ANALYSIS: Is Trump’s Africa Policy a Genuine Strategy or Merely a Shakedown?

As the year begins with significant global shifts and the introduction of the 'Donroe Doctrine', international leaders are reassessing their stances towards a more assertive United States (US) determined to dictate terms.

This doctrine is underscored in the 2025 US National Security Strategy, described as a 'Trump Corollary' to the historic Monroe Doctrine, which sought to establish US geopolitical superiority in the Western Hemisphere. The impacts of this strategy will extend globally, with Africa being significantly affected, even though it merited only a few paragraphs in the document.

Niall Ferguson noted that this moment signals a return to the historical patterns of great-power competition, with the US and China at the forefront. Africa has a familiar history with such rivalries, marked by the scars of Cold War factions and competitive colonial interests. It now faces the risk of becoming a battleground for external powers competing over resources, markets, and strategic positions.

Furthermore, the US's selective approach to multilateralism—demonstrated by its willingness to engage selectively with or bypass global institutions—diminishes the international governance framework's legitimacy. The communicated message is apparent: strength prevails, and any institutions that limit US actions are rendered inconsequential.

In this new arrangement, the powerful create the standards while weaker states face the repercussions. For the African nations that possess limited power and capabilities, the situation raises alarms. As such, it is critical to adopt a strategy that emphasizes dexterity in diplomacy and a realistic assessment of national interests.

Many African nations lack the capacity to compete with the dominant global powers, especially with the current Washington approach. Consequently, they may continue being subjected to rules rather than having a hand in establishing them, as US foreign policy increasingly sheds any illusions of equity. The few states that can exercise some influence will find that their flexibility may reduce.

The dire effect of this dynamic could be softened if African nations unite to leverage their collective power. Yet, fragmentation is also a likely outcome, as countries might opt for bilateral agreements with external players over collective strategies.

African leaders face the critical dilemma of balancing the continent's long- term goals for peace and development against the temptations of immediate, unsustainable gains. Understanding what drives US interests in Africa will be essential for diplomatic discussions.

In an era where confidence in global financial and political systems is waning, economic strategies are increasingly viewed through a security prism. This transition began during Trump's initial presidency, accelerated through the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, and has continued under Biden’s administration.

Under a 'Trump 2.0' scenario, the agendas of deglobalization and reducing risks are being fast-tracked, creating what some observers call a resurgence of 'resource imperialism.'

Consequently, Africa emerges as a strategic frontier due to its potential resources. The US's primary economic focus will be on securing value chains for essential minerals—such as cobalt, lithium, copper, rare earths, and graphite—as it races against China to dominate sectors like semiconductors, electric vehicles, and batteries.

While Trump continues to highlight traditional fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas for US energy supremacy, the underlying industrial competition with China is increasingly forward-thinking. Beijing has taken the lead in clean energy technologies and mineral processing, forcing Washington to shift its focus away from climate leadership towards securing essential resources.

This context will influence the areas where the US chooses to engage economically. The focus will likely be on regions abundant in resources—from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia to Namibia, Mozambique, and Guinea—rather than broader trade integration or comprehensive governance reforms.

Significantly, the nature of US engagement is set to evolve. Instead of building institutions or advocating for moral stances, economic interactions will likely manifest through short-term, bilateral deals focused on tangible outcomes.

Priorities such as access deals and security assurances will take precedence over developmental financing or long-term industrial strategies. As the rivalry between the US and China intensifies, Africa's position in the global economy will hinge on its ability to navigate increasingly contested supply chains.

In terms of security, Trump's self-described mediator persona will primarily guide intervention choices, especially where quick and visible successes can be achieved. Africa offers several opportunities in this regard.

Peace initiatives may increasingly mirror reciprocal agreements in which peace is exchanged for political access or resources, rather than being founded on durable, institutional agreements. The accords between the DRC and Rwanda highlight the strategy that is expected to be employed in other conflict areas. US intervention could also target nations deemed necessary to secure vital mineral pathways and maritime trade routes, particularly transatlantic routes.

Additionally, the rise of Islamist militant threats across parts of Africa opens another avenue for US security involvement. Although the National Security Strategy warns against long-term commitments, Islamist extremism allows for quick, cost-effective engagements that could deepen US geopolitical and economic ties.

Recent US military strikes coordinated with Nigeria against militants in the northwest exemplify this approach: bilateral, targeted, and of a temporary nature—bypassing regional and international peacekeeping frameworks.

Benefitting some African nations might be possible, as adhering to Trump's worldview simplifies the operational landscape. Governments willing to comply can expect immediate economic deals that cater to political elites.

However, in doing so, countries may relinquish sovereignty and compromise their national ambitions. There is a risk of diminishing local political support, alienating enduring partners, and further weakening the framework of international rules.

The implications for African nations could jeopardize the continent's collective aspirations for peace, security, and development—a goal that can only be realized through enhanced regional cooperation.

To advance Africa's integration amidst geopolitical challenges influenced by Washington, leaders must unify in pursuit of a shared vision. Otherwise, past patterns may repeat themselves.