On August 30, representatives of Libya’s rival political and security blocs signed a UN-facilitated agreement aimed at resolving disputes over the rules and constitutional basis for national elections that have blocked a vote since 2021. The agreement now faces two deadlines in quick succession: Libya’s House of Representatives (HOR) and High State Council (HSC) have until the end of September to endorse the agreement. One month later, the mandate of the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) expires.

US Senior Advisor Massad Boulos and other international partners quickly welcomed the UN agreement and urged Libyan institutions to implement it. The United States has insisted that its bilateral diplomacy supports UNSMIL, telling the Security Council in August that its “efforts are fully complementary to UNSMIL’s roadmap.” The next two months will test that claim.

Declared support for UN-facilitated political processes has been among the most consistent features of international policy toward Libya over the past decade. Aligning bilateral diplomacy behind those processes has proven more difficult. Over the past year, US bilateral engagements with Libyan stakeholders in the east and west have included support for a unified national budget, joint training aimed at promoting military unification, and mediation between the Dbeibah and Haftar factions over power-sharing arrangements. These efforts have drawn skepticism, including concerns that direct talks with rival power centers would undermine incentives to compromise through the UN-led process.

US action before the end of October could help move the agreement toward implementation and give UNSMIL the political backing it needs to carry out the agreement and advance toward national elections.

The 4+4 agreement

Libya has not held national elections since 2014. A presidential and parliamentary vote planned for December 2021 collapsed amid disputes over the constitutional basis for the elections, who could run for office, and whether the two elections would be held together.

The agreement emerged from what UNSMIL calls the Smaller Convening, or 4+4, which brought together two representatives from the Government of National Unity (GNU), Khalifa Haftar’s General Command, the HOR, and the HSC. Talks began in Rome on April 29 and continued through seven rounds in Tunisia before the parties signed the agreement in Tripoli on August 30.

The agreement addresses the first two milestones of UNSMIL’s roadmap, reconstituting the board of the High National Elections Commission (HNEC) and resolving outstanding disputes over the legal and constitutional framework for elections. It uses Libya’s existing electoral laws as a basis while amending several disputed provisions. Military personnel would be permitted to vote and run for president, while dual nationals could stand provided that a successful candidate renounces any non-Libyan nationality before taking the constitutional oath. The agreement also separates presidential and parliamentary results and removes the requirement for a runoff if a presidential candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote.

The agreement commits the parties to holding presidential and parliamentary elections within twenty-four months under a single executive authority and unified national institutions. It does not, however, provide a mechanism for forming that unified authority. The HOR and HSC have one month left to approve the agreement. If they do not, the signatories commit to pursuing its adoption through a broadly representative national mechanism and seeking international backing through the UN Security Council.

Initial reactions highlight the challenge ahead. Prime Minister Abdulhamid Dbeibah welcomed the agreement as an important step toward ending Libya’s transitional phases and moving toward elections, while Haftar similarly backed its outcome. HOR Speaker Aguila Saleh conditioned his support on the agreement’s consistency with Libya’s existing constitutional and legal framework, including the 2015 Libyan Political Agreement. HSC President Mohammed Takala declined to attend the signing and, two days later, the HSC warned against “the imposition of arrangements from outside Libya’s institutional framework.” Presidential Council President Mohammed Menfi, who had criticized the talks for their secrecy and foreign involvement, also issued a decree the same day naming a competing HNEC board.

The next two months

Neither the HOR nor the HSC has to reject the 4+4 agreement outright to derail the process before the end-of-September deadline laid out in the UN agreement. Either could decline to convene, fail to reach quorum, refer the text for further consideration, or condition its endorsement in ways that reopen issues the 4+4 sought to settle. Libya has seen similar tactics before. The 2015 Libyan Political Agreement required the HOR to endorse the Government of National Accord. Sessions in Tobruk were repeatedly blocked, and in August 2016 the chamber delivered a vote of no confidence. In April 2024, then-UN special envoy Abdoulaye Bathily blamed Libya’s political impasse in part on leaders seeking to maintain the status quo through “delaying tactics and maneuvers.”

The second deadline comes on October 31, when UNSMIL’s current mandate expires. A twelve-month renewal would keep the mission operating, but duration alone would not make the renewed mandate fit for purpose. The agreement assigns UNSMIL specific work. Under Article 6, the mission is to help build the follow-up framework; under Article 4, to help design an alternative if elections prove impossible; and under Article 7, to convene the parties when they disagree. UNSMIL already has the authority to do this work, since mediation and good offices are its core functions. What it lacks is explicit Security Council backing for this particular agreement and reporting that tracks its implementation.

