Africa’s growth is remarkable—it’s the world’s fastest-growing region, with its population expected to rise by 63% by 2050. This means that, in just a few decades, African nations will represent about 28% of the global population.
This context should prompt the Trump administration to adopt policies that address the complex challenges facing areas marked by poverty, like infectious diseases, food insecurity, and conflicts that often push people to migrate. These issues, unsurprisingly, could pose challenges to U.S. national interests.
However, rather than working to mitigate these problems, the administration has opted for approaches that may worsen the situation, making Africa poorer and less secure. Trump’s earlier remarks about African nations weren’t just words; they seem to inform his current policies.
The first major change was the dismantling of USAID. This agency aimed not only to provide humanitarian aid but also to help African nations create the economic conditions necessary to attract foreign investment and gain access to the U.S. market through the African Growth and Opportunity Act.
To qualify for this access, countries needed to reform their economies, uphold human rights, and establish democratic practices—all significant hurdles, really. But USAID was essential in providing the required support for these efforts.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act was introduced in the late 1990s, fueled by a desire for “trade, not aid.” I remember being a manager at USAID then and cautioning that while enthusiasm was high, the U.S. market wouldn’t easily absorb countries with underdeveloped labor forces. My argument was about “trade assistance,” and despite the pushback, the concept ultimately shaped the final version of the Act.
Currently, about 30 countries are eligible for U.S. market access, employing approximately 1.3 million people. Recent stats indicate that exports to the U.S. have surged to about $61 billion. This reflects the positive impact of reforms backed by the African governments, USAID, and other donors.
But now, without USAID, it’s unclear how this progress can be sustained. Removing support will likely mean higher tariffs for African exporters, which is troubling.
Moreover, there’s a bill backed by Republicans that could lead to taxing remittances—the funds sent home by family members living in the U.S. Reports suggest that around $10 billion has been sent back to Africa, and under this new legislation, there would be a 3.5% tax on money that has already been taxed at 6% when earned.
This contradiction to the trade-not-aid mantra may backfire, especially for those African communities that could fall deeper into poverty. The irony is, despite being framed as beneficial, these policies may strain U.S.-Africa relations further.
In the meantime, China may exploit this gap, providing aid without conditionality. This could push several African nations back toward authoritarianism, undermining democratic progress.
If anyone believes this serves U.S. interests, I’d recommend looking into the work of authors like James Robinson and Daron Acemoglu, who present compelling arguments in their book, “Why Nations Fail.”
For many Africans struggling with poverty, illness, and conflict, migration appears to be their only option. Increased immigration could be a hot topic for Trump throughout his term, particularly since his own policies may inadvertently contribute to that rise.
Acutely, reducing aid, cutting off trade access, and taxing remittances represent a trifecta of setbacks for African nations. It seems that the assumption is that an increasingly populous Africa—28% of the world—is somehow a problem that won’t affect the U.S.
J. Brian Atwood served as the administrator of USAID during the Clinton administration and was a Foreign Services Officer in Africa.
