peace. U.S. military strikes can matter. They can disrupt plots, they can degrade networks, they can eliminate immediate threats, but military strikes alone cannot build trust in government. Military strikes alone cannot create livelihoods. Military strikes alone cannot root out corruption. Military strikes alone cannot strengthen courts and communities and local institutions. Military strikes alone cannot prevent extremist groups from returning the moment attention shifts and the dust settles. What this takes is strategy, patience, partnerships, diplomacy, development, and security working together. But that is not what this administration is doing. Instead, what we are seeing is a retreat dressed up as resolve. We see leadership vacancies all over the continent. We see diminished diplomatic presence all over the continent. We see the weakening or elimination of bipartisan prevention, stabilization, security, and development tools that this Congress, under Democratic and Republican presidents, have put into place. We see talk of burden sharing while the United States steps back from the very partnerships that make burden sharing possible. At the very moment extremist threats are growing more complex, America is reducing the very architecture needed to respond with coherence and credibility. And when America is absent, instability grows, extremism spreads, and our adversaries advertise themselves as the future. China and Russia are not waiting on the sidelines. China is deepening its commercial reach, expanding infrastructure financing, widening its security engagement, and positioning itself as the partner that shows up when the United States pulls back. Russia is pitching its Africa Corps as essential for security. And our inconsistency makes China and Russia's pitch all the more powerful. So when communities and countries across Africa are looking for help to resist extremism, to build opportunity, and stabilize fragile regions, and the United States offers inconsistency, absence, indifference, we should not be surprised when they turn to the actor promising roads, ports, investment, training, and partnerships. That is the vacuum we are creating. And let me be clear, African nations have agency. They will choose their own path. But our retreat narrows American voices, weakens our credibility, and limits our ability to be the partner of choice. This is bigger than just one hearing that we're having. We should be doing so much more. This is bigger than just a budget line item. This is bigger than just one region. A continent that is vital to our security, our economy, and the world and our standing in it, the continent that by 2050 will have one out of every four human beings on the planet and one out of every three working people cannot be treated as an afterthought without consequence. The Trump administration is not delivering a whole-of-government strategy. It is delivering a whack-a-mole policy dressed up as counterterrorism. It is fragmented. It is reactive. It is too often militarized and under-strategized. I remember sitting in the committee where General Mattis said, if you cut vital programs to the State Department, get me more bullets. But military responses alone are not the whole-of-government strategies we need. And if we continue down this path, we will keep striking at symptoms while the deeper sickness spreads. America, we need a reset. We need to restore conflict prevention and stabilization efforts that address the conditions extremists exploit. We need to strengthen our diplomatic presence and our development capacity on the ground. We need to deepen partnerships with African nations and regional institutions, not abandon the field and then pretend influence can be maintained from a distance or from bombs from the air. We need military tools, but they need to be part of a broader strategy, not a substitute for one. And we need an actual long-term counterterrorism strategy for Africa that is serious, coordinated, and worthy of the high stakes before us. Because the future of American security is bound up with the future of the stability, prosperity, and partnerships we have on the African continent. We need a strategy that reflects the true conditions on the ground and not only frames Africa as a problem, but actually sees the real framing, that it is an extraordinary asset, it is an extraordinary continent filled with extraordinary people that America should be having a much bolder engagement with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Booker. I'd now like to introduce our witnesses for today. Our first witness is Mr. Nick Checker, Senior Bureau Official of the African Affairs Bureau. Our second witness is Ms. Monica Jacobsen, Senior Bureau Official of the Counterterrorism Bureau. Mr. Checker, you're recognized for your opening statement.

