- As President-elect Donald Trump, a man who once referred to Africa as ‘shithole countries,’ assumes office, the question remains: Can the U.S. move beyond gestures and deliver on its promises to Africa?
- Under Democratic leadership, U.S. policy toward Africa has typically focused on programs aimed at long-term development, governance, and economic opportunities.
- So far, however, decisively countering China’s growing economic presence in Africa has remained elusive, whether under Trump, Biden, or even Obama, a man who has Kenyan roots.
Africa has long been a continent of paradoxes for U.S. foreign policy, celebrated for its potential but too often neglected when it comes to sustained engagement. President-Elect Donald Trump’s first presidency brought this ambivalence to a head, marked by his infamous dismissal of African nations as “shithole countries.” Now, with Joe Biden having finally visited Angola at the tail-end of his term, many are left wondering whether U.S.-Africa relations are being treated as a priority or merely a convenient talking point.
Biden’s trip marked the first time a sitting U.S. president visited Angola, albeit at the end of his term, so it’s hard to ignore the optics: Africa is receiving overdue attention only when Biden’s term is winding down. This lackluster and sluggish approach stands in stark contrast to Barack Obama’s more proactive engagement with the continent. Though even this was a mere drop in the Ocean compared to former President George W. Bush’s incentives in Africa.
Africa is increasingly becoming vital to global geopolitics and trade. As more countries continue to promote economic development and industrialization, the increasing output of extractives becomes more attractive to industrial nations.
The real question remains whether the U.S. can move past gestures and actually deliver on its promises—or whether the next four years under President-elect Trump will see the same cycle of late-stage visits and forgotten initiatives.
U.S. Programs for Africa: A Mixed Legacy
U.S. engagement with Africa under Democratic leadership has typically leaned on programs aimed at long-term development, governance, and economic opportunity. For instance, Barack Obama’s administration continued the standard from George W. Bush, with initiatives that sought to treat Africa as a partner rather than a recipient of aid. Some of the standout projects were: —
- Power Africa (2013): Power Africa aimed to double access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa. By mobilizing public and private investment, it sought to bring energy to millions of homes and businesses, tackling one of Africa’s most significant development bottlenecks.
- Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI) (2010): This initiative provided education, training, and mentorship to Africa’s future leaders, emphasizing entrepreneurship, civic engagement, and governance.
- Trade Africa (2013): Focused on enhancing trade and investment between the U.S. and Africa, this program sought to make the African market more competitive globally, supporting regional integration and building capacity for trade.
Joe Biden’s trip to Angola puts Africa momentarily in the U.S. spotlight. The key takeaway is the announcement of the Lobito Corridor project, a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure initiative designed to connect resource-rich areas in Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to ports in Angola.
It’s a project that makes sense strategically, tying Africa’s vast mineral wealth—essential for clean energy technology—to lucrative Western markets.
The recent revival of the Prosper Africa initiative under Biden aims to boost U.S.-Africa trade by facilitating private sector investments. However, these efforts often come across as reactive, driven more by competition with China than by a clear, Africa-centered vision.
But, let’s not kid ourselves: Biden’s trip is as much about outmaneuvering China as it is about Africa itself. The timing couldn’t be more telling—Biden waited until he was nearly out the door to make visiting Africa a formality. Is this about a genuine commitment to Africa or a legacy-building exercise before the history books close on his presidency?
Caught in the Middle: Africa’s tug of war
For Africa, the challenge is navigating what the U.S. offers and what it demands. Both Biden and Trump have viewed Africa largely through the lens of global competition—particularly in countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Today, while Biden is vying for the Lobito Corridor to position greater trade access, it may position Africa as a critical partner in the global supply chain, but may reinforce old patterns of dependency.
The same can be said of Trump’s transactional diplomacy. His approach to Africa has been limited and short-term. Perhaps it was focused less on aid, but more on trade vs. partnerships. His administration’s emphasis on bilateral agreements has left little room for economic development goals.
Many Trump’s supporters might argue that this no-nonsense approach empowered African governments to negotiate more favorable terms, but the reality was often a one-sided pursuit of U.S. interests, as his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” focuses on the US first before any other nation.
Supporters of Trump’s foreign policy argue that he is more focused on results than photo ops. But for all the talk of pragmatism, the lack of a presidential visit sent a clear message: Africa wasn’t a priority then, will it be now, given his second term?
Will President-Elect finally show up in Africa? Or will he double down on his transactional approach, leaving diplomacy to his subordinates while skipping Africa altogether? A visit could go a long way in mending fences and building trust, but it’s far from guaranteed.
Caught in this tug-of-war between great powers, Africa has to contend with the risk of being reduced to a pawn. The U.S. and China both offer competing visions for Africa’s future—one framed by infrastructure loans and investments, the other by strategic supply chain integration. But neither fully addresses Africa’s internal priorities: stronger regional integration, industrialization, and governance reform.
Read also: The Billion-Dollar Lobito Railway Key To Biden Africa Visit
What Africa Should Demand: Beyond Dependency
As U.S. engagement with Africa continues to be shaped by geopolitics, African leaders have an opportunity—and an obligation—to demand better. They cannot just take what’s given, but can take a stance to determine their right in the game of trade that Washington may deal for them. The aim should be putting Africa first for their interests, but will America really listen? A few of the key areas that need to be addressed are as follows:
- Trade, Not Just Aid: Leaders of African economies should push for trade policies that provide long-term benefits, not just short-term projects. Programs like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which offers duty-free access to U.S. markets for eligible African nations, are a good start but require modernization. African countries need greater support to develop industries that can compete globally, not just export raw materials.
- Focus on Regional Integration: Initiatives like Biden’s Lobito Corridor are useful but shouldn’t be isolated projects. Africa’s economic success depends on stronger regional trade and infrastructure that connects countries within the continent. U.S. programs must complement, not overshadow, efforts like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which aims to unify Africa’s market of 1.4 billion people.
- Investments in Human Capital: Obama’s YALI program proved that investing in young African leaders pays dividends. Biden’s administration, as it winds down, or incoming Trump second term, must build on this legacy by creating more opportunities for education, technology training, and entrepreneurship. Africa’s youth represent a demographic dividend, but without investment, they risk becoming a liability.
- Avoiding Debt Traps: As Africa navigates offers from both China and the U.S., leaders must be vigilant about avoiding unsustainable financial commitments. U.S. initiatives should offer transparent and fair terms, ensuring that African nations are not saddled with debt that compromises their sovereignty. The question comes down to who will win with any foreign programs, the people or the politicians in Africa, through the latter’s mismanagement and personal self-interest, that’s a topic for a different day.
- Climate Change as a Priority: Africa is disproportionately affected by climate change, despite contributing the least to global emissions. U.S. programs must prioritize renewable energy and climate adaptation strategies, ensuring that African nations have the tools to build resilient economies while addressing environmental challenges.
The Road Ahead
Joe Biden’s visit to Angola, somewhat symbolic, underscores a larger truth: is U.S. engagement with Africa too reactive and opportunistic. For all the rhetoric about partnership, African nations are still treated as peripheral players in a global game dominated by larger powers.
Will Trump see their rise or allow them to scour the leftovers of trade that benefit America first. With President-elect Donald Trump returning to power, his administration will face the same challenge: Can the U.S. treat Africa as more than a pawn in its competition with China? For African leaders, the answer lies in rejecting dependency and asserting a vision of development that puts the continent’s needs first, not their politician’s pockets.
