Thread by @Seharrison7

Since there might be a 5th (!) West African #coup developing, below is a thread to help address this question: Why is the U.S. Department of State (State) slow to call a spade a spade/a coup a coup?

It's because of Section 7008, "coups d'etat," a provision in the annual Department of State appropriations act (the law that Congress passes to appropriate funding to State). Some (hopefully) helpful notes on Section 7008:

When there is word of a coup in a country receiving U.S. assistance, State lawyers analyze the facts under Sec. 7008. Sec. 7008 restricts certain foreign assistance to a gov that has been "duly elected" & overthrown by the mil, or the mil played a decisive role in the ousting.

Thankfully, some critical assistance--like assistance to promote democracy, humanitarian assistance, and aid fully implemented by NGOs--is exempted. Not surprisingly, some funds related to anti-terrorism, anti-crime, and counter-narcotics also have an exemption.

As for DoD: It does NOT have an equivalent law to that of Sec. 7008. Funding for Title 10 (aka money for DoD) is not *directly* restricted when a coup occurs, but some significant security cooperation authorities are *indirectly* restricted by Sec. 7008.

Not all facts will merit application of the law, but could still be a "coup" in the plain meaning of the term. Still, State lawyers advise against using the word "coup" in U.S. Government statements unless there is a determination that Section 7008 applies.

Just guessing here, but let's take #Sudan for example. State has not called what happened last fall a "coup." This is likely bc the civ leadership in place was not actually "duly elected," so Sec. 7008 wouldn't apply, and thus it would not be considered a "coup" by the lawyers.

SIDE NOTE: Section 7008 restrictions already applied in #Sudan prior to Oct. 2021 (since 1989).

Sometimes, State will choose to suspend assistance *consistent* with the Section 7008 (Honduras 2009 and Niger 2010), even if they determine Section 7008 does not directly apply.

How to remove Section 7008 restrictions? The country in question would need a democratically elected government in place and the Secretary of State would have to certify that to Congress.

This is not just about lawyers being risk-averse. U.S. policymakers perceive significant ramifications when Section 7008 applies. This is because U.S. foreign policy is *heavily reliant* on security assistance and security cooperation to develop bilateral relationships.

U.S. officials in bureaus, embassies, combatant commands, the White House, etc. generally do not want assistance cut off from a partner country. They often view it as damaging the relationship and decreasing U.S. influence in a time of tense competition with states like China.

Sensitivity to limiting security assistance also applies in other contexts where laws become obstacles to granting U.S. money, training, or equipment to foreign security forces. More to follow on that.