Good morning, or good afternoon, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Booker, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Trump administration's counterterrorism policy in Africa. Africa will play an important role in America's economic future. The continent holds vast critical minerals, energy resources, and tremendous human capital. However, these opportunities cannot be fully realized amid persistent instability in parts of the continent, including terrorist threats which continue to affect U.S. interests. Currently, U.S. policy towards the continent is undergoing a necessary reset because past approaches failed to deliver outcomes for American interests or for partner African countries. Under President Trump and Secretary Rubio's leadership, this administration has responded with clarity. We will pursue a disciplined, interest-driven strategy rooted in flexible realism. This strategy calls for partnership over dependency. No longer will it be open-ended commitments and diffuse objectives that prioritize aspirations over outcomes. For decades, U.S. engagement in Africa was defined by aid-centric models that too often fostered reliance rather than self-sufficiency, including in the counterterrorism space. Going forward, we will prioritize enabling and cooperating with African nations that demonstrate commitment and capacity to take the lead in addressing their security gaps while advancing core U.S. national interests. We will no longer make open-ended investments in nations that are unable or unwilling to sustain CT efforts. But we are not naive. Burden sharing and shifting must extend beyond the continent. We are working closely with European allies, partners in the Middle East, and other like-minded nations to ensure a more coordinated response to this challenge. These partners have stepped up, benefiting from long-standing ties, geographic proximity, and complementary capabilities that are essential for success. Our role is to reinforce their leadership, not substitute for it, and encourage greater regional support. More sustained external involvement can then neither be feasible or effective. First, our counterterrorism posture in Africa is narrowly focused and aligned with U.S. national security priorities. The primary objective is clear. We will protect the homeland from threats while safeguarding U.S. citizens and commercial interests abroad. Groups affiliated with ISIS and Al-Qaeda remain active in the Sahel, Nigeria, and parts of East Africa. These threats are real, but the response must be disciplined. We will not pursue large-scale, indefinite military engagements or nation-building efforts. Instead, we are adopting a targeted approach that emphasizes intelligence sharing and limited, high-impact security cooperation with partners that demonstrate both capability and political will. Second, our strategy recognizes that counterterrorism cannot be separated from the broader political and economic dynamics. Instability creates space for terrorist networks to operate, but the solution is not simply more security assistance. That has not worked, as shown by investments in the Sahel. A region that accounted for five to 10 percent of terrorism-related deaths a decade ago now represents over 50 percent. Despite significant American engagement, the strategic picture demonstrates that open-ended, aid-centric approaches have not delivered. This is why a fundamental rethink is necessary. Additionally, there are regional and cultural dynamics that must be accounted for to address the underlying conditions that fuel conflict. Weak governance, lack of economic opportunity, and unresolved regional disputes, challenges that the United States cannot unilaterally address. Third, we are refocusing foreign assistance to ensure that every dollar advances a U.S. interest and delivers measurable outcomes. We will prioritize programs with clear objectives and defined timelines. These changes also mean making difficult choices, focusing resources where they can have the greatest impact and eliminating programs that do not. In the counterterrorism context, success will be evaluated on reductions in terrorist activity and unfettered access to financial and criminal networks, improved partner performance, and better protection of U.S. interests. Finally, our approach is grounded in respect for sovereignty and realism about political conditions on the ground. We engage governments as they are, not as we wish them to be. This does not mean abandoning our values, but pursuing them through pragmatic diplomacy rather than public pressure that could undermine cooperation. We will work with countries even when they have partnerships with our strategic competitors if doing so advances U.S. interests and protects the homeland. Effective counterterrorism partnerships require trust, and trust is built through consistent, interest-based engagement. This principle informed my recent travel to re-engage Sahelian partners and advance efforts to bring home American citizen Kevin Rideout. In closing, we are prioritizing partnerships that matter, aligning our resources with our strategic objectives, and ensuring that our engagement delivers real benefits for the American people and results for our African partners. Thank you, I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you. Ms. Jacobsen, you are now recognized for your opening statement.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Booker, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the administration's counterterrorism policy in Africa alongside my colleague Nick Checker from the Bureau of African Affairs. The Trump administration remains vigilant against potential terrorist threats to the homeland emanating from Africa. Our priority is to identify and disrupt these plots targeting the United States and its citizens before they materialize. As President Trump stated in his inaugural address, our top priority is to defend our nation and protect our citizens. And that principle guides the department's counterterrorism approach in Africa. In response to the presence of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in parts of the continent and to remain vigilant against any attacks on the homeland, the United States is pursuing a targeted, disciplined strategy that avoids open-ended commitments. This approach is guided by three core principles. First, the Bureau of Counterterrorism, which we call CT, focuses on identifying and neutralizing terrorist threats before they reach the United States. We leverage a full range of counterterrorism tools, including visa restrictions, designations, information sharing, and where appropriate, targeted security assistance. The CT Bureau works closely with interagency partners such as the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs and Border Protection, to strengthen border security and prevent terrorist travel, including through aviation security programs in Nigeria, Senegal, and Kenya. In coordination with the Department of the Treasury, we also disrupt terrorist financing and constrain the resources that support terrorist operations and external plotting. At the same time, we maintain active diplomatic engagement across Africa to sustain the partnerships we need to safeguard U.S. national security interests. Among other benefits, these relationships allow us to deploy our Personal Identification Security Comparison and Evaluation Systems, also known as PISCES, across 15 countries in Africa. PISCES extends U.S. borders by enhancing countries' border security capabilities and allowing them to share terrorist data with the United States and other international partners. Second, we work with partners in the region to take responsibility for their own security. We enable partners, we do not replace them. For example, Moroccan forces previously trained by the Bureau of Counterterrorism now train Sahelian forces across sub-Saharan Africa using U.S.-provided curricula. This is precisely the model we seek to expand with regional partners leading and sustaining regional security efforts. Finally, where clear partnership opportunities exist, we deploy counterterrorism capabilities to help secure supply chains for critical resources that underpin U.S. economic prosperity and national security. In Mozambique, for example, the United States Export-Import Bank improved a $5 billion loan last year for liquefied natural gas project in Cabo Delgado province, which is also home to the world's only graphite mine whose entire offtake is processed in the United States. These strategic assets face persistent threats from ISIS Mozambique, a localized threat that endangers billions in U.S. investment. In response, my team, working with the Bureau of African Affairs and other security assistance bureaus in the State Department, traveled to Mozambique earlier this year to plan and advance potential targeted CT assistance. These efforts will help the government of Mozambique counter the ISIS threat while safeguarding investments vital to the U.S. economic and national security interests. We also recognize that in many parts of Africa, radical Islamist terrorists target civilians based on their Christian faith. As President Trump and Secretary Rubio have made clear, we will respond to atrocities and violence against Christians, including those who knowingly direct, authorize, fund, support, or carry out violations of religious liberty. Our counterterrorism efforts have included directly targeting the terrorists responsible for this violence, and we likewise hold governments' feet to the fire when they fail to address terrorist threats that undermine religious freedom. We also remain vigilant to threats against U.S. citizens in Africa and will use every tool available to secure the release of U.S. hostages and bring their captors to justice. Taken together, this approach reflects a disciplined, consistent strategy. We prioritize threats with a direct nexus to the homeland, shift responsibility where possible to capable partners, and advance commercial diplomacy that supports U.S. national security. I look forward to discussing these efforts and working with the subcommittee to ensure that the United States' counterterrorism strategy in Africa remains focused, effective, and aligned with our national security priorities. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you both for your testimony. Let's start off with a question addressed to you both. As I've said, one of the reasons for these hearings is to ensure that the administration officials have the opportunity and the platform to articulate President Trump's approach to Africa. For too long, U.S. policy has treated Africa as a secondary theater. The Trump administration withdrew U.S. forces from Niger, which was a key foothold in the region that is the epicenter of global terrorism. That assumption is no longer tenable for a range of reasons. The President has established that it is not. He personally met with 13 African heads of state in his first year in office. But too often, there is nonetheless a lazy assumption that the U.S. is disengaging from Africa. One of the reasons Africa is a critical theater is, of course, counterterrorism. In 2024 alone, there were nearly 19,000 fatalities linked to militant Islamist violence in Africa, with over 50 percent of the fatalities in the Sahel. Let's start at a high level. In your judgment, what are the risks to the United States if we do not keep our eyes on the ball, if we do not focus on counterterrorism in Africa?

Yes, Senator, thank you for the question. I think at the moment, as you outlined in your statement, we've seen really an expansion of ISIS and Al-Qaeda linked groups expand in the Sahel, accounting for I think 98 percent of all militant Islamic groups or activity is the Lake Chad Basin, Sahel, and Somalia at this point. And so while these groups are increasingly active, we do believe that there is a localized threat at the moment. It's an insurgency that's expanded its the number of fatalities and expanded its territorial control. And that's why I think what the way the administration is engaging on the continent is pragmatically by re-engaging some of these Sahelian states. So in this job since I took over in January, reaching out to Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso I think is key to get insight into building those partnerships and having that intelligence warning to keep a pulse on that threat. And as you noted, Senator, the previous administration, the closure of our base in Niger was in large part because we failed to deal with these governments pragmatically. So I think this administration's made a concerted effort to re-engage those states where the Islamic jihadist threat is most prominent to make sure that we do have the intelligence warning to monitor these threats and make sure that if there is a transition from being very localized to having aspirations to attack the homeland, that we'll be aware of that.

Ms. Jacobsen.

Thank you for the question. We absolutely share your concern about the terrorist threats in the region, and we're working aggressively to ensure there's no threat to the U.S. homeland while also working to avoid becoming embroiled in localized threats. Our strategy in that requires us to disrupt terrorist networks before they can threaten the homeland or harm American people. I will say, we are bringing a lot of CT tools to the fight. So I mentioned some in my opening statement, but we have border security programs, we have 15 border security programs that we have in place across Africa. That's more than in any other region. We have watchlisting efforts, we have tailored security assistance and information sharing, and I should say we are bringing at the Counterterrorism Bureau specifically $151 million to help ensure that our to support our partners as they take responsibility for their own security while also protecting American interests.

Thank you. Mr. Checker, this next question is for you. More Christians are killed for their faith in Nigeria than anywhere else in the world. Since 2009, Islamist jihadists have murdered more than 50,000 Christians in Nigeria. And more than 20,000 churches, schools, and religious institutions have been destroyed, most burned to the ground. Scores of Christians and several others were kidnapped over Holy Week. Nigerian officials have been unfortunately complicit in facilitating these atrocities. At the state level, a dozen Nigerian states implement Islamist blasphemy and Sharia laws. At the federal level, the government looks the other way at Islamist violence. The result is, unsurprisingly, yet more jihadist violence. Last year, I introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act, which would require placing Nigeria back on the Country of Particular Concern list and impose sanctions on officials involved in enforcing blasphemy and Sharia laws. The U.S. government knows who they are at both the local level and the federal level, and they should be held accountable. I'm sorry to say that Nigerian officials are at a minimum in denial of the government's role. In October, several officials, including the Deputy Speaker of the Nigerian House and the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and a range of anonymous officials linked to the president, directly attacked me for saying that, quote, "officials in Nigeria are ignoring or even facilitating the mass murder of Christians by Islamist jihadists." Last year, I met with a delegation of top Nigerian defense and security officials. They said they were committed to ending the violence. I told them I would judge their commitment by the results. Those results have yet to materialize. President Trump has established that the United States will use all tools of statecraft to counter the violence. He ordered that Nigeria be added to the CPC list, and in December, he ordered the Department of War to target ISIS terrorists in response to their massacre of Christians. I'll note that the Nigerian government said at the time that it welcomed and indeed requested the actions. I find their statements to be somewhere between hypocritical and infuriating. In December, the president said that jihadists have been targeting Christians in Nigeria, quote, "at levels not seen for many years and even centuries." What does the situation look like now, several months later, and what can and should the United States do to stop the mass murder of Christians?

