Photo illustration by Ezinne Osueke / THE REPUBLIC. Source Ref: Donald Trump / Gage Skidmore. Norman B. Leventhal Map Center / FLICKR.
THE MINISTRY OF WORLD AFFAIRS
Africa’s Opportunity in the Trumpian Age of American Transactionalism
Photo illustration by Ezinne Osueke / THE REPUBLIC. Source Ref: Donald Trump / Gage Skidmore. Norman B. Leventhal Map Center / FLICKR.
THE MINISTRY OF WORLD AFFAIRS
Africa’s Opportunity in the Trumpian Age of American Transactionalism
As the dust settles following Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, Africa finds itself navigating an increasingly convoluted and complex relationship with the United States. The early months of Trump’s second administration have already demonstrated significant policy shifts affecting the continent, from aid suspensions to multilateral withdrawals. Understanding these developments requires examination of the historical foundations of Africa–US relations, the legacies of previous administrations, and the emerging contours of Trump’s renewed approach to the continent.
HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS: THE UNITED STATES’ COMPLEX AFRICAN LEGACY
The relationship between Africa and the United States has deep historical roots. Following the American Civil War (1861–1865), African Americans played noteworthy roles in US military through the Buffalo Soldiers regiments formed in 1866. American Plains Indians who fought against these soldiers referred to the Black cavalry troops as ‘buffalo soldiers’ because of their dark, curly hair, which resembled a buffalo’s coat, and because of their fierce fighting nature. These regiments not only served in military campaigns but also became some of the first caretakers of America’s national parks, demonstrating early Black American contributions to both national security and environmental conservation.
Perhaps the most direct early American involvement in Africa came through the establishment of Liberia. In 1847, a group of eleven signatories declared Liberia an independent nation after American colonization societies had sent freed slaves to settle there. The United States maintained what historians describe as a ‘moral protectorate’ over Liberia, intervening when threats to Liberian sovereignty emerged, while declining formal colonial status. This relationship would become emblematic of America’s complex engagement with Africa—supportive yet often paternalistic.
American involvement in anti-colonial struggles has a similarly mixed history. A notable example is American writer Mark Twain’s campaign against King Leopold II of Belgium’s brutal colonization of the Congo. Twain wrote King Leopold’s Soliloquy in 1905, satirically portraying Leopold as guilty of atrocities, while the Belgian king’s agents countered with propaganda claiming Twain was spreading lies. Twain represented an American voice against European colonialism, though official US policy was often more circumspect regarding European colonization.
In more recent history, the United States played a crucial role in South Sudan’s emergence as an independent nation by providing diplomatic support and humanitarian aid. It helped establish the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which facilitated the 2011 referendum for self-determination. Through bipartisan efforts and over $10 billion in aid, the US contributed to South Sudan’s path to independence. The Barack Obama administration officially recognized South Sudan on its Independence Day on 9 July 2011. Unfortunately, this intervention yielded mixed results, as South Sudan descended into civil war shortly after independence, despite American diplomatic efforts and financial support.
INTERSECTING ENGAGEMENTS: TERRORISM, INTERVENTION AND GEOPOLITICS
Africa–US relations have frequently been marked by security concerns and military interventions with complicated outcomes. The 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, later linked to Al-Qaeda, killed more than 200 people and wounded over 4,000. These attacks signified emerging terrorist threats that would increasingly shape US policy towards Africa, particularly after the terrorist attack in the US on 11 September 2001.
Even more consequential was the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia, known as the ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident, where Somali forces shot down three US helicopters during an operation to capture militia leaders.
This catastrophic event resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers and hundreds of Somalis, profoundly influencing subsequent US military engagement in Africa by making administrations more cautious about direct intervention. When President Bill Clinton took office, his administration exhibited reluctance to engage deeply in African conflicts, partly due to this experience, even when evidence of genocide emerged in Rwanda in 1994.
The 2011 NATO-backed intervention in Libya stands as another pivotal moment. The US led from behind during this operation, which overthrew dictator Muammar Gaddafi. By almost any measure, Libya’s experience following the armed uprising has been profoundly troubling. Libyans are poorer, in greater peril and experience as much or more political repression in parts of the country compared to Gaddafi’s rule. The country remains divided politically and in a state of festering civil war, serving as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of regime change operations in Africa.
