Libya's political transition has been disrupted by armed non-state groups and threatened by the indecision and infighting of interim leaders. After an armed uprising ended the 40-plus-year rule of Muammar al Qadhafi in late 2011, interim authorities proved unable to form a stable government, address pressing security issues, reshape the country's public finances, or reconcile. Qadhafi left state institutions weak and deprived Libyans of experience in self-government, compounding stabilization challenges. At present, armed militia groups and locally organized political leaders remain the most powerful arbiters of public affairs. An atmosphere of persistent lawlessness has enabled militias, criminals, and Islamist terrorist groups to operate with impunity. Insecurity became prevalent in Libya following the 2011 conflict and deepened in 2014, driven by overlapping ideological, personal, financial, and transnational rivalries. Elections for legislative bodies and a constitutional drafting assembly held in 2012 and 2014 were administered transparently, but were marred by declining rates of participation, threats to candidates and voters, and zero-sum political competition. Issues of dispute have included governance, military command, national finances, and control of oil infrastructure. U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has emphasized the importance of a political solution for stability, and in March 2018, told Congress that, in light of prevailing turmoil, "the risk of a full-scale civil war remains real." In December 2015, some Libyan leaders endorsed the U.N.-brokered political agreement to create a Government of National Accord (GNA) to oversee the completion of the transition. GNA Prime Minister-designate Fayez al Sarraj and members of a GNA Presidency Council have attempted to implement the agreement and have competed for influence with political figures and armed forces based in eastern Libya, including leaders of the House of Representatives elected in 2014 and Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar's "Libyan National Army" (LNA) movement. The United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and the United States have recognized the GNA, but it has made little progress in overcoming disputes that have split the country politically and geographically. U.S. officials and other international actors have worked since 2014 to convince Libyan factions and their various external supporters that inclusive, representative government and negotiation are preferable to competing attempts to achieve dominance through force of arms. The U.N. Security Council has authorized financial and travel sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for threatening "the peace, stability or security of Libya," obstructing or undermining "the successful completion of its political transition," or supporting others who do so. A U.N. arms embargo is in place, and U.S. executive orders provide for sanctions against those undermining the transition. A U.N.-sponsored Action Plan launched in 2017 seeks to complete the transition in 2018, and Libyans and outsiders are debating its implementation, including the timing and sequencing of elections and a constitutional referendum. Past mediation efforts struggled to gain traction and outsiders have at times pursued their own agendas through ties with Libyan factions. Such competition by proxy raises the stakes of Libya's internal rivalries and complicates negotiations. The State Department suspended operations at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli in July 2014 and has delayed the reintroduction of U.S. personnel on a permanent basis in light of prevailing security conditions. U.S. diplomats engage with Libyans and monitor U.S. programs in Libya via the Libya External Office (LEO) at the U.S. Embassy in Tunisia. U.S. military strikes and advice supported some Libyan forces in Operation Odyssey Lightning, a 2016 campaign to eliminate and expel thousands of Islamic State (IS, aka ISIS/ISIL) supporters from the central coastal city of Sirte ( Table 1 ). Periodic U.S. strikes target IS members and other terrorists. U.S. officials judge that the threats posed by IS members and Al Qaeda have been degraded, but note that these groups remain dangerous and could resurge if political and security conditions deteriorate. Congress has conditionally appropriated funding for limited U.S. transition support and security assistance programs for Libya since 2011 and is considering the Trump Administration's request for additional assistance funds for FY2019. Congress continues to shape U.S. policy toward Libya through its oversight of existing diplomatic, foreign assistance, and defense activities and its consideration of new proposals and requests. Relative resource investment and a lack of physical presence in Libya arguably limit U.S. influence on the ground. The Administration and some Members of Congress are considering options for future engagement in Libya with two interrelated goals: supporting the emergence of a unified, capable national government, and reducing transnational threats posed by terrorists and other actors who have exploited Libya's instability. Pursuing these