Raleigh Report - May 2026

“Get your act together” ― Trump to Pope Leo 

Things are feeling very frayed, yes? From the United States to the Middle East, from the United Kingdom to Ukraine, there is tension in the air. 

I have been in Florida recently, and it is the perfect place to physically experience edgy geopolitical tension. Why, you might ask? Because the whole environment — the plants, the water, the air, the animals — seems to be screaming at people: "Get out. Don't live here. It isn't for humans" (note: no one is listening).  Every plant I see has thorns, the animals have scales, the air is thick and gray, the water is uncontrollable. And that barrage of silent screaming has me on high alert. Yet, as best said in the book “Postcards from the Edge,” at least here my insides match my outsides. 

The tension is real, and not just because we are in a state of high violence and suspended outcomes. It is also a recognition that we are not moving toward a known outcome/solution/state. I have been thinking a lot about why there is such dissension about how to handle these geopolitical challenges (and opportunities), and I think we must grapple with the public effects of corruption on conflict. By corruption, I mean the practices and perception of it, in small and large ways, across politics, the economy, and society. The daily corruptions that make people think that they are bearing the costs for decisions and benefits made and enjoyed by a small group, or that there are no consequences for those who can wield their power. And by conflict, I mean the violence that surrounds us here — not in far-off places. Massive changes in violence are coming, and these will require support for security and state violence, recruitment into security services, commitment to short and long-term political goals, and shared agreement about which conflict is valid and which isn’t. 

The public’s attitude and position on violence and conflict is hardly the primary consequence of corruption — but it is one outcome, and since you are here to think about conflict, join in.  

My central thesis is this: People will accept conflict and its costs when they believe their sacrifice matters — when they can see that their support is essential, and that the benefits, now or in the future, are real. They accept it when they know national security is a shared goal worthy of a person’s effort and support. But when citizens can no longer connect the decisions of their leaders to any tangible benefit for their country, and the costs keep rising, that resolve collapses. Faith in political leadership erodes. And when people believe their society or political system is in desperate need of change — yet nothing changes — apathy and anger grow, rather than action. That is when the social fabric begins to fray.

The corruptions that people are forced to live with have now stripped away their agency. And people who have lost their agency go looking for it. Extreme politics offers that promise. But extreme politics never restores cooperation; it replaces it with power plays — internal and external — and, increasingly, with violence.

My broader worry is that something fundamental has shifted in how our societies function, and that shift has left us dangerously unprepared for what is coming. As global power realigns, our living standards will decline, and we will discover that our security institutions cannot restore order where it breaks down. The quality of our political ideas — and those who represent them and us — will continue to deteriorate. No one is coming to fix it. Those who said they would have failed, and will fail again.

We will lose autonomy. We will become more attuned to our differences over what holds us together. We isolate, fragment, and radicalize.

The internal changes are already visible in the US and the UK. I chose these two because I know them, but also because they are illustrative opening acts. What follows is a decline in international influence, stability, and cooperation that these countries have neither the cohesion nor the credibility to arrest. Powerful states will continue to wage wars with no endpoint and no coherent rationale, while presiding over increasingly desperate conditions at home. Less powerful states will slide into irrelevance, and many will carry on as though irrelevance were a principled choice. We are going to need extraordinary resilience to get through what lies ahead, and we don’t have it. 

Some of this can be stopped — especially the domestic fraying. It can be stopped by enforcing the rule of law. You might recall this quaint concept: That societies have rules, that everyone is subject to them, and that when those rules are broken, the consequences are applied fairly and transparently. Those who enforce the law must do so without prejudice, must do so thoroughly, and must themselves be bound by it.

Selective acknowledgment of the rules — and selective enforcement — are now commonplace forms of corruption. It is corrupting when the application of law and its consequences depend on identity or partisanship. So too is the mass herd mentality cultivated online, where debased ideas gain momentum unchecked: rising antisemitism, radicalization, extreme misogyny. These are not new hatreds. They are ancient poisons finding new delivery systems. And because they spread through platforms that no institution governs, the people they harm have no recourse and no arbiter. 

But this goes beyond weak governance and bad appointment decisions. When the media platforms people who dress up theft as protest or their outrageous bigotry as “just asking questions,” passing off their nonsense selective morality as commentary worth hearing, it confirms what millions already suspect: That we are captive audiences for the ramblings of elite idiots repackaged as thought. On other platforms, the American right screams like lunatics at anyone who differs from them. The American left is making a mess of itself by policing thoughts. The British far left is inverting every rule about living in a society that I can think of. And all of them, at their fringes, celebrate acts of killing — whether by a state agent or a disturbed activist on the street.

