Somali-Americans and the politics of American contempt

When the announcement was made that Somalia would assume the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, the reaction should have been unremarkable. The presidency, after all, rotates monthly among Council members according to a long-established procedural norm. Yet what ought to have been a routine institutional transition instead became a precursor to derision among American officials and influential political figures, particularly those aligned with the MAGA movement, who seized the moment to ridicule both Somalia and the United Nations itself.

At the center of this reaction was the familiar trope of Somalia as a “failed state,” deployed to delegitimize a largely symbolic role, one with no meaningful impact on the Council’s substantive work, while simultaneously calling into question the legitimacy of the UN system as a whole. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, reflecting rhetoric that has become increasingly normalized among American officials, publicly disparaged the institution on social media. Although acknowledging that the presidency rotates, he nevertheless tweeted: “One of the MANY flaws in the UN is that countries are put in positions regardless of their security situation at home.” The implication was unmistakable: Somalia’s participation was not merely ironic, but absurd.

This posture of mockery extended well beyond official channels and was embraced enthusiastically by financial elites aligned with Donald Trump. The South African–born billionaire and major financier of Trump’s campaigns Elon Musk used his platform X to sneer at Somalia’s leadership role, writing: “And Somalia will be President of the UN Security Council too next month! Fate has an epic sense of irony.” Other MAGA billionaires including the hedge fund manager Bill Ackman echoed similar mockery, finding amusement in Somalia’s temporary stewardship of the Council.

These attacks, however, should not be understood as one-off insults directed at Somalia alone. Rather, they are the outward projection of a domestic political culture in which Somali Americans – their identity, culture, and heritage – have been systematically targeted and vilified. Within MAGA discourse, the denigration of Somalia functions as a proxy for the dehumanization of Somali Americans, a community that has been subjected to sustained attack by MAGA officials and amplified by influential American billionaires.

Since Donald Trump’s rise to political power in 2016, he has come to symbolize, if not actively orchestrate, a prolonged political assault on Somali communities in the United States. His rhetoric and policies have repeatedly mobilized his political base against Somalis, transforming them into convenient scapegoats within broader anti-immigrant and Islamophobic narratives. This pattern is neither incidental nor dismissible as mere “Trump rhetoric,” a line of argument that has too often escaped scrutiny despite the tangible harm it might cause and the risks it has posed to Somali American lives. The record is well documented.

In 2017, Somalia was included in Trump’s travel ban, widely condemned as a “Muslim ban,” which restricted entry into the United States. The policy tore apart Somali families, disrupted students’ education, and brought refugee resettlement to a near standstill. Between 2018 and 2019, Trump repeatedly associated Somali immigrants with terrorism and fraud, particularly in Minnesota, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and framing Somali communities as inherently suspect.

The attacks intensified in 2019 when Trump repeatedly targeted Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Somali American, at political rallies where chants of “Send her back” transformed a sitting member of Congress into the focal point of coordinated hostility. During the 2020 campaign, Trump continued to weaponize Somali Americans as a political wedge issue, especially in Minnesota, casting them as symbols of demographic and cultural threat.

This pattern escalated further in December 2025, when Trump described Somali immigrants as “garbage,” urged them to “go back” and “fix” Somalia, and characterized the country as “hell.” In the same period, the White House announced reviews of plans to denaturalize Somali Americans convicted of fraud, alongside the freezing of $185 million in federal childcare subsidies in Minnesota – measures widely perceived as racially and politically motivated. Immigration enforcement agencies simultaneously prepared to expand operations in a state home to the largest Somali diaspora in the United States.

Taken together, these actions reveal a recurring set of dynamics: rhetorical dehumanization, punitive policy measures, and racially driven, targeted attacks on Somali Americans – particularly in Minnesota – designed to energize a political base. Somali-born Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was repeatedly personalized as a stand-in for broader anxieties surrounding immigration, Islam, and national identity.

The consequences have been profound. For Somali Americans, these campaigns have produced heightened fear, social stigmatization, and vulnerability to discrimination. Within U.S. politics, Somali communities have been instrumentalized for electoral gain. And internationally, Trump’s rhetoric has reinforced crude and damaging portrayals of Somalia as synonymous with chaos, failure, and anarchy.

Seen in this light, MAGA’s attacks – backed by the rhetorical power of state authority and amplified by billionaire elites – are best understood as part of a racially driven culture war centered on power, identity, and narrative control. The mockery directed at Somalia is less an indictment of the United Nations than a reflection of an American political culture increasingly comfortable with contempt: for international institutions, and for marginalized communities whose presence unsettles a narrow and exclusionary vision of national identity.

To understand this assault on Somali Americans, Geeska editorial team spoke with Ahmed Yusuf, Somali American author, about the consequences of this moment and how Somali Americans are dealing with the crisis.

