What Trump’s diplomatic shift means for Africa ties

The United States’ present global diplomatic engagements rely on a tough, leverage-driven trade policy that is ruthless but coherent in ring-fencing American interests.

At the centre of this shift is Trump’s aggressive approach to locking down access to critical minerals, asserting economic dominance through trade deals, and replacing foreign aid with commercial leverage.

From new mineral supply deals in Africa to hard-nosed trade pacts in Asia, the Trump administration has signalled that America’s global engagements will serve one purpose only— advancing US economic and security interests.

One of the most revealing cases is the Trump-brokered agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. This US-mediated accord ended years of proxy conflict between Kinshasa and Kigali and included terms for Rwandan troop withdrawals, joint security coordination, and peacekeeping enforcement.

However, the underlying driver of the deal was not altruism but access.

The DRC granted American firms preferential rights to develop and export cobalt, lithium, and tantalum, crucial materials for electric vehicles and military technology, in exchange for US diplomatic and security support.

The transactional logic was well calibrated— if Kinshasa delivered minerals and curbed Chinese influence, it could expect US military aid, recognition, and investment.

Read:  Trump’s win and the future of Kenya-US bilateral ties

Trump’s mineral diplomacy is not confined to Africa. In Asia, he signed major trade deals with Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines, where access to US markets was offered in exchange for investment flows and critical mineral exports.

The Japan deal, for instance, slashed US tariffs on Japanese auto imports in return for over $550 billion in Japanese investment in American infrastructure, semiconductors, and AI sectors.

In return, the 15 percent tax on imported Japanese goods included in the deal is a meaningful drop from the 25 percent rate that Trump said would be levied starting August 1 for Japanese exports into the US market.

In Indonesia, tariffs were lowered only after Jakarta agreed to lift restrictions on the export of nickel and copper, key materials in the energy transition and tech manufacturing. In return, US tariffs on Indonesian imports would be set at 19 percent.

While higher than the 10 percent baseline tariff that America has slapped on almost all other countries, the 19 percent rate is significantly lower than the 32 percent blanket duty that Indonesia initially faced under President Trump’s “liberation day” tariff plan in April.

The Philippines, despite being a US security ally, received a less favourable deal, sparking criticism that Trump’s approach lacks concern for equitable outcomes. Still, each of these cases shows how Trump is using America’s market access as a lever to secure long-term advantages, something African countries have seldom done in return when giving away access to their resources.

Importantly, the most radical shift under Trump’s new presidency is his dismantling of America’s foreign aid model. The President froze nearly all non-military foreign aid and, in its place, introduced commercial diplomacy in which embassies and US foreign missions are tasked with brokering deals for American businesses.

For African nations, this has created a more brutal playing field—one in which developmental aid is no longer guaranteed, and benefits flow only where economic returns or strategic value are clear.

This shift exposes African leaders to a tough truth that sentimental appeals or moral arguments about poverty or inequality no longer sway the US policy stance under Trump. In essence, then, there is no ‘free lunch’.

For African nations, this approach may not all be flattering, but it is highly instructive and offers important lessons. The strategic assets owned by African states must be treated as bargaining chips in global diplomacy.

Trump’s deals tend to come with clear timelines, enforcement clauses, and penalties. Africa should ensure that its agreements include these features to protect sovereignty and public interest.

African leaders must understand that trade and investment negotiations should be aligned with national development goals and not conducted in isolation or desperation.

African countries must build negotiating capacity that integrates multiple arms of government so that deals reflect comprehensive strategic priorities, whether it be trade or military.

Finally, African countries must coordinate regionally. A united front would give African nations greater leverage in dealing with dominant powers. For Africa, the challenge is clear— either adapt to this new geopolitical environment or risk being sidelined in it.

The writer is a seasoned professional in international trade and public policy. Email: [email protected]