To what end? To no end. There is no point. We are watching the links between citizens — and between citizens and those who govern them — dissolve. And once enough people conclude that the rules don't apply, that their basest political instincts excuse them, and that everyone else is acting the same way, there is nothing left to hold back the tide of anarchy.

How does this link to violence? Let me count the ways. Those with tremendous power have unleashed chaos agents upon us, and very few in power are taking their responsibility seriously. How far are we from attacks designed to maximize Polymarket outcomes? Polymarket's existence is itself a form of corruption. How many ways can people be pummeled with allowed scams?

How often have favored “untouchable” groups surged in violence while society was distracted, facing no consequence for their opportunism? How many vulnerable people were radicalized online before their public shootings? How many violent acts have been optimized using AI? How often have local and national governments ducked uncomfortable choices about radicalization, extremism, immigration, and the limits of inclusion, until the consequences played out as public murders? 

This is what corrodes a society: the degradation of what people believe is worth fighting for, what sacrifices they'll make, and who they'll support. What can we do? Be the change you want to see in the world. You don't have much power, but you do have some.

Notes and notions

No camel today, instead a rat. But nothing beats this crocodile.

I know most of these women will be living in a house in 10 years and likely married, but they might dislike their husbands. If we take the male radicalization and apathy issue seriously, we need to also take seriously how women are being affected: Even if the solutions are different, they are not opposites (growth helps everyone). These ladies make excellent points. 

I have said a million times that I need a “wife," but my husband just won't agree to take on the management of our lives. Applications open. 

It really takes a special something and someone to be more despised than Keir Starmer, but Polanski has managed it.

Ireland sent out its military to deal with fuel protesters. For the love of Christ, you might recall that Irish people thought that when Trump suggested this course of action on social justice protests… 

So, Irish people are OBSESSED with how other Irish people sound because we are always asking, “Have you lost the run of yourself with your American/British (those are the only ones we care about) accent?” Irish person and Prime Minister Starmer’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney (who has my everlasting fandom, I don't care what people say), has never publicly spoken until last week, despite being the person who revolutionized (very briefly) the UK Labour Party (a thankless bloody task organizing a literal shower of bastards). Anyway, he spoke, and it was what we all sound like once we leave. Maybe he went to elocution lessons. But a shout out for Emily Thornberry's voice, which is class. Otherwise, these hearings are a complete and utter waste of time, but gives me more opportunity to read Patrick Maguire, who is super good.  

ACLED webinars

Webinar | Connected insurgencies: The global evolution of jihadist groups

Join ACLED on 14 April 2 p.m. CET | 1 p.m. London for a webinar on the overlapping patterns of jihadist movements across Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. We will examine common trends in how groups operate and assess how developments in one region resonate far beyond their immediate context to provide a comparative look at how these networks evolve, what shared patterns are emerging, and what this means for future security risks and policy responses. Register to attend now.  

Select ACLED in the media!

• I spoke to The New Arab about the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
• Al Jazeera has been picking the brains of our researchers and senior analysts this past month. They spoke to Bassel Doueik about Israeli strikes in Lebanon; Héni Nsaibia about spiraling violence in Mali; and Witold Stupnicki about Ukrainian attacks on oil refineries in Russia. They also used ACLED data in articles about fatalities in Lebanon, JNIM operations in Mali, attacks on civilians in Nigeria, and three years of war in Sudan.
• Bassel has also spoken to The Wall Street Journal, BBC News,  and CBC News.
• Héni was furthermore quoted in this Defence Web article about Boko Haram and Islamic State West African Province attacks on military bases in Nigeria, a Bloomberg article on the election in Benin, and this Human Rights Watch report on war crimes and crimes against humanity in Burkina Faso.
• The Economist used ACLED data in its article The game theory behind violating ceasefires.
• Jalale Getachew Birru shared her insights with Deutsche Welle in an article on the war in Sudan. 
• Lastly, don’t miss Ladd Serwat’s comments on political violence in Nigeria in the New York Times, their reference to ACLED in this article about Myanmar, or their use of ACLED data in their maps for an article on the war in the Middle East.