objectives simultaneously presents U.S. policymakers with complicated choices about relative priorities and the interrelated consequences of a range of options. Points of active discussion concern the nature and extent of U.S. partnership with different Libyans; the type, timing, and extent of U.S. assistance; the potential utility or costs of sanctions or other coercive measures; and the degree of cooperation or confrontation with other outside actors seeking to influence developments. These issues will likely shape U.S. policy debates about Libya for the foreseeable future. Libya's 2011 uprising and conflict brought Muammar al Qadhafi's four decades of authoritarian rule to an end. Competing factions and alliances—organized along local, regional, ideological, tribal, and personal lines—have jockeyed for influence and power in post-Qadhafi Libya, at times with the backing of rival foreign governments. According to Ghassan Salamé, the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General (SRSG) and head of the U.N. Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), Libyans are struggling to overcome a political "discourse of hatred" and "mutual exclusion" that has prevented the completion of the country's transition to date. This discourse is in part a legacy of Muammar al Qadhafi's decades of divisive rule and in part a product of the internal divisions, rampant insecurity, and zero-sum competition that have followed Qadhafi's downfall. Although some observers attribute Libya's divisive politics to simple binaries—"Islamist versus secular," "east versus west," "tribe versus tribe," "urban versus rural," "ethnic majority versus ethnic minority," or "old-regime officials versus newly empowered groups"—many of these factors and others often interact to shape local and national dynamics. Since 2011, a series of transitional governing arrangements have been endorsed in two national elections and a constitutional drafting assembly referendum, but rates of participation have declined over time. The net result has been a de facto accrual of transitional leaders with competing claims of legitimacy who have been locked in an inconclusive political struggle. After years of rivalry and conflict, many Libyan actors make claims to some degree of political legitimacy and possess some means to assert themselves by force, but none have consolidated enough political support or military force to provide credible leadership or durable security on a national scale. Sustained national civil war has been avoided, but violent clashes have occurred in many areas, and the threat of wider conflict persists. In this context, key post-Qadhafi political issues for Libyans have included the relative powers and roles of local, regional, and national government; the weakness of national government institutions and security forces; the role of Islam in political and social life; the involvement in politics and security of former regime officials; and the proper management of the country's large energy reserves, related infrastructure, and associated revenues. Factors that have shaped the relative degree of conflict, mutual accommodation, and reconciliation among Libyan factions since 2014 include the relative ability of numerous factions to muster sufficient force or legitimacy to assert dominance over each other; the inability of rival claimants to gain exclusive access to government funds controlled by the Central Bank or sovereign assets held overseas; the U.N. arms embargo and the potential widening of U.N. sanctions; and the threats posed to Libyans by extremist groups, including the Islamic State. Among the range of external actors seeking to shape developments in Libya, the United States has at times acted unilaterally and directly to protect its national security interests. Other countries have done the same. At the same time, the United States and other external parties have expressed support for multilateral initiatives to encourage compromise and consensus in support of Libya's transition. Some foreign observers have praised the role of the United Nations and other third parties in promoting national reconciliation, but have argued that continuous efforts are needed to engage all Libyan actors with influence or direct control over security, natural resources, infrastructure, and sources of revenue if stability is to be achieved. Various Libyans have at times accused the U.N. and other third parties of unwarranted interference in Libya's domestic affairs, particularly when they perceive outside interventions to undercut their interests or serve those of their rivals. For the United States and other outsiders, key issues related to post-Qadhafi Libya have included transnational terrorist and criminal threats emanating from Libya; the security and continued export of Libyan oil and natural gas; Libya's role as a transit country for Europe-bound refugees and migrants; the security of weapons stockpiles and unconventional weapons materials; and the country's orientation in various region-wide political competitions. For a more detailed description of Libya's history and political evolution, see ‎ Appendix A . For a description of select Libyan political actors, see Appendix D .