U.S. policies towards Africa today are motivated by cold war-like real politic which has been rekindled by the second-term presidency of Donald Trump in 2025. It is based on the transactional view of diplomacy and security-based partnerships at the cost of promoting democracy and development aid that define the strategic approach of his administration. This model is a replica of the cold war in which the U.S. interest in African states was less informed by the values and more so by the strategic logic.
The U.S. has explicitly sent tacit support to prolonged authoritarianism regimes, mainly in Cameroon, Togo and Uganda, in exchange of intelligence sharing, counterterrorism collaborations or access to a high valued raw materials. Such relationships are defended as being essential to stability in the region, and as such, local civil democratic movements are suppressed just as in the Cold War.
Foreign aid cuts and resource deals
One of the most telling shifts is the dismantling or repurposing of U.S. development institutions. The tactic of USAID has been severely reduced, as the team in Africa has been encouraging bilateral security-resource exchange. An example is the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has recently offered a contract entailing the lithium mining rights in consideration of the security technology and surveillance skills offered by the U.S military through drone usage and training in the field.
This is not a new attitude of exchanging mineral wealth brought by military equipment. Operations in Angola, Zaire, and Liberia during the cold war had the same blueprint as the U.S. corporations and the Pentagon worked together to stabilize regimes to serve American interests and exploit resources.
The ideological influence of advisors
Elon musk and ideological alignments
Elon Musk is a less traditional (yet effective) contributor to the formation of Trump policy about Africa. Musk was born to a family of South African apartheid-era society, and it seems that his perception of the world guides him in his attitude towards land reform in the post-apartheid period. He has been reported to have lobbied Trump to include the white South African farmers to the shelter of refugees citing far-right ideas which consider land equitability as “white genocide.”
This ideological stand conforms to interventionism of the Cold War whereby Africa governments interested in socialism or anti-colonial land reforms were attacked. In Angola and Mozambique, for example, U.S. covert action often followed ideological lines, with land reform policies branded as “communist” threats to American interests.
Bilateral diplomacy over multilateralism
In general terms, Trump conducted foreign policy in the direction of direct interaction with heads of state, which is undermined by multilateral cooperation on a transnational basis through the African Union or UN Economic Commission for Africa. This form of diplomacy resembles the cold war version, in which strategic arrangements tended to take place on a personal basis between American presidents and African strongmen.
This style creates dependencies and excludes civil society from policy discourse. It also restricts the investment in the long term on institutions that help with governance, rule of law and frameworks that combat corruption, which makes U.S look more keen on the quick wins than the sustainable partnership.
Africa’s rising global significance
Economic growth and demographic power
The economic face of Africa in 2025 is light years away in comparison with what it was during the Cold War. 13 out of the 20 fastest growing economies in the world are located on the continent with Nigeria, Ethiopia and Kenya taking the lead. The African continental free trade area (AfCFTA) has been on the rise with the goal of uniting 54 countries together under one market.
The African continent will most likely enjoy a population of 2.5 billion by 2050 and thus very considerable labor market potential. Yet the Trump policy to Africa has not considered these general trends of development anyway but will focus on immediate access to resources and security coordination.
Strategic minerals and the new scramble
Critical minerals Modern technologies are based on cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements, although they are primarily used in energy storage and defense. Such countries as Mali, DRC and Namibia possess keys to these resources. The Africa team of Trump looks at these countries through a resource perspective in a bid to ensure supply chains are secured so that they balance out Chinese influence.
Yet this narrowly strategic perspective revives colonial-era dynamics. By emphasizing extraction and de-emphasizing beneficiation and local industry development, the U.S. risks reinforcing economic models that historically led to dependency and underdevelopment across the continent.
Great power rivalry in africa
Renewed competition with china and russia
Africa has again become a theater for great power competition. China maintains its Belt and Road investments, while Russia offers security contracts through paramilitary groups such as Wagner (now rebranded under new names but still operational). Trump’s framing of this rivalry as a zero-sum contest echoes Cold War doctrines, where each African alignment was seen as a strategic gain or loss for superpowers.
