Home NewsInternational How Pres. TRUMP’s Policies Will Affect AFRICA

How Pres. TRUMP’s Policies Will Affect AFRICA

by City People
  • Prof. TOYIN FALOLA Reveals A Lot

The reelection of Donald Trump and his return to the White House on January 20, 2025, have spurred debates regarding the consequences this new chapter in the leadership of the United States could have for the state of international relations.

Although many analysts are focused on how this change in power would affect Trade, Security, and Environmental policies in the United States, there is also a parallel discussion on the effects on developing continents like Africa. Not surprisingly, officials, academics, and global strategists from many African nations are beginning to examine how a Trump-led new government might either reinterpret long-standing ties, challenge diplomatic norms, or bring fresh accords that redefine present inter-relations.

Trump’s first term, marked by a foreign policy favoring bilateral treaties over multilateral ones, has already caused cautious expectations among African leaders to be aroused. For decades, many African nations have been fostering a range of security and economic ties to the United States, with many of these alliances undergoing recalibrations that did not always benefit the continent. Trump’s one-sided view of trade, framed by the “America First” notion, deviates from his predecessors’ traditional approach.

African governments have aggressively sought various foreign partners over the past decade to increase the range of commercial and financial investment portfolios. China, Russia, Turkey, and the European Union are among the significant forces leaving their traces over the continent. This broad spectrum of interests has contributed to a crowded field where African states engage in diplomatic balancing acts—sometimes using rivalry among international powers to secure favorable agreements. Following Donald Trump’s victory, there has been a lot of speculation on how the US government would either choose to intensify its rivalry with China in African nations or pursue selective cooperation to help offset Beijing’s influence.

The uniquely personal approach of the Trump administration, where public comments might overnight alter the tone of a relationship, accentuated this sense of unease. Africans who follow US politics recall remarks referring to various countries on the continent in less than favorable terms that sparked general indignation and questions about whether such rhetoric foretold a more general policy move away from previously friendly connections. Critics claimed it was ready to give more obvious headline issues elsewhere top priority over African challenges. Some African officials responded by deciding to increase their interactions with other partners. China invests significantly in African infrastructure and resource extraction and has been the most apparent gainer of this recalibration. Russia also became more visible, particularly in arms purchases and security training; Turkey and the Gulf countries expanded their commercial presence in specific areas. Analysts hope for consistency in that inclination for one-on-one deals over broad multilateral commitments as the Trump White House prepares to retake the front stage.

Initially low on Trump’s agenda, the African Growth and Opportunity Act—which provides duty-free access for a range of goods—is under increasing debate among experts about whether it might be subjected to fresh scrutiny or even a significant overhaul forcing African nations to renegotiate on more reciprocal terms. Few would dispute that such conversations might be intimidating for smaller nations lacking the same negotiating power as more developed governments. Simultaneously, nations with more substantial industrial and resource bases could use this climate to draw attention and investment, hoping to find deals granting them privileged access to American markets. These debates generally center on how Washington may compromise between lowering its overseas obligations and meeting its desire to compete with China.

Although Sino-American competition is now a theater for Africa, Trump’s approach thus far has been to attack Beijing more directly rather than devoting significant funds to match Chinese investments in freeways, train lines, or industrial parks throughout the continent. Under Trump, Washington would choose focused projects that support specific American economic or security goals instead of massive infrastructure schemes, maybe emphasizing strategic minerals, oil reserves, or technologically driven sectors. African countries that find those industries needing finance, knowledge, or technology support can profit from this strategy. Still, whether the second Trump government will seek to create more appealing frameworks for African growth or try to limit Chinese entry is unclear.

The field of security cooperation generates particularly strong conjecture. While openly expressing an intention to lower the total military presence worldwide, the Pentagon did retain or even increase some operations against terrorist organizations like al-Shabaab in Somalia during Trump’s previous term. Increased drone strikes and special operations in various conflict areas sparked discussions on whether such tactics enhanced long-term stability or only served to limit threats for a given period. Though experts advise a closer mix of economic and humanitarian aid to solve the underlying causes of extremism, observers predict that the trend will continue. Some African leaders worry that a laser focus on military action could eclipse important initiatives aiming at social services, government reforms, and young employment.