Thank you for the question, Senator, and thank you so much for your leadership on this important issue. As you know, President Trump designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern back on October 31, and certainly we'd agree that more needs to be done to hold perpetrators responsible. I think you can look at the systematic killings that we saw on Palm Sunday, the beginning of Holy Week, as testament to the fact that people are being targeted for their faith. This is not intercommunal violence. So again, thank you for drawing attention to this issue. I would note, however, that the government of Nigeria has been broadly responsive to our asks since the designation went into place. We've seen some positive movements to include leadership changes in the Nigerian security services, security deployments, including the recruitment of 50,000 additional troops and the deployment of force guards to the Middle Belt area where we've seen a lot of this anti-Christian violence, as well as increased prosecution for folks accused of terrorism as well. So the United States does welcome Nigeria's initial response. We saw a high-level delegation led by Nigeria's National Security Advisor back in November, and we formed a high-level working group under Secretary of State Hooker went to Nigeria and met with them, and we're still building out and baselining what more can be done. And so in addition to that state-led initiative of pushing for additional Nigerian action in the Middle Belt, we've, as you intimated, have DOD additionally supporting forces or Nigerians in combating the threat largely posed by ISIS West Africa up in the Lake Chad Basin. So the bottom line, Senator, is that we've seen positive steps by the Nigerians, but certainly more can be done, and we continue to hold their feet to the fire to make sure that's the case. Thank you.

Thank you. Ranking Member Booker.

Can I just suggest, being that you and I have to stay for the duration and our colleagues have to go, can I suggest an order of going Senator Hagerty, then Senator Coons, then I'll go afterwards?

Happy to do so. Senator Hagerty.

Thank you. And thanks to the Ranking Member as well for the time. Thanks to both of you for being here today. And Nick, it is so good to see you again. We miss you on staff, but we're so proud of you and in the role you're playing today. I'd like to just talk with you about the administration's approach to Africa, though.

He did tell me he missed the daily beatings. [Laughter.]

He was the one doing the beatings, that's why he misses it. [Laughter.] No, it's great to see you again, Nick. And you're the utmost professional on my team, and I know you are in the current role. And I'd like to talk with you about the administration's approach to Africa, though. And you think about the vital national security interest and the economic security interest that we have in Africa. I'm very glad to see you serving and I think very effectively as the interim leader of the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs. Terrorism is one of several enduring threats to U.S. interests in Africa. Counterterrorism is a very important element of our nation's broader strategy in the continent. So Nick, if you could, tell us more about how the broader strategy that you're pursuing serves U.S. interests.

Absolutely. Very good to see you again too, Senator. Thank you so much for the question. So I think broadly what we're trying to do in Africa is really resetting our relationship to treat Africa as capable commercial partners, I think is really what we're what we're most focused on. I know when I back when I worked in your office, you often said it's time to get back to basics when it comes to Africa, and I think that's certainly what we're trying to do. Since 1991, we've spent about $200 billion on foreign assistance to Africa, and that has not delivered the structural transformation we'd hoped to see on the continent. We still see limited industrialization, narrow export bases, persistent infrastructure gaps. And so this model just was fundamentally not working for us. And in the counterterrorism space, I think we were also just doing capacity building for capacity building's sake without seeing really targeted results. So our core interest here is really taking advantage of the of the economic opportunity presented by the continent that's borne out by as Senator Booker said, one in four people will be from Africa by 2050, which is I think about a $16 trillion market for U.S. investment. So there really is a lot of untapped economic opportunity on the continent. And particularly in the critical mineral space, the administration's been very focused on shoring up our supply lines. As you well know, the Chinese have very much monopolized the mining and the refining of a lot of these minerals. So it's very much in our national interest, our national economic interest, to dislodge the Chinese there. So I think economically a lot of opportunity, particularly in that space. We've that's borne out particularly with the U.S. investments in the Lobito Corridor in Angola and also the president's work in trying to bring about a peace in eastern Congo that allow us to really establish a peace that allows us to effectively tap into that that economic potential.

Yeah, you mentioned China's presence, and I think that's a concern to all of us here in the committee. And if you could just focus a little bit of your your time explaining our critical mineral strategy and particularly how that relates to what China is doing, what you're seeing on the ground with China, and how we perhaps counter that.

Absolutely. And as you know, Senator, we can't compete dollar for dollar with the Chinese on the continent, but the critical mineral space that is one area where we really do need to be focusing and targeting our our energies. You know, the Chinese very much do dominate the sector, and they they swoop into these countries and they they exploit workers, they don't use local labor, their the environmental record is atrocious. So what we're trying to do in the administration pursuing a commercial diplomacy strategy that brings American companies in with a clear value proposition of we will pursue localization, we will, you know, follow the law and and be really a partner with the Africans with a win-win proposition for development. So we've been focusing very much on on the Congo, focusing on on areas where there's shore up those supply chains, cobalt, rare earth minerals where we really need to see that off-take moving west towards the United States where we can refine those and really again end the Chinese monopoly of the critical mineral supply chain.

I think we certainly don't want to find ourselves where we were last year with a choke point operation that held essentially much of the world hostage. Speaking of the rest of the world and the United States as well, there are demographic trends that deeply concern me in Europe, parts of Asia, I'm thinking Japan, South Korea now, and even in the United States where we see a birth rate that's below replacement. And it suggests to me that we need to be looking for larger markets, growing markets, growing demographics, and places where where production can can take place. And I've heard Secretary of State Rubio talk about trade not aid. I like that term because it suggests to me that we're trying to get to a point of self-sufficiency. But even beyond that, I see great opportunity, and I would like to get your vision for how we could tap that opportunity, the growth potential that exists. You've touched on it a bit, but if you could expand on that, I'd appreciate it, Nick.

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. In terms of trade not aid, what we're really looking to do, what we recognize is that sustainable economic growth does not come from aid, it does come from trade and from private enterprise. And that's why the administration's been focused on I think at this point we've closed billions of dollars in terms of deals on the continent. We've boosted our American exports to the continent by I believe it's 15, 20 percent at this point. So we're making significant inroads there, but there's still a lot of untapped potential. It's only a fraction of our of our exports do go to the continent. So I think there's really room for growth. As part of our commercial strategy, we've been advocating for these countries to adopt market-based reforms to make their a more level playing field for U.S. investors so that we can compete with the Chinese and and really make inroads in these markets. And we've been also more effectively using our development financing tools to include DFC and EXIM to again sort of make it easier for American companies to get a foothold in the continent and have those ripple effects that again ultimately hopefully move these African countries towards a sustainable path to economic growth and not just dependent on aid.

Well, thank you for your focus on economic development. I think it's a it's a chance for a real sea change in our relationship. It's a respectful way to deal with the continent, and I think it offers the type of opportunity that we want to see every person on the planet have. And having U.S. participation in that, U.S. leadership is absolutely critical. Thank you for your role. Ms. Jacobsen, thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Senator Coons.

Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Booker. Thank you to Ms. Jacobsen, Mr. Checker. Trade more than aid. God, I wish someone had talked about that for years and years. Written a bipartisan bill and gotten it signed into law by President Trump. Oh, what am I talking about? The bill that created the Development Finance Corporation from the years that I chaired this subcommittee in hearing after hearing, month after month. Almost every single theme that was discussed and addressed today was discussed and addressed in hearings 8, 10, 12, 14 years ago. So first, I could spend a lot of time, Mr. Checker, quibbling with you about which administration did what and which success or failure there was, but I'd prefer to focus on the things that I think we can all agree on. The abrupt abandonment of Somalia by the Trump administration was ill-advised. The withdraw from Niger was ill-advised. We can go down a very long list. I do think that competition with the Chinese continent-wide has become steadily more urgent over the brief 16 years I've spent here engaged in this topic. There was a rumor at the end of the last year that the administration was about to close 10 embassies in Africa. I hope that is not the case, but it is true today that we have 36 embassies without ambassadors in Africa. The Chinese have embassies and ambassadors in every country except Eswatini, which remains in a good relationship with Taiwan. Thank you, Eswatini. Could you just speak briefly to whether the administration has any plans to advance nominees and to sustain its current footprint so that we've got a platform that the Foreign Commercial Service, that the Development Finance Corporation, EXIM, and others can operate out of? Without ambassadors leading embassies, we lack the partnerships and the access that helps us in our counterterrorism mission and in our mutual relationships with African countries.

Thank you for the question, Senator. We do have several ambassadors on the continent, and every embassy you mentioned is still led by a career diplomat. We have the utmost confidence...

Right, but you know as well as I do that in the hierarchical world of diplomacy, particularly in Africa, when you have a chargé instead of an ambassador, you have great difficulty getting access, correct?

That could be true at times, yes.

I saw it over and over and over. And so look, this is not just this administration, but we've never had a deficit this great in terms of Senate-confirmed ambassadors for the continent. Let me just move forward.

Senator, I would note there is a there is an ongoing process, the timeline of which I'd have to refer you to the White House, but we are as you noted about to go...

No, I'm clear. How far into this administration are we?

Yeah, over a year.

Well over a year. We're about a third of the way through. And yet out of 54 countries, 36 we have no ambassador. I just think it's a mistake. And I think it's something that the Chair and Ranking of the full committee have repeatedly said, if we get nominees, I'm happy to sit through confirmation hearings. We need to fill these ambassadorial positions. There's another bill some guy, what was the name, Lindsey Graham and I worked on for six years that President Trump signed into law called the Global Fragility Act. I think you're the one, sir, who said we need a strategy that is aligned, accountable, and sustained. Were you in the room for the debates and discussions about the Global Fragility Act? That's almost exactly what we described as the goal, which was to come up with 10-year strategies for how to deal with fragile states that were not yet failed states. So countries like Burkina, Mali, Niger, which are now demonstrably failed states. One of the focus areas of GFA, determined in the first Trump administration, was the littoral states, the ones immediately south of those, and Mozambique, a country where in Cabo Delgado, you have a really critical extremist Islamist movement that is essential to our national security, to their resources, to their development. Could you both speak to how important you think it is to actually meaningfully implement this law, signed by President Trump, to come up with a strategy that brings together State, the development functions now within State, and the Department of Defense to have a coordinated, sustainable, long-term strategy?

Thank you for the question, Senator. As part of our foreign assistance realignment, we are of course always looking for how we can achieve complementarity between all the the entire interagency when it comes to programming. Just in those countries you mentioned, I'm sure that my colleague could speak to some of the work that we're doing in the CT space.

And I will just say, Senator, I'm familiar with the Global Fragility Act and I think as with all bills that are are passed by by the Hill and put into legislation, we do laws, sorry, laws that are put into that are put into law, we do implement them fully. And so I'm aware...

Do either of you see any value in this approach?

I think I think we do see value in this approach and we see in...

So how are you implementing it?

Sure. Well, the Counterterrorism Bureau is not specifically responsible for implementing the Global Fragility Act, but I can say...

The bureau that was specifically responsible has been eliminated.

Yes, sir, I believe...

That's my question.

Right. I I can tell you that in the counterterrorism space, we are working with a range of partner governments, including these mid-level fragile states like Mozambique, to address counterterrorism concerns, to build in prevention and targeting recruitment, and where laws have been passed by the Congress, we do implement them.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll just be blunt for a closing comment. The the foreign aid realignment was a six-month period of profound chaos where thousands of people were laid off, dozens of programs were canceled, billions in commodities were wasted or redirected, and absolutely, I expected after the election a realignment, a reassessment of USAID. Had already worked on two different bipartisan bills to reassess and refocus USAID. But I think what we did instead was create an enormous opening for the Chinese, profoundly undermined some of our long-standing partnerships, and put us on the back foot. I was involved in the peace efforts between DRC, Rwanda, and in the Lobito Corridor under the last administration. We had the opportunity for a essentially a warm handoff. I was encouraged to hear you speak positively about the infrastructure investments in Angola and into Southern Africa. I think there is real possibility to sustain bipartisan long-term investments, but bluntly, the DOGE chaos, I think really set us back, and I'm looking for partners willing and able to look at what we can do that makes a lasting difference. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Booker, for let me jump in here. So, Mr. Checker, just picking up on what Senator Coons said about this time last year, we had the Elon Musk DOGE cuts. Elon Musk infamously said he wanted to put AID in the wood chipper and in fact, they did a lot of damage in in my view. It was reported recently in the Guardian that you said that the State Department should unabashedly and aggressively, quote, remind African governments about the generosity of the American people. It goes on to report other things from an email. Do you deny having made the statements that were reported?

Senator, while reluctant to comment about leaked documents, I would say the context of that is to say that the United States should be unapologetic in branding when we provide humanitarian assistance or any assistance for that matter, that people know it comes from the United States, comes from the United States taxpayer, and not as just some sort of NGO or charitable project.

I'm in actually Senator Coons and I think the rest of us sort of agree, that's why AID had on it as the logo from the American people. And so when you cut dramatically into U.S. humanitarian assistance, you also took away the benefit to our country of creating more goodwill. So I'm all for letting people know what the American taxpayer is doing, but what we did was cut back dramatically, so it was a little ironic that you were essentially telling people to talk more about what we did when we were in fact cutting back. Have you seen reports from the Lancet and others that show the death toll that has been resulting from the cuts to USAID assistance? Have you seen any of those reports?

No, Senator, I have not.

Do you have any plans to assess or evaluate the human harm done from those cuts?

Senator, I would simply reiterate that the United States even under this administration does remain the most generous country in the world, and it's not a uniquely American responsibility to providing to filling all these need gaps that could be filled by other donors, from the host countries, from other countries in the region.

Well, no, you're right, it's not, but as we speak, actually the administration, as I'm sure you know, is discouraging our European partners from providing ongoing aid. Are you aware of the fact that the Lancet medical journal indicated that if current foreign aid funding trends continue, an additional 9.4 million people will die by 2030, including 2.5 million children? Have you seen that report?

I have not, Senator.

I really encourage you to look at these analyses of the the harm done because I think the harm is not just in humanitarian terms, which in my view is is significant, but also to U.S. interests, especially when we agree with you that we should let people know about the generosity of the American people. Let me turn to Sudan, where just past the three-year mark in a devastating civil war. The president in February at the National Prayer Breakfast said, quote, I'm working hard to end that war and we're very close to getting it done. As we speak, we're actually seeing an increase in the intervention from outside sources. External report in Sudan's war has grown more overt. I don't know if you've seen the Yale report about military assistance to the RSF occurring through the base in Ethiopia. Are you have you seen those reports?

Not specifically, no, Senator.

Okay. Do you agree that it should be a priority of the United States to try to end the civil war in Sudan?

Absolutely. I think the president and the secretary have been very clear that we aim to end the conflict in Sudan and have been very much engaged on that front and committed over $500 million in the last fiscal year in the humanitarian response.

It's it's puzzling then that you're not aware of the fact that the RSF that the UAE is working with Ethiopia to establish this base in Ethiopia. You're not aware of that?

I would say, Senator, that the administration has been very clear that external support to parties to the conflict needs to end immediately and that's been raised at the highest levels.

Right. So would you agree with me then that since one of the biggest supporters and providers of military assistance to the RSF, which this administration has concluded is committing genocide, the UAE, that the United States should do more to discourage the UAE from transferring those weapons to the RSF?

