One of the most controversial presidents of the United States (US), Donald Trump, has equally controversial relations with African countries. He displays rhetoric, behavior, and unconventional policies that go beyond diplomacy and diplomatic norms, even more so in African countries. As in his first term, Trump is conducting US relations with African countries in his second term in a different style and political arena than previous American presidents. This controversial stance has caused astonishment in African countries and the international community, leading to the question, “Does Trump have an Africa policy?”
Trump’s administration is being put to the test by African countries in this second term. Adhering to the “America First” approach, capable of producing restrictive policies in any crisis, and not hesitating to use the harshest rhetoric and even profanity, Trump is caught between isolationist and interventionist rhetoric and attitudes in his relations with the countries of the continent. So much so that it raises questions about whether there is an American strategy or policy regarding Africa. While taking an isolationist stance on issues of international instability, such as Israel’s expansionist violence against Palestine and its genocide against Palestinians, and the climate crisis, Israel’s expansionist violence against Palestine and the genocide against Palestinians, while taking an isolationist stance on issues of international instability and, as the examples of Nigeria and South Africa show, being able to take a clearly biased stance on countries’ internal affairs and, at least rhetorically, adopt an interventionist attitude.
African countries generally display a different attitude toward the issues mentioned above, and differences in rhetoric can be observed. Therefore, as Trump implements his seemingly ambivalent agenda, he is forced to develop policies or make room for Africa in his rhetoric in response to the different attitudes of African countries. As demonstrated during his first term, Trump remains distant from African countries today, or at least seeks to create that impression. However, by choosing to take an active stance on certain issues on his agenda, he invites scrutiny of the content of his Africa policy. Examples of this include taking various steps to get the parties in Sudan’s civil war to accept a ceasefire and Washington’s mediation efforts between Algeria and Morocco.
Each administration presents various new initiatives for Africa. Therefore, it is possible to encounter differences in policy toward Africa. American presidents, including Obama, do not place Africa at the top of their agenda, or African countries are at the bottom of their priority list. However, when a general assessment is made, it is seen that continuity is fundamental in US policy toward Africa, and radical or sharp changes are generally rare.
Trump has taken a different approach to relations with African countries than his predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Not only in relations with Africa, but also in the rest of the foreign policy agenda and, consequently, in domestic politics, Trump is halting and ending his predecessors’ programs and policies. In other words, one of the elements shaping Trump’s domestic and foreign policy agenda, both in his first and second terms, has been to invalidate the political initiatives and high-profile steps taken by Obama and Biden. Health insurance reform, also known as Obamacare, the Paris Agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, and immigration policies are among the important items on the American political agenda that Trump wanted to end. In 2013, Obama launched a project called Power Africa, which aimed to provide more electricity to African countries. Trump, however, ended this initiative in February 2025.
While Obama and Biden expressed interest in continental politics in their rhetoric, this interest was not reflected in their actions to the same extent. Obama and Biden made official visits to the continent, while Trump did not visit the continent during his first term, demonstrating his lack of interest in African politics. Trump focused on signing commercial and economic agreements with African countries, as he did with other regions. Trump ended the activities of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However, this organization was one of the important tools of African country policy during both the Obama and Biden administrations. As with other institutions and policies he terminated, Trump argued that USAID and its related policies and activities did not serve US interests and that the US did not profit from USAID.
In the current period, Trump’s policies and rhetoric appear to be aimed at resolving conflicts in Africa. The first example that comes to mind in this context is the steps taken to reduce tensions between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, resulting in the signing of a peace agreement between the two countries. The US has organized the Quad, consisting of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, and is working to establish a ceasefire in Sudan. It claims that white South Africans/Afrikaners are being treated unjustly and unlawfully within the GAC borders and are being massacred. It uses a similar narrative and rhetoric for Nigeria as it did for the GAC. Trump now claims that genocide is being committed against Christians in Nigeria. He has also stated that they could intervene militarily in Nigeria to prevent this. As mentioned above, the White House has been mediating between Algeria and Morocco. Trump’s Special Representative Steve Witkoff has stated that the two countries could sign a peace agreement in the short term. Therefore, Trump’s ambivalent isolationist-interventionist stance is demonstrated by these examples.
In addition, other agenda items in Trump’s foreign policy may shape his Africa policy. In this context, pro-Israel sentiment stands out as a decisive factor. With the start of Trump’s second term, there has been a significant increase in the US’s pro-Israel stance. He implemented policies in his first term that previous American administrations had not chosen to pursue. Recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which are Syrian territory, and recognizing all of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital are among the most important examples. He aims to increase the number of countries signing the Abraham Accords, which were signed as part of the Deal of the Century, a product of his first term. It should be noted that Morocco and Sudan are among the countries currently involved. Saudi Arabia’s signing of the Accord and normalizing relations with Israel is among his main political goals. It continues to support Israel in the UN Security Council.
However, Trump could no longer remain indifferent to Israel’s illegality and questioning of moral norms; he criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and announced to the world public that he opposed Tel Aviv’s annexation of the West Bank. On the other hand, he opposes steps taken by various actors in the international arena aimed at stopping Israel’s violence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The genocide case brought by the Republic of South Africa before the International Court of Justice can be cited as an example in this context. In other words, Trump has found a justification to legitimize his tension with the GAC.
An examination of Trump’s recent statements reveals that the GAC occupies a special place. He claims that white South Africans within the GAC’s borders have been subjected to unjust and unlawful treatment and have been subjected to genocide. During GAC leader Cyril Ramaphosa’s visit to Washington last spring, Trump reiterated these claims.
Trump’s absence from the last G20 Summit held at the GAC can also be interpreted within the context of this tension. Trump claimed that the GAC treated the American delegation poorly during the summit. Washington also opposed the inclusion of assessments on climate change and renewable energy in the final communiqué. For these reasons, he stated that he would not invite the GAC to next year’s G20 Summit in Miami, USA, and that the GAC should be removed from the G20.
As a result, US President Donald Trump is being tested by African countries on his policy towards the continent. Trump, as in his first term, shows the international community and American society that African politics is at the bottom of his agenda in his statements and attitudes. In other words, his statements, attitudes, and some of the policies he has implemented in this context indicate that Trump has an isolationist attitude and stance towards the continent.
On the other hand, as with the GAC, he has indicated that he may intervene militarily in Nigeria, basing this threat on his claim that Christians in the country are being “slaughtered.” This rhetoric shows that Trump can easily abandon his isolationist stance and rhetoric and adopt an interventionist approach. This picture indicates that African countries and the US are in opposing positions on various issues, including the fight against the climate crisis. Like other Republican presidents, Trump opposes policies to combat the climate crisis. Trump, who does not believe in the climate crisis and global warming, claims that these policies are scenarios put forward by China and that Beijing aims to gain an advantage in its competition with the US. African countries, despite contributing the least to greenhouse gas emissions, are among the regions most affected by the climate crisis. Africa wants developed countries to take on more responsibility and play a greater role in this fight, primarily through technical and financial support. Naturally, there is no consensus between Trump and African countries on the climate crisis and how to combat it.
It was anticipated that Trump, who won the 2016 election, would continue his predecessors’ similar approach to African policy. Indeed, it was thought that the Trump administration, which set out with the slogan “America First,” would not attach any special importance to the continent. The fact that he made derogatory remarks about African countries in his first year in office and did not visit any African country during his first term showed that Trump’s interest in Africa would not be any greater than in previous periods. In his current term, he has adopted a stance and rhetoric that oscillates between isolationism and interventionism. African countries are putting Trump to the test regarding which extreme he will pursue in his domestic and foreign policies.
