The legacy of the Trump administration in Africa will forever be tainted by rhetorical disdain and hostility, as well as short-term financial deals that outweighed inconveniences such as democracy, free and fair elections, and respect for human rights.
The legacy of the Trump administration in Africa will forever be tainted by rhetorical disdain and hostility, as well as short-term financial deals that outweighed inconveniences such as democracy, free and fair elections, and respect for human rights.
Donald Trump’s resounding defeat at the ballot box in November 2020, and the subsequent swearing-in of Joe Biden as U.S. president, buoyed the beleaguered spirits of many of those who work on these critical issues. Many observers—myself included—were hopeful that Biden would seize the moment, especially after he declared, quite early on, that he was “all in” on Africa’s future.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump declared upfront that he would prioritize “making deals,” a stance that was eventually spelled out in the Prosper Africa initiative. Throughout his troubled tenure in office, Trump was blunt and unrepentant. That approach appealed to a number of African heads of state—those such as Uganda’s long-ruling dictator, Yoweri Museveni—who likewise view themselves as strongmen with little interest in concerns outside of fattening their wallets and entrenching their personalist rule. In this way, African elites at least knew where they stood.
So did those who cared about human rights or democracy—and they cheered Biden’s arrival. That initial optimism, however, was fleeting. And the status quo remained intact. For while Africans are now the recipients of primetime speeches and press statements that—rightly—espouse the virtues of democracy and pose the battle against authoritarianism as worthwhile and enduring, they are faced with many of the same Trumpian policies in practice.
An administration can only hide behind its aspirational rhetoric for so long. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a particularly striking case in point.
One of the Trump administration’s most notable policy decisions was accepting an election result in Congo that was patently false—when it became obvious that another candidate had won—and to then endorse the rule of a president who was widely seen as illegitimate. Over the ensuing five years, concerns were repeatedly raised—both inside Congo and in Washington, publicly and privately—about the impending disaster of the follow-on election, which took place at the end of December 2023.
Despite a $1.3 billion investment in preparing for the election, Congo’s electoral commission continually showed itself to be manifestly biased, as well as unwilling and incapable of organizing a credible poll. A host of grim realities doomed the process from the very outset: A deadly government crackdown on journalists, civil society, and the political opposition produced a chilling effect that depressed voter turnout, and the country’s judicial system had been systematically stacked in favor of the ruling party, with judges serving as pliant subordinates instead of a needed check on executive power.
Well aware of the deteriorating situation in Congo and presented with a chance to right a serious wrong, Biden chose the path of least resistance. Despite acknowledging numerous incidents of fraud and corruption that altered the integrity of the December 2023 election results, the administration’s official statement opened by congratulating the incumbent. Much like Trump, Biden has seemed to prioritize access to supply chains and critical minerals and countering China at the expense of defending democracy in Congo.
The major failure here is obvious: Maintaining supply chains and access—whether diplomatic or commercial—requires much more than short-term political concessions that ignore the real causes of long-term instability. One can’t happen sustainably without the other. Like Trump, Biden is chasing transactions, not solutions—though, alongside often baroque pro-democracy rhetoric that was noticeably absent during the Trump era. This flawed approach, specifically in Congo, has been roundly criticized by U.S. congressional leaders, including last month by the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Words and promises are politics. Money and resources are policy.
In spite of Washington’s clout and increased access to the Congolese president, a crisis of legitimacy looms large, as do mounting concerns regarding corruption, the ongoing detention of prominent journalists, and a lack of accountability for the murder of political opponents.
The United States can only win hearts and minds—in Congo and elsewhere in the region—if it abides by its stated principles. The high-level diplomatic language has indeed changed for the better, and that is noteworthy. But the widening berth between that language and action has soured Africans’ perceptions of the United States at a critical time and dramatically undermines Washington’s credibility. It is this inconsistency that makes Washington an unreliable ally in the eyes of millions across the African continent.
While high-level visits by administration officials—including Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken—are major talking points meant to tout the supposed success of the Biden administration’s Africa policy, they have not been backed up by consistent action on the ground. Without having actual resources for the staffing of embassies or substantive shifts in assistance, follow-through on these high-level touches will inevitably remain minimal. Instead, these half-measures unfairly raise expectations among local populations with underwhelming results. While Biden worked diligently to elevate continental priorities—such as action on climate change and representation at the G-20—his administration’s budget for fiscal year 2024 failed to reflect the requisite shift in resources to make these a reality. Once again, there was a considerable gap between rhetoric and reality.
To be fair, the Biden administration should be commended for some recent moves, including the decision to no longer hold joint military exercises with coupist regimes and major human rights abusers. This is indeed a smart and principled move.
Yet despite claiming to be “all in” on the continent and pledging to visit during his first term, Biden has remained mostly absent. With the U.S. presidential election less than nine months away—and his top Africa advisor recently stepping down—a trip to the continent will certainly remain a pipe dream.
And while U.S.-Africa policy is highly unlikely to feature in the Biden administration’s calculus for the remainder of 2024, perhaps it should. So much has been made—during the Trump and Biden eras—about the necessity of “keeping Africa off the president’s desk.” This approach has led to a counterproductive cycle of nursing small fires that inevitably lead to full-blown conflagrations, as is certainly the case in Congo. This is a consequence of focusing on short-term, transactional policies instead of investing in a long-term and principled strategy.
Standing on principle matters, even in the realm of foreign policy. Washington is making a grave mistake when it writes off the importance of democracy in Africa and all that it entails for stability and prosperity. The longing for democracy is poignant—for Africans, this quest has spanned six decades. And the empirical evidence is clear: When Africans have a voice, they choose democratic governance over every other option.
As someone who has long worked on these issues, I can say unequivocally that perceptions of the United States in Africa are at an all-time low—punctuated by the overwhelming rejection of the U.S. policy stance toward Israel and the carnage being inflicted on civilians in Gaza. The U.S. veto of a cease-fire at the U.N. Security Council, and the enabling of what many experts have labeled a genocide, does not bode well for both the short- and long-term perceptions of Biden’s foreign policy. And perhaps rightly so. Nevertheless, I am also confident that more Africans would prefer Biden, were he to actually deliver more on democracy—and less on hypocrisy and double standards—over the vapid and merely transactional approach of Trump.
If Washington wants to regain its influence in Congo and elsewhere across Africa, then it needs to double down on democracy as a core pillar of its foreign policy—not just in style but in substance. This can distinguish the United States from its authoritarian foes worldwide and in turn help cultivate long-term allies across the African continent, home to the fastest-growing and youngest population in the world. Biden would be wise to bear all of this in mind the next time he steps to the podium.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