During the Cold War, US policy towards Africa was heavily influenced by anti-communist ideology. In South Africa, the United States often maintained cordial relations with the apartheid government, viewing it as an anti-communist ally. Economic ties played a significant role, with American exports to and investments in South Africa increasing from the 1950s to the 1980s. This pragmatic but morally compromised approach drew criticism from anti-apartheid leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who condemned the Ronald Reagan administration’s ‘constructive engagement’ policy as ‘immoral, evil and totally un-Christian.’
shop the republic
shop the republic
PRESIDENTIAL APPROACHES: FROM BUSH TO BIDEN
Successive US administrations have brought varying emphases to their respective Africa policies. The George W. Bush administration (2001–2009) launched landmark health initiatives that significantly impacted outcomes on the continent. In 2003, Bush established the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Bush’s presidency also saw the establishment of the President’s Malaria Initiative in 2005, forming part of a comprehensive approach to addressing major health challenges by combating malaria in 15 of the hardest-hit African countries. Despite these accomplishments, the Bush administration’s security policies in Africa were driven by two key factors: diversifying oil supplies away from the Middle East and preventing terrorist organizations from establishing themselves in African states with significant Muslim populations. This securitization-of-Africa policy generated suspicion among many African leaders who saw echoes of colonial intervention in America’s counterterrorism operations.
The Obama administration (2009–2017) sought to build on Bush’s health initiatives, while placing greater emphasis on economic growth and democratic governance. Obama’s approach included a focus on African agency and partnership, with significant diplomatic engagement through four high-level visits to the continent. However, criticism emerged that Obama was ‘insufficiently engaged’ with Africa despite his familial connections to the continent. The Joe Biden administration (2021–2025) later consolidated Obama’s approach with a strategy that sought to ‘affirm African agency’ and work towards a more ‘flexible regional architecture’, representing a paradigm shift from the preceding Trump administration after Obama. Biden’s approach emphasized revitalizing diplomatic ties, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken visiting the continent three times in just ten months—a frequency unprecedented for any US cabinet official.
shop the republic
TRUMP’S TWO TERMS: DISENGAGEMENT AND CONTROVERSY
During his first term (2017–2021), Trump showed relatively limited interest in Africa, and controversial statements and policies often characterized his approach. He referred to African nations in derogatory language, calling countries in Africa, as well as Haiti and El Salvador, ‘shithole’ states, according to multiple sources—a remark that left many Africans deeply unimpressed. While his administration did maintain initiatives like Prosper Africa, aimed at facilitating economic engagement between the US and African nations, Trump’s overall approach was perceived as overwhelmingly disengaged compared to his predecessors. Since its launch in 2019, Prosper Africa has helped close nearly 3,000 deals across 49 countries for a value of more than $120 billion. However, these economic engagements were often overshadowed by Trump’s rhetoric and apparent lack of personal interest in African affairs.
Trump’s return to the presidency in 2025 has quickly brought significant changes to US–Africa relations. Within days of taking office, he signed an executive order suspending PEPFAR funding to South Africa, citing concerns over the country’s land expropriation policy and its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. This move sparked diplomatic tensions and has raised concerns about the future of health initiatives that save millions of lives across Africa. Even more consequential is Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO). The US is by far the WHO’s largest state donor, contributing approximately 18 per cent of the agency’s total funding. This withdrawal threatens core health programmes in Africa, particularly those addressing HIV/AIDS, polio eradication and emergency response capacity. The US plays a critical role in providing assessed contributions (22 per cent of member fees) and voluntary contributions (14 per cent of donations), with the latter largely directed towards priority areas, including HIV/AIDS and polio eradication.
Central to current tensions is the dispute between Trump and South Africa over land reform. Trump accused South Africa of ‘confiscating land and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY,’ referring to the country’s recently adopted Expropriation Act. South African president, Cyril Ramaphosa, vehemently denied these claims, stating that ‘the South African government has not confiscated any land,’ and that the law simply facilitates public access to land to address disparities caused by apartheid. Trump responded by freezing aid to South Africa, a move the South African government condemned as based on ‘a campaign of misinformation and propaganda.’
The Trump administration also issued a broader 90-day suspension of all US foreign aid pending a review of ‘programmatic efficiencies’ to ensure disbursements are ‘aligned with the foreign policy of the president.’ Given that approximately one-third of US foreign assistance goes to Africa, this suspension could have wide-ranging implications for development projects, humanitarian assistance and security cooperation across the continent. The new Trump administration also imposed sweeping new tariffs on African imports, including a baseline ten per cent tariff for most African nations and sharply increased rates for some, such as a 50 per cent tariff on Lesotho—the highest for any country.