The timing connects the two deadlines. If the HOR and HSC fail to endorse the agreement, its fallback provisions could push the issue to the Security Council just as its members begin negotiating UNSMIL’s next mandate.

Three moves Washington should make now

The US mission in New York, the Treasury Department, and the State Department can take three steps to turn Washington’s stated support into demonstrated alignment with the UN-led process:

1. Build consensus among international partners: As the deadline for the HOR and HSC to endorse the agreement approaches, attention will shift to New York for the UN General Assembly’s high-level week. The United States has convened a Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) on Libya on the margins of the General Assembly in each of the past two years. The SOM brings together key European and regional partners to build consensus around international policy toward Libya.

   Countries that participated in the 2025 SOM included Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The State Department should organize the SOM again this year but set the bar higher. Instead of another statement from the chair, Washington should seek a joint statement from participants endorsing the 4+4 agreement and committing participants to support its implementation. A common position from these governments would carry weight with Libyan stakeholders across the divide.

2. Secure a mandate that backs implementation: The US mission in New York should work with the United Kingdom, the penholder on Libya, and other Security Council members to ensure that the October renewal endorses the roadmap and the agreement rather than simply welcoming them. Last October, Council members softened the language on the UN’s new Libya roadmap from “endorses” to “welcomes.” The renewal should also spell out what the agreement asks of UNSMIL, including developing the follow-up framework and convening the parties when they disagree. It should require the secretary-general to report on progress against the deadlines the parties set for themselves, so that a missed milestone appears in the record rather than being absorbed into a narrative about continued divisions.
3. Prepare targeted sanctions: A 2016 executive order permits the designation of individuals responsible for actions or policies that “obstruct, undermine, delay, or impede” Libya’s political transition, and President Donald Trump continued the national emergency underpinning that authority in February 2026. There is precedent: In 2016 the United States and the European Union each designated Libyan officials for obstructing a previous UN-brokered agreement. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control should work with the State Department to decide now what conduct would constitute sanctionable obstruction and prepare designation packages accordingly so that Washington can act in weeks rather than months.

The 4+4 agreement does not guarantee that Libya will hold national elections, nor does it erase concerns about Washington’s bilateral diplomacy over the past year. It does, however, create an opportunity for Washington’s bilateral diplomacy and UNSMIL’s roadmap to reinforce one another rather than compete. Washington says its efforts are “fully complementary” to the UN process. By the end of October, it should be clear whether those are simply words of support or something more.

Frank Talbot is a nonresident senior fellow with the North Africa Program at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs. Previously, he served in the Department of State supporting stabilization initiatives in the Middle East and North Africa.

Further reading

Image: August 18, 2026, New York, New York, United States: Hanna Serwaa Tetteh, special representative of the secretary-general for Libya and head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), appears on screen as she briefs the UN Security Council on the situation in Libya. Tetteh addressed the UN-facilitated political roadmap towards elections and unified institutions, as well as recent political, economic, security, humanitarian and climate-related developments. (Credit Image: © Bianca Otero/ZUMA Press Wire)

COLUMBUS – Mississippi University for Women is ranked No. 14 in the south and No. 185 nationally, according to Washington Monthly’s 2026 Best Colleges for Your Tuition (and Tax) Dollars. Released Aug. 31, the ranking placed The W as the highest-ranked public or private university in Mississippi.

“Washington Monthly’s ranking joins Money and Time in recognizing The W as the top public or private university in Mississippi,” said Scott Tollison, interim university president. “The regularity with which we earn these distinctions from major publications validates what we see every day: a tuition or tax dollar spent at The W is the best higher education investment in Mississippi.”

The ranking has four equally weighted portions: access, affordability, outcomes and community and national service. The top-ranked colleges needed to be excellent across the full spectrum of measures, rather than excelling in just one measure, according to Washington Monthly.

“To do well on our ranking, colleges must recruit students of modest means without overcharging them on tuition or loading them with too much debt, then help them graduate with degrees that bring in decent incomes,” Washington Monthly said on its website.

Outcomes were assessed using four measures, one of which was a graduation performance measure that considered the percentage of Pell and student loan recipients, admit rate, makeup of the student body, number of students, and whether a college is primarily residential. In this performance metric, The W ranked No. 3 in the south and No. 25 nationally.

