Trump Signals Shift in U.S. Aid to Africa, Cites Need to Curb Waste and Promote Business
During a lunch meeting with African leaders on Thursday, President Donald Trump announced the formal closure of USAID operations under his administration, calling the agency “a source of waste, fraud, and abuse,” and positioning the move as a pivot toward direct economic engagement with African nations.
“We have closed the USAID group to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse,” Trump said at the event, held on the sidelines of an economic summit in Washington. “And we’re working tirelessly to forge new economic opportunities involving both the United States and many African nations.”
It’s a striking moment—though perhaps not a surprising one.
The end of USAID?
Founded in 1961 by executive order under President John F. Kennedy, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has long served as America’s primary foreign aid arm, delivering billions in humanitarian and development assistance across the globe, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Critics of the agency have argued for years that it is inefficient and overly bureaucratic, though defenders point to its role in reducing poverty, increasing literacy, and responding to crises like Ebola and famine.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, USAID disbursed more than $11 billion in foreign assistance in 2023, with nearly 40% of that going to African nations.
Trump’s framing of the closure as a cleanup effort may resonate with his base, but it’s bound to generate alarm in parts of the diplomatic and development world. A 2024 Pew Research Center study found that 65% of Americans support some form of foreign aid, though support wanes significantly when framed as “economic development assistance” rather than “emergency relief.”
From aid to trade?
Still, Trump’s message wasn’t entirely isolationist. He emphasized a desire to pursue “new economic opportunities” with African partners—though specifics remain, for now, pretty thin.
Whether that will involve bilateral investment treaties, private sector incentives, or a new trade corridor initiative isn’t clear. The White House has not released a detailed policy plan, and officials declined to comment further when asked whether any of the $11 billion in USAID programming would be redirected or restructured.
To be honest, this reminds me of the early 2000s push under Bush’s PEPFAR program—a massive health aid initiative in Africa that began as policy but grew into legacy. What Trump is proposing sounds more transactional, and potentially, more volatile.
A broader pattern?
This moment feels emblematic of Trump’s second-term foreign policy: leaner on traditional diplomacy, louder on deal-making. The question is whether the rest of the world—especially long-time partners in Africa—will buy in.
As always with Trump, the signal is one thing. The follow-through is another.
