Deal-making trumps democratic principles in US approach to Africa
Donald Trump’s national security strategy mentions Africa in passing as a source of critical minerals and a counter to China’s dominance.
Published on 15 January 2026 in
ISS Today
By
Kelly E Stone
Senior Consultant, Justice and Violence Prevention, ISS Pretoria
In November 2025, the United States (US) released its new National Security Strategy describing how the country intends to protect its ‘core national interests.’
These interests not only include ensuring the US ‘remains the world’s strongest, richest, most powerful, and most successful country for decades to come,’ but also articulate what it wants ‘in and from’ the rest of the world.
The strategy invokes the ‘Trump Corollary’ to reinforce US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, recently marked by its actions in Venezuela and threats against Greenland. It prioritises economic protectionism, keeps the Indo-Pacific open only to benefit US supply chains, and supports European security by defending Western identity, restricting mass migration, and combatting cultural erosion.
It also seeks to neutralise Middle Eastern adversaries without prolonged conflict and assert US dominance in fields like artificial intelligence, biotech, and quantum computing at the expense of global cooperation.
President Donald Trump seems intent on reducing US presence everywhere except in the Western Hemisphere. While this threatens countries in Latin America and Greenland, America’s approach to Africa seems more limited, focusing on competition for mineral resources, not direct government involvement.
Africa’s role in the strategy is notably limited yet telling, receiving just three paragraphs at the end of the 29-page document. The continent is framed mainly as a cash cow for mineral resources and a battleground for China’s dominance in the global south.
Africa's role is notably limited, receiving just three paragraphs in the 29-page document
In January, Kenya postponed signing a US$1 billion trade agreement with China, reportedly under US pressure, as it awaits renewal of its eligibility in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). AGOA, which lapsed last September despite its devastating impact on African industries, was approved by the House of Representatives this week.
In December, the US delayed releasing US$1.5 billion in health aid to Zambia, conditioning its support to securing access to critical minerals.
The approach towards Africa abandons lifesaving aid and democratic values, focusing instead on partnerships centred on trade, investment and resource extraction. It avoids long-term commitments, especially in military conflicts. It makes exceptions for short, targeted operations to suppress Islamist terrorist insurgencies, such as Nigeria’s Christmas Day strikes, as part of its crusade to defend Judeo-Christian values.
At its core, the new strategy is based on transactionalism – diplomacy as quid pro quo arrangements rather than partnerships grounded in democratic values and long-term goals. Originating in the ‘America First’ doctrine, transactionalism prioritises clear exchanges and short-term gains, ensuring the US maximises its benefits in resources, military cooperation or geopolitical leverage while permitting others to benefit only when this doesn’t undermine American interests.
It views policies based on normative values as harming national interests and favours bilateral, issue-specific deals over multilateralism, treating relationships as zero-sum competitions rather than genuine alliances. For example, in December Trump sought to bolster his ‘President of Peace’ image by facilitating the Washington Accords between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda.
Both countries signed an agreement granting US firms preferential access to Congolese minerals, and the US pledged to develop a corridor connecting these resource-rich regions to Western markets, looking to oust China’s longstanding influence in the sector.
The new US strategy is based on transactionalism – diplomacy as quid pro quo arrangements, not value-based partnership
Despite the political grandstanding and claims of resolving a decades-long conflict, M23 rebels continued their advance a day after the accord was signed.
These events expose the futility of agreements that prioritise optics, benefitting few while harming thousands. Enduring peace requires firm commitment, decisive political action, and the courage to confront decades of complex ethnic conflict worsened by battles over mineral resources – problems that cannot be resolved with signatures alone.
As we near the first-year anniversary of Trump’s second term, this approach feels all too familiar. The strategy simply formalises what he’s been doing in Africa since day one.
His administration dismantled US Agency for International Development aid overnight, putting 14 million lives at risk. It imposed crippling tariffs on African businesses while enforcing discriminatory travel bans on countries like Mali, Niger, and Sierra Leone.
At the same time, the US dangles incentives like deportation deals with South Sudan, Rwanda and Eswatini that commodify foreign nationals as pawns in international diplomacy, rewarding countries that submit to US demands while marginalising those less willing.
For example, Eswatini reportedly signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the US in May 2025 to receive US$5.1 million for ‘border and migration management’ in exchange for accepting up to 160 deportees over a year.
African leaders face a dilemma: balancing short-term national gains with long-term regional stability
In December, under the new America First Global Health Strategy, Eswatini signed another bilateral agreement with the US. This five-year MOU, valued at US$242 million, includes access to American technology and Lenacapavir, a US-made HIV-prevention drug.
This transactional approach can forge bilateral partnerships but remains fragile without strong institutional support or strategic foundations. In Eswatini’s case, reliance on short-term, non-binding agreements driven by immediate US interests, such as outcompeting China’s influence in Africa, leaves the country vulnerable.
African leaders face a dilemma: balancing short-term national gains through bilateral deals with the need to protect long-term regional stability. Many African countries are caught between a rock and a hard place. Exploitative practices that undermine their sovereignty have long existed, but Trump’s administration has made these dynamics more transparent.
South Africa exemplifies how some nations can hold relatively strong positions, but often at significant economic and political costs.
Since Trump took office, his transactional approach has favoured a few at the expense of many, worsening divisions and instability across Africa. African governments must strengthen regional bodies like the African Union and fully implement initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area to coordinate a unified strategy.
By enhancing regional cooperation, building robust institutions, and asserting control over resources, Africa can safeguard its sovereignty and foster stability, charting a sustainable path beyond short-term, often exploitative, bilateral deals.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