Geeska Editorial Team (GET): During a Cabinet meeting on December 2, the U.S President Donald Trump used the term “garbage” to describe Somali immigrants. As someone who has studied the psychological integration of refugees, how does this specific level of top-down dehumanization impact the mental health and sense of safety for a community that fled a collapsed state to find “dignity” in America?

Ahmed Ismail Yusuf (AIY): Using the prestige and prowess of the United States of America, the words of “the most powerful man” in the world would definitely have a deleterious effect on the psyche of a population that has suffered so much, yet survived it all by sheer determination. It’s such a misfortune that Somalis tried to put as much distance between them and the unforgiven past, if nothing else but to save their offspring.

So, though this community is resilient, such scapegoating would reignite a nightmarish memory, reawakening PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). It would also open up a whole world of enmity, weaponizing the President’s words against innocent Somali-American school-age children. A bullying license, which has already begun, would be applied.

GET: The administration is explicitly using the “Feeding Our Future” fraud case as a pretext for “Operation Metro Surge” and heightened surveillance. How can the Somali community demand accountability for individual fraud without allowing the state to use those crimes as a weapon for collective punishment against an entire ethnic group?

AIY: Recourse or demanding accountability seems a bit of a stretch at present. For one, a crime has been committed, albeit by an insignificant number of Somalis. Thus, the vultures of misfortune found red meat to munch on. As a result, a mold-minded racist group managed to manhandle the narratives, painting a whole nation with a dirty brush.

Second, this collectively applied weapon of mass punishment has shown its limitations. A) Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the State of Minnesota’s leaders, as well as neighbors and friends of fair-minded souls, sided with the Somali community. B) Somalis are united and armed with legal minds and the means to defend themselves. C) History is on our side. Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Mexican-Americans, but most certainly African-Americans, have all been through this passage. The last historical witnesses to ethnic alienation were 110,000 Japanese-Americans, who were jailed, starved, humiliated, harassed, robbed, raped, and herded into contemptible camps in 1942.

GET: We are currently seeing reports of naturalized Somali-American citizens in Minneapolis carrying their physical passports at all times to avoid “mistaken” detention by ICE agents. In your view, does this signify that citizenship for Somalis in Minnesota has effectively become “conditional” or “second-tier” under the current administration?

AIY: No, not really. American citizenship values, including for Somalis, have neither dimmed nor diminished in stature at all. However, Somali character and identity have been attacked, a temporary setback of sorts. Yet the constitutional pillars are solid, though they too have been tampered with. The degradation of Somalis carrying physical passports will pass.

GET: There is a growing narrative in conservative media that Somali culture is “incompatible” with the American social contract. How do you counter the argument that the current confrontation is not just political, but a fundamental cultural clash that cannot be reconciled?

AIY: The conservative media’s venomous narratives have no legs to stand on and will render themselves useless once most of their lies are exposed. If they had an iota of intellectual legitimacy, they would have appreciated Somalis’ entrepreneurial spirit and conservative religious values, qualities they usually claim to identify with.

Envious social behaviors are corrosive. With our allies by our side, we are ready to face the foes.

GET: Community leaders are currently debating whether to lead mass protests, which could be used by the administration to justify further “security” interventions, or to adopt a strategy of quietism. What is the psychological cost of “going quiet” to survive, and is there a third way for the community to assert its rights without walking into a political trap?

AIY: There is a Somali proverb that states: “Nin aan hadlin hooyadii qadisay.” meaning “He who does not make a noise, his mother may not notice to feed him.” Quietism, therefore, is equal to defeatism. One shouldn’t lie down to take a bullet. We are not going to lie down. We will make as much noise as we are capable of. And yes, there is a third option: surrender, but that is not Somali. What is Somali are Farah Nur’s words of wisdom:

“Lix halkaad ku jogtaan dagaal laabta ka ogaada / Kun la dirira idinkoo kunton ah waydin kaafiye.” Meaning: “Where only six of you stand, be alert for any imminent assault; though you are fifty, face down a thousand and you will sow defeat.”

GET: For decades, Minnesota was considered the gold standard for refugee resettlement and integration. With the federal government now actively “surging” into places like Cedar-Riverside, is the decades-long social contract between the state and the Somali community permanently broken, or can the “Minnesota model” survive this federal intervention?

AIY: Somalis are now part of the fabric of Minnesota. Besides, the model and motto of welcoming refugees were born in this state itself. Minnesota opened its doors to Eastern Europeans in 1945, Vietnamese in 1975, the Hmong in the 1980s, and dozens of others; most Somalis arrived in the 1990s.

Furthermore, luminary state politicians who earned civil-rights stature – Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey – were the legal muscle behind the annual refugee quotas into the United States. Thus, Somalis will not only survive but thrive. This unfortunate federal political persecution and left-wing media blitz will pass with the current administration.