Again, Senator, I think the secretary's been very clear that he has repeatedly raised it with the highest levels of everyone backing all external backers of the conflict need to cease that support immediately.

I'm just looking, Mr. Checker, not at statements, but at success, at actual results. And all the information we're getting suggests that the opposite is happening, that outside parties are actually increasing the tempo of support to the warring parties in Sudan. So I heard the president's words reported from the prayer breakfast. I also know he said to the, you know, to the Saudi leader when he was here, this was going to be a priority, but I haven't seen the results. And so we look forward to continuing to get information as to what we're actually getting done. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ranking Member Booker.

Mr. Checker, if you can sense frustration from some of us up here, it's understanding that the words don't seem to match the reality and that's a real frustration from us. Especially because a lot of us, this is not a political issue, this is not area that's being reported even in a lot of our home states. This is an issue of urgency to us because we see the future and we also see the horrific suffering on the continent and we see the opportunity as well. It's also frustrating to a lot of us because we've worked in a bipartisan manner for years, many of us, as you heard from Senator Coons, to do really good work from Lindsey Graham to Secretary Rubio himself when they were senators, we partnered on a lot of work, got a lot of things done under the first Trump administration that now we watch being eviscerated before our eyes. Trade, not aid, is a great slogan, but it is very hard to have aid when pandemics now or health emergencies are going. We saw our own economy shrink during COVID. It's very hard to sustain efforts at opening up trade and markets when we don't have ambassadors who you and I have both traveled around the continent and have seen, as he said so eloquently, hierarchical societies where ambassadors have opened up many opportunities. I've seen it with my own eyes in many countries. It's very hard to have trade when we are a nation that is cutting some of the very programs and partnerships or undermining them. And so I have a lot of frustration here because I agree with the words that come out of the administration, but the actions that you all are taking make me continue to conclude that Africa is not a central focus and nor are we making the kind of investments to compete, especially against our adversaries who are outstepping us. It is very frustrating to me that I see things like in January 2026, the email to the Bureau of African Affairs staff stating, this is your quote, to put it bluntly, Africa is peripheral rather than a core theater of U.S. interests. And then your testimony here seems to try to put lipstick on that pig. Is Africa peripheral substantively or not?

Thank you for the question, Senator. I'm happy to provide you the full content of that email and I would note that in the original, I note this was leaked to the Guardian, the subsequent sentence with the original emphasis is, that does not at all mean Africa's irrelevant. What I tried to do in sending this email was to help staff provide policy guidance on how to implement the National Security Strategy. So I think in any strategy there's going to be some prioritization. So when I said Africa was peripheral, it was relative to how the National Security Strategy talked about East Asia and the Western Hemisphere being core. Everything can't be a core vital interest, so it was just drawing a relative comparison. And as the chairman said, President Trump has met with I think over 15 African leaders at this point and we have been very engaged in the continent. I've traveled the continent extensively so it's not disrespectful. I think it's unfair.

But I don't think it's unfair when you put very few economic staff or Department of Commerce details at embassies, when you have no confirmed ambassadors in 34 out of 46 African posts, when you provide no funding to create enabling environments, despite the fact that Congress provides funding for many of these commercial programs in a bipartisan fashion, this administration cuts those programs. So I hear you saying these words, but really that leaked email seems to more indicate the truth of what your actions are, which is deprioritizing Africa, cutting programs, cutting things that don't even cost us money, like putting ambassadors in countries to open up opportunities for our businesses. I cannot accept the premise that there is a match and accord between your actions and your statements. Somalia, shifting to Somalia, it appears to become one of the most active counterterrorism theaters for the U.S. military under the Trump administration with a dramatic uptick in tempo of the airstrikes. At the same time, the State Department appears to be backing out of the room. You've cut security assistance to both Somalia and African forces that are fighting al-Shabaab on the ground. You've cut stabilization programming for areas reclaimed from al-Shabaab. You appear set to end humanitarian assistance to the country. I'm really struggling to understand what our strategy is with respect to Somalia and containing the threats that are really emanating from it that undermine U.S. business interests as well as our strategic interests in the area, particularly the threat posed by al-Qaeda's largest and wealthiest affiliate, which is now apparently coordinating with the Houthis in Yemen. I don't understand how this constitutes actually having a strategy. You can't bomb this terrorist organization out of existence without a more comprehensive approach. Again, you're playing whack-a-mole. The reports from UN terrorism monitors suggest that while ISIS Somalia may have been degraded by recent operations, al-Shabaab is not. So beyond airstrikes against terrorist targets in Somalia, what are the other specific components of the administration's strategy? Because again, this committee in a bipartisan fashion has tried to work together to do something, but when it comes to diplomatic, developmental, economic, or other military effort such as training, it doesn't seem that you all are using any other tool to help bring stability to that area of the world.

Thank you for the question, Senator. As far as our Somalia policy is concerned, I think that we've effectively been engaged in Somalia for over 17 years at this point and, you know, we've seen the inability of the Somalian government to really take responsibility for their own security, so the status quo is simply unworkable. What this administration's been doing is working with both the federal government and member states to continue to maintain pressure on Shabaab, encouraging the federal government of Somalia to stop the political infighting that's been distracting from the CT fight, which a message I delivered very explicitly to President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud at the AU earlier this year. And we've also been burden shifting to other players who have more proximate cause for concern in the region. So we've seen the UAE has been working effectively with Puntland forces, continuing to degrade ISIS Somalia. And we do continue to provide a variety of CT programs to support counterterrorism financing and border security that I'm sure my colleague could speak to. So I think it's really just an acceptance that the status quo in Somalia just isn't workable, nation building isn't our objective, and we can't go on another 17 years without really rethinking our approach.

Thank you, Mr. Checker, on that topic of Somalia. Let's turn to Somalia's neighbor, Somaliland. Somaliland is a geostrategic U.S. maritime security partner in Africa. It sits along the Gulf of Aden near one of the world's busiest shipping corridors and its forces actively contribute to counterterrorism and anti-piracy missions. Somaliland stands with our allies, including Taiwan and Israel, and aligns with U.S. interests in a region where China is aggressively expanding. Most recently, Israel's decision to formally recognize Somaliland in December 2025 underscores its growing strategic relevance. Late last year, General Dagvin Anderson, the U.S. Africa Command commander, was in Somaliland to meet with Somaliland leadership to assess the security environment and to review Berbera Port's operational capacity. This is the kind of partner we should be encouraging and one that will shape how we confront CT challenges in the Horn of Africa. Last summer, I sent a letter to President Trump urging formal recognition of Somaliland. Unsurprisingly, the Chinese Communist Party immediately condemned my letter, which only shows how important Somaliland is to U.S. national security. Critics argue that recognizing Somaliland could introduce new CT risks or undermine our posture in Mogadishu. I would argue the opposite, working with a capable, willing partner like Somaliland strengthens our CT posture, particularly when Somalia itself continues to struggle with instability and persistent terrorist threats. Two questions. How do you assess Somaliland's role today in contributing to regional security, particularly in CT operations?

Thank you for the question, Senator. Certainly agree with you that Somaliland has been a very good partner, CT and otherwise, with the United States. We've had a positive relationship with both them and other member states. But the policy of the administration for now is that we do continue to recognize, as you know, the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the federal government of Somalia, but within that framework we still do obviously look for opportunities to deepen our cooperation with Somaliland.

Well, and let me follow up on that then. What opportunities exist for the U.S. to deepen security cooperation with Somaliland, such as basing, intelligence sharing, maritime domain awareness, etc.?

I would have to defer to my colleagues, General Anderson and others at AFRICOM and the IC, to speak a little bit more to that unless, so I'd sorry, Senator, I'd have to defer to you for them for on what specifically we could be doing in addition.

