As President Donald Trump enters his second term, a new shift in US military and foreign policy strategy toward Africa is emerging—one defined by cost-cutting, downsizing, and a renewed emphasis on burden-sharing. While the administration insists that African countries must begin to shoulder more responsibility for their own defense, critics argue that this could be a short-sighted move with long-term security and geopolitical consequences. US military aid and development funding have already been slashed, and now defense spending is also under review. For many African nations, already struggling with jihadist insurgencies and limited resources, Washington’s demand for “burden sharing” feels like a retreat by a long-time partner.
In recent years, countries like Benin, Burkina Faso, and Somalia have faced brutal attacks from militant groups, often absorbing the costs in lives and money. Benin alone has lost over 80 soldiers this year in jihadist attacks. General Michael Langley, head of US Africa Command (Africom), has described the Sahel as “the epicentre of terrorism on the globe,” warning that jihadist groups are pushing south toward the West African coast to expand financing through smuggling, human trafficking, and arms deals. While the general admits the surge in attacks is deeply concerning, he emphasizes that the US is scaling back its military footprint on the continent, preferring to let local forces lead the fight.
Currently, the US has about 6,500 personnel deployed across Africa and previously maintained more than 30 bases. But political instability and military coups in countries like Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have already led to the closure of some key facilities, such as the drone base in Agadez. The Trump administration appears to be leaning further into air strikes and offshore operations, as seen in the increase of US strikes in Somalia this year, rather than sustaining a significant on-the-ground presence.
General Langley insists that the objective is not to serve as a “permanent crutch” but to align with US national security goals while helping African nations build the capacity to fight terrorism on their own. This change in tone and strategy marks a stark departure from the broader, more development-focused approach under President Joe Biden, who supported a “whole-of-government” model integrating security, governance, and climate resilience to tackle instability at its roots.
Even as Langley acknowledges the value of blending military presence with development—citing Ivory Coast’s use of infrastructure projects to stabilize conflict zones—the Trump administration seems determined to reduce the US role to counterterrorism strikes and military training. Yet experts warn that sidelining development could weaken the very foundations needed to ensure lasting peace and stability. Under Trump, USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation have been virtually shut down, replaced by a focus on private-sector trade and investment. While this may appeal to pro-market advocates, such investments are unlikely to flow into fragile and conflict-prone regions where security remains a daily concern.
This narrower focus also raises concerns about growing influence from rival powers. In Congressional testimony, Langley warned that China and Russia are actively exploiting the vacuum left by reduced US engagement. Beijing is agile in capitalizing on absent American leadership, and Moscow is adept at leveraging instability for strategic gains.
There are now even rumors that Africom could be downgraded to a subsidiary of the US European Command. The Africa unit at the National Security Council is reportedly being folded into the broader Middle East-North Africa division, diminishing the continent’s visibility in Washington’s strategic calculations. These structural changes have not gone unnoticed, and they suggest a US foreign policy that is becoming more reactive and narrowly focused.
In pulling back militarily and abandoning development investments, the Trump administration is essentially gambling on a leaner, efficiency-driven Africa policy. But for regions where jihadist groups thrive on poverty, unemployment, and weak governance, military solutions alone may prove insufficient. By asking overstretched African armies to take on even greater burdens without robust support, the US risks undermining not just regional stability, but its own long-term security interests.
Trump’s Africa strategy may seem fiscally prudent in the short term, but its implications could be deeply destabilizing. As armed groups gain ground and rival powers fill the void, the cost of this disengagement could be far greater than any savings made on the budget ledger.Tools As President Donald Trump enters his second term, a new shift in US military and foreign policy strategy toward Africa is emerging one defined by cost-cutting, downsizing, and a renewed emphasis on burden-sharing. While the administration insists that African countries must begin to shoulder more responsibility for their own defense, critics argue that this could be a short-sighted move with long-term security and geopolitical consequences. US military aid and development funding have already been slashed, and now defense spending is also under review. For many African nations, already struggling with jihadist insurgencies and limited resources, Washington’s demand for “burden sharing” feels like a retreat by a long-time partner.
In recent years, countries like Benin, Burkina Faso, and Somalia have faced brutal attacks from militant groups, often absorbing the costs in lives and money. Benin alone has lost over 80 soldiers this year in jihadist attacks. General Michael Langley, head of US Africa Command (Africom), has described the Sahel as “the epicentre of terrorism on the globe,” warning that jihadist groups are pushing south toward the West African coast to expand financing through smuggling, human trafficking, and arms deals. While the general admits the surge in attacks is deeply concerning, he emphasizes that the US is scaling back its military footprint on the continent, preferring to let local forces lead the fight.
Currently, the US has about 6,500 personnel deployed across Africa and previously maintained more than 30 bases. But political instability and military coups in countries like Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso have already led to the closure of some key facilities, such as the drone base in Agadez. The Trump administration appears to be leaning further into air strikes and offshore operations, as seen in the increase of US strikes in Somalia this year, rather than sustaining a significant on-the-ground presence.
General Langley insists that the objective is not to serve as a “permanent crutch” but to align with US national security goals while helping African nations build the capacity to fight terrorism on their own. This change in tone and strategy marks a stark departure from the broader, more development-focused approach under President Joe Biden, who supported a “whole-of-government” model integrating security, governance, and climate resilience to tackle instability at its roots.
Even as Langley acknowledges the value of blending military presence with development—citing Ivory Coast’s use of infrastructure projects to stabilize conflict zones—the Trump administration seems determined to reduce the US role to counterterrorism strikes and military training. Yet experts warn that sidelining development could weaken the very foundations needed to ensure lasting peace and stability. Under Trump, USAID and the Millennium Challenge Corporation have been virtually shut down, replaced by a focus on private-sector trade and investment. While this may appeal to pro-market advocates, such investments are unlikely to flow into fragile and conflict-prone regions where security remains a daily concern.
This narrower focus also raises concerns about the growing influence of rival powers. In Congressional testimony, Langley warned that China and Russia are actively exploiting the vacuum left by reduced US engagement. Beijing is agile in capitalizing on absent American leadership, and Moscow is adept at leveraging instability for strategic gains.
There are now even rumors that Africom could be downgraded to a subsidiary of the US European Command. The Africa unit at the National Security Council is reportedly being folded into the broader Middle East-North Africa division, diminishing the continent’s visibility in Washington’s strategic calculations. These structural changes have not gone unnoticed, and they suggest a US foreign policy that is becoming more reactive and narrowly focused.
In pulling back militarily and abandoning development investments, the Trump administration is essentially gambling on a leaner, efficiency-driven Africa policy. But for regions where jihadist groups thrive on poverty, unemployment, and weak governance, military solutions alone may prove insufficient. By asking overstretched African armies to take on even greater burdens without robust support, the US risks undermining not just regional stability but its own long-term security interests.
Trump’s Africa strategy may seem fiscally prudent in the short term, but its implications could be deeply destabilizing. As armed groups gain ground and rival powers fill the void, the cost of this disengagement could be far greater than any savings made on the budget ledger.
Leave a comment