Trump went on to mock Lesotho in a speech to the US Congress, claiming that the US spent ‘eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of,’ drawing cheap laughter, but at the cost of deep offence to Lesotho’s government. He also justified the 50 per cent tariff by alleging Lesotho had a 99 per cent tariff on US goods, calling the move necessary for fairer trade. These tariffs effectively override the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), ending decades of preferential, duty-free access for African exports to the US and signalling a shift towards more protectionist, reciprocal trade policies.
shop the republic
shop the republic
CENTRING AFRICA AMID GEOPOLITICAL RIVALRIES
Trump’s renewed attention to Africa appears significantly motivated by geopolitical competition with China. This tired framing of Africa as a battleground in broader US–China rivalries nevertheless presents both opportunities and challenges for African nations. The Trump administration’s Prosper Africa initiative may receive renewed emphasis as a counterweight to China’s extensive economic engagement on the continent. In 2018, US national security advisor and ambassador, John R. Bolton, proposed motivating African leaders to choose ‘high-quality, transparent, inclusive and sustainable foreign investment projects, including those from the United States,’ in contrast to what they characterize as Chinese support for corrupt regimes. This competitive dynamic could potentially strengthen Africa’s bargaining position, allowing countries to negotiate better terms from both powers. However, it also risks reducing Africa to a proxy battleground in a new ‘Cold War’, with African development priorities subordinated to great power competition.
African reactions to Trump’s return have been mixed. Some, like Ghanaian lawyer Moses Foh-Amoaning, are optimistic about potentially enhanced economic partnerships and respect for ‘traditional values’. In contrast, others express scepticism based on Trump’s first-term record and recent policy decisions. African citizens in a Vox pop by the German radio DW have expressed support for Trump’s conservative positions on social issues like LGBTQ+ rights, suggesting that Trump’s cultural conservatism may resonate with socially conventional elements in many African societies, creating unusual alignments despite broader policy disagreements. However, African leaders and policy experts have expressed concern about the instability and transactional nature of Trump’s foreign policy. The freezing of aid to South Africa—a major regional power and historically important US partner—signals that ideological and political considerations may override traditional diplomatic relationships and development priorities.
NAVIGATING A NEW ERA
The future of Africa–US relations under Trump’s second term faces several key challenges but also some potential openings. First, Trump’s scepticism towards foreign aid and multilateral institutions threatens to undermine decades of bipartisan American support for development assistance. Programmes like PEPFAR, which have enjoyed strong congressional backing across party lines, may face uncertain futures if the executive branch seeks to redirect or reduce funding. Second, the emphasis on countering China could lead to more investment and attention to Africa, but risks treating African countries as pawns rather than partners. African leaders will need to adeptly navigate this competition to maximize benefits while maintaining sovereignty and policy independence.
Third, Trump’s approach to issues like land reform in South Africa signals potential tensions with African governments pursuing social and economic transformation. This could lead to decreased cooperation with key regional hegemons and diminish American influence in important policy areas. Finally, the US withdrawal from the WHO and potential reductions in health assistance could reverse significant progress made in addressing infectious diseases, maternal and child health, and strengthening the healthcare system. This comes at a particularly vulnerable time, as African health systems continue to recover from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite these challenges, opportunities exist for constructive engagement. Trump’s business background and transactional approach to foreign policy could potentially lead to increased trade and investment if African countries can demonstrate clear economic benefits for American businesses. The private sector focus of initiatives like Prosper Africa aligns with Trump’s preference for commercial rather than aid-based relationships. Additionally, security cooperation may continue or even expand in areas of mutual concern, particularly counterterrorism. African partners in the Sahel, East Africa and elsewhere facing terrorist threats may find continued support for security operations and military capacity building, though likely with increased expectations of reciprocity and burden-sharing.
Africa–US relations under Trump’s second term are entering a period of significant recalibration. The historical foundations of this relationship—from the Buffalo Soldiers to Liberia’s founding, from Cold War politics to post-9/11 security cooperation—provide important context for understanding current dynamics. The policy shifts already implemented in the early months of Trump’s return to office signal a more transactional, less multilateral and increasingly Sino-centred approach to the continent. This changing landscape requires strategic adaptation for African nations. Diversifying international partnerships, strengthening regional integration and clearly articulating African priorities and red lines will be essential. Africa’s growing economic importance, demographic dynamism and increasing diplomatic assertiveness provide leverage that previous generations of African leaders lacked when engaging with the United States.
As this new chapter in Africa–US relations unfolds, both sides will need to find areas of mutual interest amid policy differences. Opportunities for cooperation remain, whether in addressing security threats, expanding trade or confronting global challenges like climate change and pandemic diseases. The question for this complex and consequential relationship is whether African leaders can navigate Trump’s administration to move beyond historical and contemporary contradictions and forge partnerships that genuinely advance balanced prosperity and security⎈
BUY THE MAGAZINE AND/OR THE COVER
-
‘Make the World Burn Again’ by Edel Rodriguez by Edel Rodriguez
₦70,000.00 – ₦75,000.00 This product has multiple variants. The options may be chosen on the product page -
The Republic V9, N2 Who Dey Fear Donald Trump? / Africa In The Era Of Multipolarity
₦20,000.00