So I recognize the decision whether to recognize Somaliland or not is not a decision for you to make. But let me ask you this, if the United States were to recognize Somaliland, what do you think the effect would be?

I would have to refer you to the intelligence community and others for an assessment on the implications of that decision.

Well, I think the implications would be we would be strengthening an ally and I think clarity is powerfully effective in foreign policy and national security and I think that is an approach that President Trump has embodied. So I have a high level of optimism that by the end of this term President Trump will recognize Somaliland and I think that would enhance U.S. national security. And if you doubt that, take a look at the Chinese Communist Party's hysterical reaction to my urging that recognition. To quote the Bard, methinks she doth protest too much and anytime President Xi is hysterically upset at something, that tells you you may be on to the right direction. Mr. Jacobsen, let's shift to a different topic. One of the grim realities of counterterrorism and geopolitics more broadly is that the threats cross national boundaries and implicate entire regions. In the Western Sahara, Iran is actively working to turn the Polisario Front into the Houthis for West Africa. The Polisario Front works with the Iranian terrorist groups, it takes drones from the IRGC, it moves weapons and resources around the region, including to jihadists and much more. Iran's goal, as it is everywhere, is to destabilize entire regions and far too often they have succeeded. As some of your colleagues will recall from the last subcommittee hearing, I believe that the Polisario Front should be designated as a terrorist group. I've introduced a bill that would mandate that designation if the Polisario Front is found to be cooperating with Iranian-affiliated terrorist groups on, well, let me list what's in the bill, military operations, weapons systems, drones, anti-aircraft weapons, or military intelligence. This issue should be a no-brainer. If the Polisario Front is providing or receiving those elements with Iranian terrorists, they straightforwardly qualify for designation. First, what can you say based on open source intelligence about the degree of cooperation between the Polisario Front and Iranian terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and the IRGC?

Well, Senator, I very much appreciate the work you've done to highlight the concerns with the Polisario Front, including raising it with my colleagues at the hearing on North Africa CT issues earlier this year. We share concerns about the Polisario Front and its impact in the CT space. What I can say with confidence in an open hearing is that the region where the Polisario Front operates sits near trafficking and militant activity in the Sahel and that this creates vulnerabilities that external actors, including Iran, could seek to exploit. So we are closely monitoring the situation and we're vigilant to those threats. I am tracking the allegations regarding engagement with Hezbollah and IRGC and the State Department and intelligence community are working closely on that. I think our teams are working to set up a classified briefing where we can speak more at length about those potential concerns. I will also just say that across the globe we are incredibly seized of addressing the IRGC threat as well as its proxies and partners. I just returned from Budapest where I gathered 35 governments together to talk about how we can counter this threat. That includes several senior leader officials from the continent of Africa. We are incredibly appreciative for the support that you've provided in this space and I just want to highlight that IRGC threats, threats from partners and proxies are of the utmost concern and something we're very seized of.

Thank you. Senator Hagerty? No additional Senator Booker?

I guess one of the things I'm confused about is in Nigeria we have Christians being killed as a result of terrorism. And it's disturbing to me, I'm a Christian, but my faith is rooted in unconditional love for all peoples. And so I have a hearing where people keep talking about the Christians being slaughtered, but there are Muslims being slaughtered. In fact, considerably more Muslims are being slaughtered in Nigeria by terrorism than Christians. I would think the Christian faith would want to center that in the levels of urgency we feel. In fact, if you actually know the Bible, the story of the Good Samaritan is about the urgency to love those who don't pray like you, don't look like you, may not be from your same community, but it's about the existential urgency in the Christian faith to love all God's children. So am I correct, Ms. Jacobsen, that Muslims are being slaughtered by terrorist attacks in Nigeria?

Yes, you are correct. The terrorist threat has absolutely touched Muslims, Christians, a whole range of faiths across Nigeria.

Is the administration concerned about the slaughtering of Muslims?

We are the, the President and the Secretary have made clear that we must protect religious liberty and that certainly applies to the terrorism threat that we are seeing in Nigeria. But I can speak more broadly to our counterterrorism efforts across Nigeria where we have held the Nigerian government's feet to the fire to address their terrorist threats, both in the north where we see ISIS West Africa and Boko Haram committing horrific attacks, as well as in the Middle Belt where we see Fulani militias targeting particularly Christians in that space.

Well, again, what's really frustrating to me is I hear those words, but they remain empty to me when I'm told that an administration supports religious liberty and then cuts programs that we have in a bipartisan way in this committee have funded to support religious freedom and religious liberty. I understand that that is a State Department decision, but yet again, we are saying one thing and then our actions truly belie that and display a hypocrisy that's stunning to me. And then we say that the only solution to this, since religious groups are being persecuted, is then to engage in the only tool it seems we know how to use, which is military action as opposed to investing in stability that could help that not only that military action not be necessary, but to protect religious groups on the ground. This is really very frustrating. It is a hypocrisy that delegitimizes us as a nation, like in all the persecuted minorities to the point where we see a genocide in Sudan, but this administration with all its bluster rushes to South Africa to protect the persecution of white people, alleged persecution I could say, which makes a mockery of our country's priorities. And this is the disconnect on the continent that not only undermines our stated missions, but undermines us as the partner of choice amongst many of these nations when they see us act with such blatant hypocrisy where our words don't align with our actions or in my case the faith that's often used. I'm going to stop here and as my ranking member settles in and allow her, Mr. Chairman, to ask questions.

Senator Shaheen, although I didn't mean to get you just when you sat down.

Yeah, don't do that to me when I just got here. You keep going.

I am confident Senator Booker can fill the time.

I'm sure he can.

I will ask one more question. I was trying to be deferential Senator, forgive me. The administration is proposing to cut funding for the peacekeeping operations account which is by 92 percent next year. This account has been the main source of funding for State Department-led counterterrorism programs in Africa including programs that increase burden sharing and help train local security including elite counterterrorism units in partnership with countries so that they can do the critical work on the ground. Congress again in a bipartisan fashion provided $355 million to this account for this fiscal year. What is the administration's plans to use these funds in Africa?

Senator, I'd be happy to take that back and speak to you more robustly with my IO colleagues as well on the future for peacekeeping expenses.

Yeah, again, as I said in my opening remarks, the urgency to have a whole-of-government approach and the fact that we're having a hearing on stopping counterterrorism, the fact that my partners on the other side of the aisle and I put $355 million in an account to do just that that doesn't involve a military but actually involves a State Department who has gutted so many of the groups that focus on Africa, it continues to highlight and undermine why so many of us today are so frustrated. Terrorist groups thrive in areas where there's weak law enforcement and the justice sector has lost capacity. Congress has funded programs to help partner with countries with these issues. In fact, again, these are bipartisan programs to help strengthen countries' judiciary sectors and their law enforcement. These programs have helped law enforcement and judicial systems investigate and stop illicit activities such as human trafficking, weapons, drug smuggling, extortion schemes. With so many programs being terminated like these that clearly would go a long way to accomplishing our goals where Inspector Generals and others have said very bluntly that investments in these programs save us more money that often has to be spent in military operations, what is going on with some of those programs that maybe you can enlighten us with what the department is doing to strengthen the judiciary and local law enforcement in some of these problem areas?

Senator, happy to provide a more of a comprehensive review, but just taking for instance in Nigeria specifically, I mean INL does continue to provide anecdotally support for police training, police training still does occur across the continent. I'd have to come back with a more robust list.