In the middle of this Global emphasis, several analysts advise African countries to create a collective strategy that clearly and succinctly outlines their objectives for the next 4 years and sets their priorities. Depending on the situation, this could mean improving already-existing treaties or rewriting them under fresh conditions needing more African negotiator involvement. Establishing closer cooperation with colleagues from non-Western nations could also help guard against the volatility emanating from Washington. Should the second term of President Trump go in unexpected directions or impose policies on trade and aid that African governments find objectionable, this kind of preparedness could help offer a margin of stability. Critics warn that depending too much on ad hoc solutions would expose African governments to abrupt policy changes or budgetary constraints.

Besides, many African analysts believe that a Trump-led White House might inspire Africa to engage in more coordinated initiatives on issues including continental free trade, intra-African tourism, and industrial policy cooperation. These people believe that if African countries see a decline in funding or an unclear commitment from the United States government, it might encourage a stronger push towards self-sufficiency and a stronger integration of the continent. Though the African Union has been pushing for such objectives for a reasonable time, there have been cases when real growth lags behind the rhetoric. Competing national interests, a restricted budget, and ongoing conflicts between neighboring nations have all contributed to this. Still, some believe that a resurrected Trump government—known for its unpredictable behavior and limited approach to involvement—would ironically give African leaders the shock they need to express themselves more firmly in their quest for unification. They argue that a more unified Africa would give the continent a stronger voice in international debates and shield it from the outside shocks that could arise whenever a dominant partner changes its course of action or withdraws some advantages.

Those focusing on economic alliances believe Africa is at a crossroad. Rapid urbanization, a rising young population, and untapped innovation ecosystems throughout the continent present rich ground for investment in various industries, from technology enterprises to agribusiness. American-based companies have occasionally shown a will to seize these possibilities, especially in countries that have invested in dependable broadband infrastructure and offer legal frameworks supporting global collaboration.

The Trump administration’s attitude toward lowering foreign aid and emphasizing financial returns over broad-based development may cause investors to prioritize profitable sectors like mining or oil over essential investments in education or healthcare. Critics of such a selective approach worry that it could lead to temporary economic bubbles, mainly benefiting a tiny number of elites while leaving normal people behind. Some critics warn about this danger here. Conversely, many people think that Trump’s inclination for haggling over large sums of money could inspire him to search for high-impact initiatives with quick access to clear benefits.

Under the former government, President Trump sought symbolic achievements he could support as proof of effective negotiations on a sporadic basis. If there is an apparent political or financial gain, this approach could match Africa’s significant resources and the appeal of modernizing initiatives. Conversely, people worry that with local businesses playing a secondary role, these agreements might be significantly biased to benefit American companies. Under this situation, many experts are reminded of a time when African countries had to adopt development targets determined by donors and often made significant concessions in return for projects involving industry or infrastructure. There is hope that as African nations keep growing and enhancing their strategic planning, they will become more aggressive and search for alliances with generally positive effects. Utilizing the development of jobs, the dissemination of technology, or the application of local content requirements guaranteeing genuine involvement from African firms, they could try to acquire community buy-in.

Beyond these more general policy issues, the African diaspora in the United States has become a powerful economic and cultural link influencing African impressions of American political events. Diaspora groups engage in local businesses, send billions of dollars in remittances to their own countries, and frequently travel back and forth to foster economic relations and entrepreneurial activity. Should Trump’s immigration posture tighten, African professionals or students may find it more difficult to sustain these flows, and that disturbance might reverberate throughout fields like healthcare to education. However, if history is anything to go by, the diaspora has shown resiliency despite tight visa policies and has found other paths to stay actively involved with hometowns. Whether the incoming government will recognize the increasing impact of the diaspora or carry on measures some believe to be obstacles to complete integration is yet unknown.

You may also like