To establish the set of colleges included in the 2026 Best Colleges for Your Tuition (and Tax) Dollars rankings, Washington Monthly evaluated colleges across the country. The publication started with 1,950 colleges in the 50 states and Washington, D.C., listed in the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System that awarded more bachelor’s degrees than associate’s degrees, participated in federal financial aid programs, offered classes and had not announced an impending closure or suspension as of June 30, 2026.

Please visit washingtonmonthly.com for the ranking in its entirety.

PULLMAN – Have your pick at what could be the biggest problem Washington State faced on offense in Sunday’s Apple Cup loss to Washington.

Could it be the Cougars’ turnover problem? Sure, they lost three. What about their running game? Possibly, they got only 48 yards from their running backs combined. How about their inefficiency in the kicking game? That’s valid too – kicker Jack Stevens misfired on two field goals, including one that was moved back five yards following a pre-snap penalty.

The one that looms perhaps the largest, though, is this: WSU went 0-for-11 on third down. Good luck winning many games with that. In fact, it bothered quarterback Caden Pinnick so much that in a postgame news conference, he cut himself off from an answer on a different topic to say this: “I’m just thinking about the 0-for-11 right now.”

That made things nearly impossible for the Cougars’ offense, even when they climbed back into the game with two scores in the fourth quarter: A rushing touchdown from Pinnick and a field goal from Stevens, both of which pulled the Cougs to within one score.

But here’s the interesting rub about that number: Rough as WSU’s day on third down was, the Cougars put themselves in some tough situations thanks to their first- and second-down plays. That set up several challenging third down looks, including 2 third-and-longs and 3 third-and-shorts. WSU’s average yards-to-go on third down was about seven, which is far from an easy situation, especially in a raucous Husky Stadium.

After the game, WSU coach Kirby Moore seemed to be aware of the problem, possibly without seeing the numbers first: “You gotta go back to first and second down first, and we gotta be more efficient,” Moore said. “We gotta create more explosives there on first and second down. And then third and long and XL, they’ve got a really good front, and sometimes that front was getting there a little bit quicker than we wanted it to. So that’s something we gotta look at.”

Here are a few numbers that illustrate the point. On first down, the Cougars mostly excelled, averaging seven yards per play. They ran 12 rushes for a total of 70 yards, which is an average rush of 5.8 yards. Pinnick also completed 10 of 12 passes on first down for 107 yards, an average of 10.7 yards per play.

But the Cougars also got behind the chains on a couple occasions. In one scenario, left guard Kyle Martin was called for a false start, underscoring his forgettable first start at the college level. And on another first down, WSU lost two yards, resulting in a second-and-12. That’s no way to take down a Husky defense that’s already on track to live up to its billing as one of the country’s best units this fall.

For WSU, the bigger problem came on second down. The Cougars rushed seven times for a total of 17 yards, an average of 2.4 yards. That’s about a 1.5-yard difference from their output on first down, largely explained by their insistence on running up the middle, which often went nowhere. That’s one adjustment that WSU offensive coordinator Matt Miller would be wise to make headed into Saturday’s game at Kansas State.

Here are Pinnick’s numbers on second down: 5-for-10 passing for 30 yards and one interception, which came on a dropped pass in the fourth quarter. Pinnick also took one sack on second down, which resulted in a four-yard loss.

Overall, WSU’s second-down plays went for an average of 2.4 yards.

“We gotta be more efficient and explosive on first and second down, and create more manageable third downs,” Moore said. “Third-and-seven plus against anyone in college football, it’s gonna be difficult. The protection’s gotta hold up. Obviously, routes downfield. The defense usually has an advantage in those situations, so we have to do a better job on first and second down.”

It’s no secret that the Cougs slogged through a bleak third-down effort, and while they could have remedied that problem with better efficiency on first and second down, third downs are a part of the game. For the game, they averaged a shade under 2 yards per play on third down.

They also took two sacks on third down. WSU’s offensive line gave up 13 quarterback pressures, according to Pro Football Focus, four apiece from Martin and right tackle Jonny Lester, plus three from right guard Nick Bakken and two from center Noah Dunham. The Cougars likely won’t play a better defense than the Huskies’ this season, but those numbers must improve for their offense to follow suit.

At the same time, though, the bigger problem in the Cougars’ third-down scenarios actually seems to be the first- and second-down scenarios that precede them. Look for Moore and Miller to make adjustments accordingly before they embark on their second straight Power 4 tilt to open the season.