Well, I would really love for you to come back. The Trump administration has not published foreign assistance data since its 2025 review of foreign assistance. I can't get my hands on information to even know what the hell you all are doing. I hear your words. I agree with your words. It's your actions that deeply disturb me. And getting information in a hearing is what we're supposed to be doing, but it seems like we're woefully prepared to fulfill questions on the most basic aspects of what should be a whole-of-government counterterrorism policy. So Mr. Checker, I really do hope you provide this and I'll ask these questions to this hearing for the record and I hope I can get my partnership of my colleague of just asking for the facts. It is very frustrating to me not to have information or even explanation as Senator Coons has said for things that for years we worked on and that the President of the United States in that first term seemed to be all in on. That Secretary Rubio when he was a Senator partnered with us on. And so I need more information, I need more transparency, I need more accountability because if everything I'm seeing and reading about is true, then yes, your statement is actually true. You put it bluntly to this administration Africa is peripheral rather than a core theater for U.S. interests. I defer now to my much more senior and esteemed colleague.

Senator Shaheen.

I'm not that much more senior. Just in seniority not in age.

My advice is stop talking now.

Yes, yes, thank you, thank you Senator Cruz. The rule of holes when you're in one stop digging. Thank you to you Senator Cruz and also for the Diet Dr. Pepper and to Senator Booker for holding this hearing and I'm late because I was at another hearing. But I want to start with you Mr. Checker because in March the Treasury Department delisted sanctions on key Malian defense officials. And these Malian officials were sanctioned for their facilitation of the Russian mercenary organization the Wagner Group which has now renamed itself as Africa Corps. The delisting was communicated to Congress as a political decision in hopes of improving U.S. relations with Mali. Attempts to improve these relations were under the assumption that Mali would provide us with overflight access for the U.S. to search for kidnapped American citizen Kevin Rightout who went missing in October of 2025 and is presumed to now be held in Mali by extremist groups. So Mr. Checker, you recently visited Mali I understand to meet with government officials. Why haven't we received the necessary clearance to conduct overflights for Kevin Rightout?

Thank you for the question Senator. I'm happy to speak more about this with you in a classified setting but what I can say is that our whole engagement, the sanctions delifting was about resetting relations with Mali, with the other AES states. Normalization is just going to be essential if we're going to have them be playing a role in the burden shift to make sure that we have visibility onto potential threats from the homeland emanating from the Sahel where we have seen the expansion of Islamic jihadist groups to include JNIM and ISIS Sahel.

Well, I recently met with representatives from AFRICOM who didn't think that Mali was going to be interested in working with us on counterterrorism. So why do you think they're interested in working with us? And why what other pressure points have you used on the government and why didn't we get a commitment for overflights before releasing sanctions or renewing economic cooperation?

Well Senator I would say that really the sticks approach just didn't work. So as you well know the previous administration, my predecessor Assistant Secretary Molly Phee went to Niger and essentially lectured the Nigeriens about how they needed to restore democracy, needed to hold elections and that resulted in the closure of Agadez Air Base.

I'm not asking you about that. What I'm asking you about is what we're doing now with Mali to try and ensure that our goals are accomplished.

What we're doing is indicating that we're willing to engage in pragmatic cooperation with the governments and not engage in a lecture.

I'm not suggesting you lecture them. Although I feel like I ought to lecture you because you're not responding to my question. What what have we what are we getting in return for lifting of these sanctions? Because so far we haven't gotten anything that I can see.

I think Senator it's it's an attempt to rebuild goodwill. I think with the with these governments there's just palpable mistrust of the United States with Western powers generally speaking. So the reason for going there and engaging them is to show that we are willing to pragmatically engage on issues of mutual concern, namely to counterterrorism.

Well, to move from there to Sudan, I'm sure you're you've seen the satellite imagery that shows the scale of the massacres that were conducted by the RSF in El Fasher in October of 2025. On April 8th it was reported that the RSF had been using the Ethiopian military's base to facilitate an offensive into Sudan to open up a new front in the war. And according to the report illicit weapons are being brought into and smuggled across Ethiopia. Increasingly this region of Africa has is seeing those illicit weapons and drones from the now three-year war in Sudan. My staff just returned from travel to the region which is made more precarious because the airspace over Sudan is cut off due to the weapons and arms. So as this region becomes more destabilized as you know it becomes more of a risk for violent unsafe haven for violent actors. So can you talk about what the strategy is for stopping this illicit weapons flow and also has have you considered the idea of sanctions on the RSF or designating them as a foreign terrorist organization?

Thank you for the question Senator. As you know President Trump and the Secretary are very much committed to ending this conflict as as you said, it is the world's largest humanitarian crisis. We've been pushing very aggressively at efforts led by Senior Advisor Bullos to achieve a humanitarian truce, which could be provide the predicate to then move to hopefully to a more durable political settlement. As far as external support is concerned, I think the Secretary's been very clear that external support to both parties in the conflict needs to stop immediately and he's raised that at the highest levels and we continue to push parties to cease that support.

But it hasn't happened yet, right? And so what other options are we considering with respect to putting more pressure on to end that support? Because designating the RSF as a foreign terrorist organization would certainly cause pause among those entities that are providing them with weapons and support.

The Secretary said if we if we believe that designating the RSF as an FTO could help bring about an end to the conflict we'd consider it, so all a variety of escalatory options remain on the table.

So do we think it it would help end the conflict?

I don't want to speak for the Secretary, we would have to come back to you with a with a view on that.

We will submit that question for the record then so you can give give us a view on that. Ms. Jacobsen as the head of the Counterterrorism Bureau, do you have a view on that?

Thank you for the question. I mean I think as SBO Checker highlighted Secretary Rubio has said all all options are on the table and if designating the RSF would be helpful we'll absolutely consider it. So it's certainly something under discussion and the Counterterrorism Bureau is deeply committed to supporting the peace process. I would just highlight for you Senator that we did recently designate as a foreign terrorist organization another actor that is engaged in violence in Sudan and that is the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood, which has not only committed atrocious violence against civilians but has also received assistance, training, and weapons from the IRGC.

Now I understand that none of the actors in Sudan are blameless in terms of atrocities, but I'm interested in what more action we could take that might have an impact on that conflict. Thank you Mr. President and Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Jacobsen let's stay on that topic we were just on. The Muslim Brotherhood poses a global and an acute threat to American national security interests and to the safety and security of Americans. They export extremism, Sharia, and terrorism across borders and into America. As you know I've been pushing legislation to designate the Muslim Brotherhood throughout my time in the Senate. I've introduced it in nearly every Congress since I was first elected in 2012. And I strongly support the President's efforts to continue pursuing additional chapter designations as well as a global designation. The President and his counterterrorism advisors are acutely aware of the threat and have taken unprecedented steps to counter it. The administration as you just noted recently designated Sudanese chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood as FTOs and SDGTs. Speak to the threat that prompted that designation.

Very much appreciate your interest in this Senator and your support. As you noted the President and the Secretary of State are deeply committed to targeting the Muslim Brotherhood threat wherever it occurs. That includes through the executive order that was issued in November 2025 and ultimate designations in January of the Lebanese, Egyptian, and Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood and then the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood chapter as you mentioned. We really see when we moved forward with that designation three three benefits from that designation. First as noted in this this previous exchange, the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood is engaged in the conflict in ways that undermine peace that we are trying to push forward. Second they are also engaged with the IRGC receiving weapons, training, funding, and we are committed to targeting the IRGC threat wherever it may occur. And third we are engaged in targeting the Muslim Brotherhood threat wherever it occurs in the world. And so while we had initially targeted three branches that were in the Middle East, we do see that influence across the globe. And so it's important to identify that the Muslim Brotherhood threat is present in Africa, we see other chapters and influence as well. We have partners who we're deeply engaged on this with, Kenya actually recently just designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group as well. And this is part as you mentioned of a continued sustained effort to target the Muslim Brotherhood wherever it operates including on the African continent.

