Is it a new deal, or a calculated retreat? What the US is up to in Africa now

Despite moves to scale back, Africa still holds a prominent place in the US security strategy

At the end of last year, the administration of US President Donald Trump released a revised version of the National Security Strategy – its first important strategic document. It reflects the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities, approach to global governance and international security, as well as views regarding the current world order.

In addition to reaffirming Trump’s position regarding Europe, Latin America, and Asia, a considerable part of the strategy focuses on regions that the Trump administration has commented less on, making it harder for external observers to assess the position of the White House. One such region, which Trump’s stance was not particularly clear on, was Africa.

Will Washington continue to maintain its usual “missionary” role on the African continent, or will its strategy shift?

Despite moves to scale back cooperation (including imposing tariffs, visa restrictions, shutting down USAID, and ultimately “expelling” South Africa from the G20), Africa still holds a prominent place in the National Security Strategy. We may conclude that the US aims to achieve roughly the same goals as before, but with significantly less expenditure.

Read more

The section on Africa begins with criticism. “For far too long, American policy in Africa has focused on providing, and later on spreading, liberal ideology,” it states. While the main themes remain largely unchanged, the text has become less detailed. References to specific countries and organizations have disappeared, along with descriptions of the broader global context.

Similar to former US President Joe Biden’s 2022 strategy, the current document states that the US intends to facilitate conflict resolution (albeit this time without directly linking democracy and peacekeeping). Crisis points identified include the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, Sudan, and the Ethiopia-Eritrea-Somalia 'triangle'. In terms of security, the US plans to monitor issues related to Islamist groups – but importantly, “while avoiding any long-term American presence or commitments.”

The section on security no longer includes mentions of countering Russia. It seems that key government programs aimed at economic cooperation with Africa will remain in place but in a modified form. Specifically, there is an intention to amend approaches to investment and aid, with AGOA mentioned separately.

America’s “transactional” approach, focused on trade and investment, prioritizes partnerships with “competent” and “reliable” nations. In other words, potential partners will have to compete with each other; notably, very few countries now stand out as having intrinsic value for the US, regardless of how relations evolve (which marks a departure from previous practices).

The number of priority sectors listed in the strategy has also decreased: healthcare, the digital economy, food security, and climate initiatives have been completely omitted. Instead, the Trump administration emphasizes two sectors “with prospects for a good return on investment”: energy and critical mineral extraction. America’s support of technologies in nuclear energy, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is expected to “help [the US] in the competition for critical minerals and other resources.”

Read more

The new US National Security Strategy for Africa is likely to serve as a foundation for other policy documents yet to be developed by the Trump administration. This includes a separate US strategy for Africa, which is typically released by the presidential administration about a year or two after the president assumes office. The delay is due to the fact that African issues rarely take precedence at the start of a president’s term, when it’s more important to release other strategic documents and finalize appointments.

During Trump’s first term, a written strategy for Africa was never released; then-National Security Advisor John Bolton merely presented key points of the strategy at an event hosted by a US think tank. However, even if a new strategy is formally written or outlined, its main themes are likely to mirror those of the current strategy.

Overall, the content of the strategy reflects ongoing discussions among both Democrats and Republicans regarding the effectiveness of US policy in Africa and how it should adapt to global changes. Trump’s approach to Africa appears to solidify trends that have gradually become mainstream in Washington, and marks the end of an era of active US regional policy that began under former US President George W. Bush in the early 2000s. During that time, significant efforts were made to conceptualize US-Africa relations and rethink priorities. Initiatives included the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allowed duty-free access for African energy resources to the American market; the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and various other initiatives that remained staples of Washington’s policy in Africa regardless of the presidential administration. At about the same time, the US came to prioritize several African nations (such as Kenya, Morocco, Egypt, and several others).

However, by the mid-2010s, as Washington’s role in global politics evolved, with the US becoming an energy exporter and relations with Beijing deteriorating, American policy toward Africa began to shift. The approach became increasingly transactional. The US adopted a strategy of gradually reducing its footprint: its military presence decreased, and American companies limited their investments in African economies. Cooperation primarily focused on trade, the export of technology and services, and humanitarian assistance, which also largely expanded the export of US goods. For instance, food aid sought to open up markets for American agricultural products, while healthcare programs fostered collaboration and trade between the US and African nations in medical supplies.

Read more

Apparently, today Washington has stepped back from a proactive or “missionary” role in Africa; this contrasts sharply with the approach adopted by former presidential administrations and even Trump himself during his first term.

However, it remains to be seen what role the National Security Strategy will play in organizing Washington’s efforts in Africa. The first year of Trump’s presidency revealed that he has little personal interest in the continent. However, attention to the region has largely been shaped by various lobbying groups. This often leads to inconsistent actions. For example, Trump’s Advisor on African Affairs Massad Boulos met with Nigeria’s president and dismissed claims of “attacks on Christians”; however, just a month later, the Pentagon launched strikes against those who supposedly committed “genocide against Christians.”

READ MORE: Africa expert decodes Trump’s Nigeria rhetoric

Many actors have interests in Africa, including the Pentagon, radical conservatives, and American corporations like Exxon, Chevron, Google, and Microsoft that have invested there, as well as investment funds, banks, and organizations involved in lobbying the interests of individual African countries or political factions. Depending on who gains access to Trump, the approach toward Africa can shift dramatically at the official level. Additionally, Africa has become a battleground for competition between China and the US in the field of technology; this means that US interest in the region is also influenced by indirect factors.

Trump is also interested in promoting his peacekeeping agenda – whether directly (such as in the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda) or not. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has also played an important role in certain cases. But generally, Trump isn’t excessively interested in Africa, as evidenced by his Board of Peace, which notably excluded countries from sub-Saharan Africa from its membership.

Read more

In any case, this strategy should not be interpreted as a sign that the US plans to “withdraw” from Africa. Rather, it suggests an optimization of presence based on the principle of “selling as much as possible while spending as little as possible.” This reflects a shift away from certain “missionary” and humanitarian elements toward a more pragmatic approach.

On the other hand, the absence of confrontational rhetoric – at least when it comes to strategic planning documents – could streamline American policy in the region and potentially help to stabilize Africa over time. However, the experience of the past year indicates that the Trump administration’s declarations, statements, and intentions often fail to withstand the test of time, get bogged down in bureaucracy, and ultimately diverge from reality.