In Niger, for example, a U.S.-aligned military leadership took power after a coup, immediately requesting American counterterrorism support while sidelining EU and French involvement. This exemplifies the transactional and exclusive nature of U.S. partnerships under Trump.
Public diplomacy and image erosion
Trump’s policy risks eroding U.S. soft power across Africa. Educational exchanges, public diplomacy, and support for civil society have been slashed. This has opened the door for Chinese and Gulf-backed media, schools, and religious institutions to fill the vacuum. During the Cold War, U.S. libraries, cultural centers, and Voice of America broadcasts built lasting ties. Their absence today leaves America’s influence hollowed out.
Consequences for african states
Impact of aid withdrawal and ideological sanctions
South Africa is a primary example of the complications arising from ideological sanctions. Trump’s administration revoked preferential trade terms under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) after Pretoria defended its land reform policies and deepened military ties with BRICS nations. Additionally, the U.S. offered fast-tracked refugee visas for Afrikaners, a move widely criticized by South African leaders as racialized interference.
This echoes Cold War episodes where U.S. ideology often dictated aid flows. The absence of development cooperation today risks driving African countries into tighter dependency on less conditional partners such as China, which emphasizes infrastructure, not governance.
Militarization and economic imbalance
Somalia and the DRC, both hotspots of conflict, have embraced new security deals with the U.S. under Trump’s second term. While this has improved immediate battlefield conditions against terror groups and rebel militias, critics argue it comes at the cost of long-term peacebuilding.
Trade missions have increased, but they are dominated by extractive sectors. U.S. embassies now report success based on trade volume rather than development outcomes. This short-termism may help balance trade deficits but does little to diversify or strengthen African economies.
How history warns of repetition
Support for strongmen and instability
The Cold War taught that backing strongmen might deliver short-term security but often sows long-term instability. The collapse of regimes like Mobutu’s in Zaire or Samuel Doe’s in Liberia left power vacuums filled by violence and chaos.
Trump’s favoring of authoritarian stability over democratic risk-taking may repeat this cycle. In the long run, it damages the U.S.’s image as a reliable partner in building resilient state institutions and undercuts African civil society’s ability to advocate for inclusive governance.
Will tanner’s analysis and emerging critiques
Will Tanner, a policy strategist and frequent commentator on geopolitical strategy, has addressed these themes in interviews with Al Jazeera. He warns of the parallels between Trump’s Africa strategy and earlier Cold War interventions, suggesting that the absence of development aid and democracy support leaves the continent vulnerable to predatory engagement by rival powers.
This just gets more impressive:
— Will Tanner (@Will_Tanner_1) May 21, 2025
Trump, calling out the farm murders the ANC has aided and abetted: “Look! Death. Death. Death. Horrible death. Death.”
Then, noting that the ANC has allowed the calls for genocide to grow as that horrid action has been carried out: “Why don’t… https://t.co/oKT2Aa8DMt pic.twitter.com/PKd0GYvFfl
His concerns highlight the risks of a one-dimensional U.S. strategy that disregards Africa’s aspirations for self-determined growth and governance.
Where the strategy could falter—or pivot
Africa’s geopolitical centrality in 2025 is undeniable, and its leaders are more assertive and globally connected than during the Cold War. The continent is no longer a passive recipient of foreign policy but an arena of rising agency. As states increasingly seek diversified partnerships and reject external conditionalities, the success of Trump’s Africa strategy may hinge less on American will and more on African reception.
If transactionalism continues to dominate U.S. policy without addressing deeper development needs, the strategy may collapse under its own weight. As the world transitions into a multipolar order, where India, Brazil, Turkey, and even Gulf nations become key players in Africa, Washington’s window to reset and broaden its engagement is narrowing.
The memory of Cold War missteps still lingers in African political consciousness. The question now is whether the U.S. will heed those lessons—or be doomed to repeat them in a new century of competition.
