America's Africa Policy

Donald Trump’s withdrawal from international commitments has often been described in Western commentary as a shocking departure from America’s traditions of leadership.

Africa is not surprised.

Africans see Trump’s raw, transactional disdain for multilateralism, his withdrawal of America’s political and financial capital abroad, and his blunt assertion of “America First” as a posture they have experienced for decades.

To Africa, America has always been a nation of big talk, lavish promises, and then astonishing selfishness when it's time to deliver.

In Trump, Africans see not a radical shift but the essence of U.S. foreign engagement. He has merely stripped away the diplomatic varnish and dispensed with the sleek American PR.

Dependency Theory

Dependency theorists like André Gunder Frank argued that the Global South is locked into a structural relationship with the Global North, where promises of development assistance mask deeper patterns of exploitation.

In Africa’s case, the United States perfected the art of talk without transfer.

Washington’s conversation with Africa has always been wrapped in the language of “partnership,” “capacity-building,” and “strategic cooperation.”

Yet the material flows (capital, infrastructure, trade concessions) have been comparatively meagre when set against Africa’s needs or against what competitors like China have brought to the table.

Why America’s Usahihi Expressway Project Collapsed

America arrived with bold commitments to build a $4 billion, 450 km, four-lane road connecting Nairobi and Mombasa. The Americans held forums, signed memoranda, and filled press conferences with the rhetoric of transformation. But they never had the money.

When their main financier pulled out, they scrambled for local substitutes, even presenting figures with questionable financial standing as “backers.”

The Kenyan government eventually terminated the process.

This was not an isolated misstep. It was a structural expression of how the U.S. approaches Africa: agreements first, financing later, if at all.

American investment models often prioritize protecting U.S. capital rather than sharing risk.

Deals are structured to shift burdens like land acquisition, environmental clearance, or policy enforcement onto African governments, while investors keep potential profits insulated.

This is why U.S. consortia lean so heavily on guarantees from the World Bank, IFC, or African Development Bank. Without these shields, they rarely commit.

The result is that projects stall.

Barack Obama promised a “new dawn” in U.S.–Africa relations, yet left little in terms of transformative infrastructure. Joe Biden announced the Lobito Corridor as America’s first major infrastructure project in decades, but the financing came mostly from Europeans and multilateral lenders.

America’s Foreign Policy Is Shortsighted

U.S. foreign policy often insists on aligning projects with American geopolitical priorities such as counterterrorism and countering China.

By abandoning climate agreements, health initiatives, and multilateral compacts, Trump displayed the core U.S. instinct that when resources are at stake, the rest of the world must wait.

America will not bleed for anyone else’s development.

Africans increasingly interpret this as instrumentalization; their countries reduced to arenas for Washington’s rivalries, rather than partners in their own right.

The irony is that America still seeks prestige in Africa. It wants the branding rights, the goodwill, and the soft power glow of being seen as a partner. But prestige without substance cannot endure.

China’s Contrasting Approach

Prestige must rest on demonstrable capabilities. In Africa, these capabilities increasingly belong to China.

Beijing does not overwhelm with grand speeches about partnership. It arrives with money, construction crews, and visible results within years.

China’s Nairobi Expressway is a perfect case study. Within three years, Kenyans were driving on it. The deal may carry debt risks and political strings, but it exists.

America’s Usahihi Expressway never went beyond a pitch deck. It produced nothing but meetings, conferences, and a terminated proposal.

Africans can see who delivers and who delays. They are not blind to debt concerns or the strategic implications of Chinese dominance, but they are also not naïve.

For a continent with exploding populations and urgent infrastructure deficits, concrete is more important than communiqués.

To be clear, the credibility crisis of U.S. engagement in Africa is not about Trump the man. It has been a structural failure across many administrations, across many decades.

If America wants to matter in Africa, policymakers in Washington must come to grips with the reality that policymakers before them did, to wit, geopolitical influence is measured not in words, but in capabilities. In results.

In outcomes.

Africa is not looking for an Oval Office photo-op, an Air Force One stopover in Nairobi, Accra, or Pretoria, or an Africa summit in Washington.

It’s looking for roads, power plants, schools, homes, and broadband.

Gem Musings is a seasoned International Relations and Public Affairs Strategist with extensive experience in global diplomacy, communication, and policy analysis.