MOGADISHU (SD) – Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre has formally responded to derogatory comments made by former U.S. President Donald Trump, which have sparked considerable anger among Somalis at home and abroad. The Prime Minister’s statement came during a press engagement where he was asked about the government’s position on Trump’s latest verbal attack.

PM Hamza framed Trump’s remarks as part of a broader pattern, not a unique or new offense against Somalia. “The former U.S. president’s statements are not directed at any specific point and add nothing of value,” he stated, downplaying their significance.

He explicitly recommended a strategy of strategic disregard: “Donald Trump has spoken about many countries. The best thing is not to address it and to move on.”

The Prime Minister’s public dismissal follows intense online criticism within Somalia, where Trump’s comments—which broadly maligned the Somali state and people—have been widely condemned on social media.

Prime Minister Hamza’s response is a textbook example of diplomatic deflection aimed at de-escalation. By refusing to take the bait, he denies Trump’s remarks the oxygen of an official, high-profile diplomatic spat. This “ignore and move on” tactic is strategically prudent for a government that relies heavily on U.S. security and economic support, ensuring operational relationships with current U.S. administrations are not poisoned by rhetorical exchanges with a former president.

By stating that Trump “has spoken about many countries,” Hamza effectively normalizes and diminishes the insult. This framing serves two purposes:

For the International Community: It signals that Somalia views the comments as erratic personal rhetoric, not a reflection of U.S. state policy or a shift in bilateral relations.

For the Domestic Audience: It attempts to soothe national pride by contextualizing the insult as a global, not uniquely Somali, experience, thereby reducing its perceived sting.

While advocating for public disregard, the PM’s statement itself is an acknowledgment and a managed release valve for domestic outrage. By addressing the issue publicly, he shows the government is aware and responsive to public sentiment. However, by advising against a confrontational response, he attempts to prevent the issue from escalating into a domestic political crisis that could force the government into a more antagonistic international stance.

The muted response underscores the profound power asymmetry in the U.S.-Somalia relationship. A direct, forceful rebuttal could carry unpredictable consequences for aid, security cooperation, and diplomatic standing. Hamza’s approach prioritizes the stability of these essential partnerships over the catharsis of a strong public condemnation, a realist calculation for a fragile state.

This strategy is not without risk. It could be perceived domestically as weakness or a lack of resolve in defending national dignity. If public anger is not adequately placated, it could fuel anti-American sentiment or be exploited by opposition groups to criticize the government’s sovereignty and spine.

Prime Minister Hamza’s response is less about the content of Trump’s remarks and more about crisis management and strategic positioning. It is a deliberate, sober choice to protect Somalia’s critical interests by avoiding an unwinnable war of words, reflecting the complex diplomacy required of a nation navigating dependence on a capricious political partner. The effectiveness of this approach hinges on whether the Somali public accepts the rationale of strategic silence over the demand for vocal defiance.