By J. P. FABRI
The Trump Administration’s decision to cancel aid to Africa marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, signalling not just a recalibration of financial commitments but a deeper disengagement from Africa’s economic and humanitarian landscape.
While the official justification may centre on governance concerns and a preference for investment over aid, the broader implications are profound. This decision risks creating a dangerous void—one that China, Russia and militant groups are eager to fill.
For decades, U.S. aid has played a pivotal role in stabilising African economies, particularly in public health, education and humanitarian relief. Programmes like PEPFAR have saved millions of lives by funding HIV/AIDS treatment, while U.S. support for NGOs has provided essential relief during humanitarian crises. Pulling out of these commitments doesn’t just remove funding; it removes a stabilising force in societies where economic hardship, political fragility and conflict intersect.
The immediate question is: What replaces this aid? If the U.S. is shifting toward a more transactional relationship with Africa—one modelled after China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but driven by private sector investment, then this could represent a new era of economic engagement. But the reality is that no clear U.S. alternative has been announced. The absence of an organised initiative like a ‘Stars and Stripes Strategy’ leaves African governments scrambling to fill the void.
Beyond the economic impact, there is a serious security risk in withdrawing aid, particularly from humanitarian NGOs. Many conflict-affected regions in Africa rely heavily on U.S. and European-funded organisations to provide essential services—food security, medical aid and education. These organisations do more than deliver aid; they create a buffer against extremist recruitment.
When governments fail to provide basic services, militant groups and non-state actors step in. This has already been seen in the Sahel, Somalia and parts of West Africa, where groups like al-Shabaab, Boko Haram and ISIS affiliates exploit economic desperation to gain influence. If humanitarian organisations lose funding and are forced to scale back operations, these groups will fill the vacuum, offering financial incentives, ideological narratives and even governance structures in ungoverned spaces.
This is not speculation; it is historical precedent. When international aid diminishes, radical groups often increase their foothold by providing the very services that states fail to offer. Cutting off aid without a structured transition plan is not just a financial decision—it is a security risk.
Meanwhile, China is already filling the economic void. The Belt and Road Initiative has reshaped Africa’s infrastructure landscape, funding roads, railways and energy projects across the continent. Critics argue that BRI financing creates debt dependency, yet for many African governments, Beijing is the only viable alternative. With the U.S. stepping back, China’s influence will only deepen.
The crucial distinction is that China’s engagement is transactional, not developmental. BRI projects prioritise infrastructure over social services. While this may boost trade and industrialisation, it does little to address public health, education or humanitarian needs. If Western nations withdraw from these sectors entirely, Africa’s social fabric could weaken further, exacerbating instability.
With the U.S. pulling back, Europe is now in a position of immense responsibility. The European Union already provides more direct investment in Africa than China and the U.S. combined, yet it lacks a coherent Africa strategy comparable to BRI. If the EU does not act decisively, it will cede influence to China, Russia and Gulf nations.
What can the EU do?
- Scale up the Global Gateway Initiative – The EU’s Global Gateway is positioned as a response to China’s BRI, but its investment commitments remain limited. If Europe is serious about countering China’s dominance, it must increase funding, streamline approvals and fast-track infrastructure projects—without the debt risks of BRI.
- Prioritise African industrialisation – Unlike China, which often imports labour and resources for its projects, Europe should focus on building African industries. This means manufacturing partnerships, supply chain integration and vocational training, ensuring Africa retains more value from its own resources.
- Strengthen Africa’s social infrastructure – If Europe does not support healthcare, education and humanitarian programmes, Africa’s most vulnerable regions could become breeding grounds for instability. Unlike the U.S. which may pivot entirely toward investment, the EU should balance economic growth with human development.
- Develop a security and counter–terrorism strategy – The EU must recognise that withdrawing humanitarian aid has consequences. If European funding for humanitarian efforts decreases, extremist groups will capitalise on the void. A comprehensive Africa policy must include security cooperation, counter-terrorism efforts and funding for local governance programmes.
If the U.S. withdraws without a replacement and Europe fails to step up, Africa’s economic and security partnerships will increasingly pivot toward China, Russia and the Gulf states. China will dominate trade, Russia will deepen its military foothold (as seen in Mali and the Central African Republic), and non-state actors will exploit governance failures to gain control of vulnerable regions.
The consequences will not be limited to Africa. An unstable Africa means increased migration pressures on Europe, heightened security risks and greater geopolitical instability. The West must recognise that disengagement is not a neutral act—it actively shapes Africa’s trajectory.
The cancellation of U.S. aid is not just a funding cut—it is a strategic retreat. While Washington may argue that investment is a better long-term solution than aid, the immediate reality is that no clear U.S. investment framework has been proposed. Meanwhile, China and Russia are expanding their influence; and extremist groups are watching for vulnerabilities to exploit.
Europe has an opportunity to fill the void left by the U.S., but this requires a shift from passive engagement to strategic action. The EU must move beyond fragmented policies and implement a unified African strategy that balances economic investment, humanitarian aid and security cooperation. If it fails, the result will be an Africa increasingly aligned with China, economically dependent on Gulf nations and militarily vulnerable to extremist takeovers.
Africa’s trajectory is still unwritten. But if the West fails to act, it may soon find itself with little influence left. The question is not just whether the U.S. and EU will step up—it’s whether Africa will even wait for them to decide.
>>>the writer is an applied economist and an Africa-focused entrepreneur.
