-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Trump courts Africa with promises of trade, but behind the summit’s optics lie minerals, deportations, and echoes of neocolonial power plays.
Image Source: Flickr
On 9 July 2025, United States (US) President Donald Trump convened a three-day summit at the White House with the leaders of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal to explore commercial opportunities, indicating his administration’s selective engagement policy with Africa. However, the proceedings, which ranged from the abrupt interruption of the Mauritanian President’s address to the overt praise of the Liberian President’s English proficiency, in fact, reflected a stark display of power, coercion, and undertones of a neocolonial mindset.
In return, the five African leaders offered their abundant mineral riches, including rare earths, minerals, and substantial oil and gas reserves. The discussion also covered immigration and safe third country deportation agreements, whereby African countries would accept deportees originally from other nations in exchange for financial compensation. The Trump administration has already transferred some illegal immigrants to the small southern African nation, Eswatini, as well as South Sudan, a country in the middle of a protracted civil war. While discussion is ongoing with Libya and Rwanda, the five leaders of the Summit, particularly Guinea-Bissau, were explicitly proposed as recipients for US deportees.
This treatment of African countries as repositories of US deportees reflects a deeply entrenched neocolonial mindset.
This treatment of African countries as repositories of US deportees reflects a deeply entrenched neocolonial mindset, where national sovereignty and human dignity can be traded for short-term political or economic gains. In light of the transactional nature, it would not come as a surprise if endorsement of Trump’s candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize is also bartered in exchange for favours or leniency, hinting at a worrying commodification of diplomacy. Moreover, the effusive praise and generous offers of access to their natural resources extended to Trump by these African leaders serve as a troubling illustration of how easily political power can undermine democratic principles and perpetuate exploitative relationships.
The shift from a charity-based foreign aid model to one centred on trade was in line with the policy direction previously articulated by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Furthermore, this transactional and pragmatic approach also resonates with several African leaders whose frustration has only grown in response to the West’s self-proclaimed monopoly on good governance, human rights, and institution-building as preconditions. Even the selection of guests for the event underscores why Africa continues to hold strategic importance for the US: valuable land, great minerals, and great oil deposits.
These West and Central African leaders represent smaller economies without any traditional relationship with the US. For example, Guinea-Bissau does not even host a US embassy, and its trade with the latter is also quite minimal. Furthermore, its President has repeatedly postponed elections, which would most certainly be condemned as ‘democratic backsliding’ under any previous US administrations. But not the Trump administration. On the contrary, including Guinea-Bissau in the Summit represents a gesture of tacit approval of Trump’s actions.
This apparent disregard for democratic norms reflects the broader shift in the US position toward non-interference, especially when commercial interests are at stake. Nonetheless, the inconsistent and often illogical use of tariffs further obscures the overall direction of the Africa policy. In April 2025, the small African nation of Lesotho, which primarily exports diamonds and clothing, was subjected to the highest ‘Liberation Day’ tariff of 50 percent. This tariff hike was attributed to Lesotho's limited imports from the US and a significant trade imbalance.
The effusive praise and generous offers of access to their natural resources extended to Trump by these African leaders serve as a troubling illustration of how easily political power can undermine democratic principles and perpetuate exploitative relationships.
In contrast, South Africa was punished for a mythical white genocide. Many would argue that it is South Africa’s position vis-à-vis Israel and the appeal to the International Court of Justice against Israel that irked Trump. South Africa's apparent non-alliance, leaning towards Russia, and its historical closeness to Iran have likely further strained relations with the Trump administration. In a concerted effort to appease Trump’s disgruntled administration, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa undertook a visit to the US in May 2025. Eager to restore relations, Ramaphosa offered the US some favourable terms on minerals and expressed his interest in increasing the import of US gas. Yet, the US reciprocated by withholding confirmation of its participation in the G20 Summit—which is scheduled to be hosted by South Africa in November 2025.
The absence of US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from the G20 Financial Summit in Durban, following a similar no-show at the February 2025 gathering in Cape Town, marks the second time this year that the US has opted out of a key G20 finance gathering hosted by South Africa. This repeated disengagement not only raises concerns about South Africa’s diplomatic influence within the group but also casts doubt on the long-term cohesion and effectiveness of the G20 as a multilateral forum.
Compounding these tensions is President Trump’s looming threat to impose additional tariffs on BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)-aligned countries. Meanwhile, the US-mediated agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to de-escalate further exposes the contradictions of the Trump administration’s Africa policy.
The Trump administration has demonstrated a clear strategic interest in securing access to Africa’s critical mineral resources. However, despite the rhetorical support for the Lobito Corridor, the initiative intended to connect Africa’s copper belt to the Atlantic coast now faces considerable uncertainty due to a reduction in US financial commitments. During the US-Africa Business Summit held in June 2025, the US pledged US$2.5 billion. However, in reality, this commitment is undermined by the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), leading to the suspension or cancellation of numerous foreign assistance projects.
The Trump administration’s precipitous pivot towards Africa appears to be driven by short-term deal-making and symbolic gestures, lacking a coherent strategic vision.
These abrupt terminations of different projects have severely dented the confidence of investors. At a time when China is aggressively pursuing its own strategic infrastructure projects in Africa, the US disengagement would jeopardise its long-term objective of securing access to critical minerals.
Whether a course correction will occur remains to be seen. The White House has referred to the Summit as the inaugural event in a quarterly series of engagements with African leaders. There are plans for a larger US–Africa summit in September 2025 on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly. However, there is considerable uncertainty whether these plans will materialise as planned. The effectiveness of this transactional approach in countering Beijing’s growing influence is also in question. In essence, the Trump administration’s precipitous pivot towards Africa appears to be driven by short-term deal-making and symbolic gestures, lacking a coherent strategic vision.
Samir Bhattacharya is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Samir Bhattacharya is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation (ORF), where he works on geopolitics with particular reference to Africa in the changing global ...
Read More +
PREV
