State legislatures take up the national security fight
This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.
The usual framing treats national security in Africa as a distant chess match, best left to Washington briefings and think tank panels. That misses why state legislatures are paying attention: the spillover is not abstract when supply chains, ports, critical minerals, and migration pressures touch communities at home. States cannot run foreign policy, but they can insist on **basic transparency** in contracts, university partnerships, and pension investments that intersect with hostile regimes.
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The United States is competing with Russia, China, and terror groups across the continent of Africa.
Original source:
Read at Washington ExaminerHow We See It
New Republican Times Editorial Board
The usual framing treats national security in Africa as a distant chess match, best left to Washington briefings and think tank panels. That misses why state legislatures are paying attention: the spillover is not abstract when supply chains, ports, critical minerals, and migration pressures touch communities at home.
States cannot run foreign policy, but they can insist on basic transparency in contracts, university partnerships, and pension investments that intersect with hostile regimes. When China-backed entities buy influence through local projects, the risk is not theoretical. It is public trust and economic security on the line.
A serious approach pairs rule of law with national security realism: scrutinize procurement, protect sensitive research, and deny bad actors easy access to strategic assets. The principle at stake is simple: America’s security should not be outsourced to complacency, even at the state level.
Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.