Let's zoom out. What is the scope and structure of the Muslim Brotherhood's activities in Africa including Sudan and how do these networks operate and interact with terrorist organizations on the ground?

Well I very much appreciate the question and again the opportunity to talk about the threat. There's a lot that I'd probably need to speak to you in a classified setting about in this space. But of course the Muslim Brotherhood has a global network. They are very savvy on their public messaging and very deeply ingrained. So we see operations in North Africa along with sub-Saharan Africa. To speak to you about about what those branches look like and what the threat they pose I would like to do that in a classified setting, but I can tell you we're seized of that issue and this isn't the end on designations, I do believe there will be more to come without previewing any specific chapters.

Well and I will say with some history that I know you're aware of, my earlier versions of the Muslim Brotherhood designation bill directed that the global Brotherhood be designated. And in the first Trump term I think we almost got it done, I thought we were going to get it done in the first Trump term. Ultimately career officials at the State Department managed to dissuade the administration from doing so because they argued that there were individual affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood that there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they were in fact terrorist organizations and the old version of the bill was top down. The current version as you know I inverted and made it bottom up. And it the current version directs the administration to designate every Muslim Brotherhood affiliate for which there is sufficient evidence that they are terrorist organizations and then step two to designate the global Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization for providing material support to the undoubted terrorist affiliates that are part of it. I'm not going to ask you to commit right now because I recognize you cannot, but but I have every hope and expectation that by the end of this Trump administration the President will have designated the global Muslim Brotherhood as well which I think would be a critically important step for national security and I said I'm not going to ask you to comment but you can say anything you like on that.

Thank you. I will just say Senator Cruz that I have reviewed the bill and I think it's consistent with the Trump administration's policy on targeting the Muslim Brotherhood threat wherever it occurs.

Thank you. All right let's turn to a different topic for both of you. As we look at the evolving threat environment in Africa, it's not just local instability driving these trends, our adversaries are increasingly shaping the battlefield in ways that directly undermine U.S. interests. Let's start with China Ms. Jacobsen. What role does China play directly or indirectly in enabling conditions that allow terrorism and instability to grow across Africa?

Well I appreciate your interest in this Senator and I can say there is not a doubt that China is behaving as a malign actor in Africa as it does across the globe and seeking to persuade other governments to undermine U.S. interests including in the CT space. That's a self-serving and exploitative impact that we're seeing across the region. That said I will say our important counterterrorism partners are eager in Africa to cooperate with us. So China is not perceived in Africa as a helpful counterterrorism partner and our CT relationships are a comparative advantage over our strategic competitors like China in this space. So where it aligns with U.S. interests we work with the Africa Bureau with SBO Checker and others across the interagency to identify opportunities where our CT capabilities can build partnerships.

Well and Mr. Checker let's turn to you geographically where is China's footprint most consequential from a counterterrorism perspective?

Senator I'd have to get back to you, happy to provide an answer in writing on where we think that'd be that's mostly the case.

Okay. All right final topic. Let's shift the discussion to East Africa specifically resource rich Mozambique where we're seeing a dangerous convergence of terrorism and strategic economic interests affecting U.S. priorities. The terrorism threat in Mozambique is growing as ISIS Mozambique continues to conduct attacks threatening safety, stability, and U.S. economic interests. Meanwhile our adversaries are stepping in. The Chinese have increased their security engagement with the Mozambique government through training equipment and joint military exercises. In August 2024 the Chinese had its largest People's Liberation Army deployment to Africa ever in a military exercise in Tanzania and Mozambique. Even Russia previously deployed approximately 200 Wagner Group mercenaries in 2019 to support operations against ISIS linked groups. The Mozambique military remains undertrained and underequipped to meet this threat and requires increased support. This is a question to both of you what is the U.S. approach to helping the Mozambique government combat ISIS Mozambique and is it enough to address the scale of the threat?

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. As you rightly point out, we have an enormous economic opportunity in northern Mozambique in the Cabo Delgado province. We have ExxonMobil and Total pursuing the largest U.S. investment in on the continent there, as well as this Balama graphite mine that my colleague referred to. So I think with with respect to the ISIS-Mozambique threat, we are very interested in in helping improve the the capacity of the FADM to in a very targeted way to improve their ability to handle that. We've also provided, you know, that the the Rwandans are also deployed in the region as well, and there could be follow-on or benefits of them of of them working in conjunction, and we provided a general license to the to the Rwandan deployment there despite sanctioning the RDF for Rwanda's non-compliance with the Washington Accords in eastern Congo. So there are a lot of other actors that have a benefit of playing a sort of burden-sharing role and helping improve the security situation in Cabo Delgado, and and I'm perhaps Monica could speak to additional programs that we've been put been using in northern Mozambique.

Thank you. And Ms. Jacobsen, in your answer, also address what Mr. Checker referenced, which are major projects from U.S. companies like ExxonMobil as well as Total's operations and how they've been repeatedly disrupted by ISIS-Mozambique and and what what we are and should be doing about it.

Absolutely. Well, in Mozambique, there is, as you said, Senator, an important opportunity for the Counterterrorism Bureau and the department writ large to support billions of dollars in U.S. investments that ensure that U.S. security and critical mineral access are secured while simultaneously addressing the terrorist threat. So to that end, the Counterterrorism Bureau is advancing new programming that will strengthen local law enforcement abilities to safeguard that critical infrastructure in areas where commercial interests, particularly in the energy sector, are under threat. Let me give you an example of that. So we have programming that will be time-bound and directly advance U.S. interests with near-term results by protecting critical infrastructure at liquefied natural gas facilities and graphite mines. These are resources that are essential to the U.S. energy security. We're going to focus on protecting the critical routes and enhancing the security around the liquefied national natural gas facilities rather than training entire units. And ultimately, that targeted approach will deliver tangible benefits for the U.S. businesses operating in Mozambique without committing the U.S. to long-term capacity building. I also would just note, Senator Cruz, the the ISIS-Mozambique threat is also attacking Christians in this space, and so we're very seized of not just bolstering the U.S. security interest in the space, but ensuring as as we've mentioned before that the President and the Secretary are very committed on protecting religious liberty. And so bolstering capacity in this in this space for for the Mozambican government to address this threat will also help address the threat faced by Christians in Mozambique.

Thank you for that. And and I will note in response to something Senator Booker said a while ago when he asked why the focus on Christians being subject to mass murder in Nigeria when the jihadists are also killing Muslims. There's no doubt the jihadists are killing Muslims, and and I that is absolutely wrong and unacceptable, and I've spoken out against it many times. The reason for the focus on the targeting of Christians is because they're being systematically persecuted for their faith. 20,000 churches and schools burned to the ground, 50,000 Christians murdered. They are being killed because they are Christian, and that makes it qualitatively different. And I would note, when it comes to persecution of Muslims, I have spent many years, the better part of a decade, calling out the Chinese communist government for its persecution of the Muslim Uyghurs. And you have over one million Muslim Uyghurs in a concentration camp right now. And throughout the Biden administration, the Biden White House flowed millions of dollars to China that went to pay for modern-day slavery and modern-day concentration camp of Muslim Uyghurs. And when I forced a vote on the Senate floor to cut off that funding of modern-day slavery, virtually every single Democrat in the Senate, all but one, voted against me and voted to continue sending millions of dollars that went directly to the persecution of Muslims. So I think we should stand stand up and speak out against mass murder, against slavery, against evil and persecution regardless of where it occurs. But what's happening in Nigeria is specifically targeted at Christians. It is wrong, and I'm grateful for President Trump for standing up against it. I want to thank the witnesses for your important testimony here today. Senators will have until the close of business on Wednesday, April 22nd, to submit questions for the record, and that concludes today's hearing.