– Advertisement –
By Sheriff Bojang Jr
rom international trade to global health, Trump’s flurry of decisions on the first day in office are expected to impact lives and livelihoods across the world, including the African continent.
During months of a heated election campaign for his return to the White House, Donald Trump promised to effect major policy changes – as part of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda – from his first day in office. Immediately after his swearing-in as the 47th president of the US on Monday, Trump signed a flurry of executive orders and actions, from issues of immigration and international trade to global health.
– Advertisement –
Trump complained about international agreements and initiatives “that do not reflect our country’s values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives”, saying they “steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people”.
Here are five of the executive orders that are expected to affect Africa.
Suspension of foreign assistance programmes
– Advertisement –
Trump’s executive order freezes disbursement of all US foreign development assistance for 90 days pending a review of “programmatic efficiencies” and ensuring that disbursements are “aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States”, arguing “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values”.
Under the executive order, all department and agency heads with responsibility for the US foreign development assistance programmes shall immediately pause new obligations and disbursement of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing non-governmental organisations, international organisations and contractors.
According to OECD statistics of Official Development Assistance, the US is the biggest foreign aid donor, distributing $48bn in 2021, with about a third of that sum going to sub-Saharan Africa. Over the 2023/2024 financial year, the US said it had donated almost $3.7bn.
It’s hard to say what conclusions and potential changes the Trump administration’s assessment of the foreign development assistance will result in, says Mark Bohlund, a senior credit research analyst at emerging market research group REDD Intelligence. However, he tells The Africa Report that it seems likely that it will become more conditional, for instance on recipients taking a tougher stance against China or favouring US companies in business dealings.
Also receive offers from The Africa Report’s partners
“It comes at a challenging time, as European donors who collectively are more important for Africa than the US, are spending a higher share of their aid budgets on so-called in-country assistance – on hosting refugees – and have reprioritised some aid towards supporting Ukraine rather than African partners,” Bohlund says.
External revenue service
Under his America First Trade Policy, Trump announced plans to establish an External Revenue Service with a broader plan of using it to collect tariffs, duties and other foreign trade-related revenue.
This move to impose tariffs and taxes on other countries could disrupt international trade and further complicate the already complex global tax system, Taiwo Oyedele, the chairman of Nigeria’s Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, wrote on X. According to Oyedele, Trump’s decision highlights the importance of the ongoing tax reforms in Nigeria. “By revamping our tax system, we can better navigate potential challenges and seize any opportunities this development may present,” he says.
For Bright Simons, Ghanaian entrepreneur and head of research at the IMANI Centre for Policy and Education, there is still a long way between Trump’s memo to the federal agencies to explore the use of a global supplemental tariff to close US trade deficits and actual imposition of broad-based tariffs that will impact the types of goods Africa exports to the US. Most of these, he says, are primary goods that Trump doesn’t care about.
Only a few countries like South Africa make and export the kinds of things, like cars, that are in the crosshairs of the Trump turn-in policy. However, “if Trump decides to undermine AGOA, there would definitely be an impact as there are countries with sectors such as textiles that do see the US as a major growth market,” Simons tells The Africa Report. “Trump did not give an indication on the campaign trail that he would, and, so far, he appears to be sticking to the campaign script.”
Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement
Trump has been a fierce critic of climate change for years, and in the run-up to the November 2024 election as well as his inauguration, climate activists were concerned he would reverse the global gains made in the fight against climate change. In the past, Trump made a series of unfounded statements about climate change, including his 2012 post on Twitter (now X) that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive”.
It wasn’t surprising that one of Trump’s immediate executive orders after taking his oath of office was about the US quitting the Paris Climate Agreement.
READ MORE Africa: $250bn funding gap needed to meet Paris agreement, private sector can fill hole
The executive order said the US Ambassador to the UN “shall immediately submit a formal written notification of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement” and any agreement, pact, accord or similar commitment made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The US also announced immediately ceasing or revoking any purported financial commitment it made under the framework.
The US accounts for around 14% of the world’s carbon emissions and is the second-largest emitter of CO2 globally, after China. Climate campaigner Dean Bhebhe of climate and energy think tank Power Shift Africa, says for Africa, already enduring record-breaking droughts, Trump’s decision threatens to derail global climate progress and undermines critical efforts to protect lives.
Trump’s withdrawal efforts are devastating for the future of the planet and those facing the most significant disruption to their lives and livelihoods due to climate change, says Tjada D’Oyen McKenna, the CEO of humanitarian group Mercy Corps.
Withdrawal from WHO
Trump’s announcement that he would withdraw the US from the World Health Organisation solidifies his disapproval of the WHO and its leadership. During Trump’s first term in 2020, he attempted to get the US to part ways with the global health organisation, citing its alleged mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic and other global health crises.
In Monday’s executive order, Trump accused the organisation of demanding “unfairly onerous payments from the US, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments”, a reference to China, which, according to Trump, contributes nearly 90% less to the WHO.
The US is the WHO’s top donor and partner, contributing $1.284bn during the 2022–2023 biennium. The withdrawal of US funding will negatively impact the WHO and its partners to identify and respond to emergencies across the world and advance other key global health priorities.
Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the WHO comes at a time of growing global health inequalities, with some experts warning his move will undermine international health solidarity and leave the most vulnerable parts of the world, Africa in particular, at even greater risk.
National energy emergency
This sweeping executive order signals a pivot in America’s energy policy that could reverberate across Africa. By pushing for greater fossil fuel exploration and development at home, the US may become an even more forceful competitor in global energy markets, potentially driving down oil and gas prices. For energy-exporting countries in Africa, such as Nigeria and Angola, cheaper American production could challenge their market share, though it could also lower production costs for African economies reliant on fuel imports.
The order’s rollback of various climate-focused initiatives could herald less US backing for global climate finance programmes in poorer regions. If the US steps back from funding clean-energy projects, some African nations may seek partnerships with other international players or scale back their environmental ambitions.
Africa’s mineral wealth could attract renewed attention under a policy that emphasises “domestic mining and processing of non-fuel minerals” and tightens supply chains. US companies, eager to ensure reliable access to rare earth metals and other critical minerals, might increase investment or seek fresh arrangements with African suppliers. This could, in principle, spur new jobs and infrastructure projects on the continent, but it could also renew concerns about exploitative practices if governance is weak.
Whether this policy change will yield shared prosperity or fan tensions and inequalities will hinge on how vigorously American firms engage with African partners and how effectively African governments manage their resources.
