Living Within Their Means: Africa’s Response to Trump’s Policies

The ‘America First’ doctrine, a cornerstone of U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, has reshaped global dynamics, leaving no region untouched. From health and climate action to trade and geopolitics, the ripple effects have been profound—and for Africa, the impact has been particularly stark. Already burdened by systemic challenges such as poverty, disease, climate vulnerability, and political instability, African nations now face an additional layer of uncertainty as U.S. funding for critical global institutions and programs is abruptly scaled back.

The sudden policy shifts have forced African leaders to confront a pressing question: Can the continent transition from decades of reliance on foreign aid to a new era of self-sufficiency? While the immediate challenges are undeniable—threats to life-saving health programs, disruptions to supply chains, and economic instability—the crisis has also sparked a growing call for innovation and self-reliance. But is Africa prepared for such a paradigm shift? And what does this moment mean for the continent’s future?

As African nations navigate this complex landscape, the answers to these questions could redefine their role on the global stage—and determine whether this moment becomes a catalyst for progress or a deepening of existing vulnerabilities.

Why Trump’s Policies are Disruptive for African Nations

The most significant policy change was defunding key global institutions and programs, including the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and healthcare initiatives like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Since 1963, USAID has been a critical supporter of development and health programs across Africa.

Programs such as PEPFAR and PIM have funded life-saving initiatives, including HIV testing and counseling, prevention of mother-to-child transmission, malaria interventions, and the employment of health workers.

In Kenya, where 1.3 million people live with HIV, approximately 65% of intervention costs are covered by donor funds. Similarly, in South Africa, which has about five million people living with HIV, the reliance on foreign aid is equally significant.

Trump’s policies have directly impacted individuals who depend on these programs for survival. Without access to drugs, testing, and treatment, many fear for their lives.

Panic in African Villages

As Trump signed executive orders in Washington, fear spread across African communities. In Kenyan towns like Homabay and Busia, residents are worried about the potential for increased mortality rates due to uncertainties in accessing antiretroviral therapy.

“If drugs are not there, I will lose weight to 45 kg from my current 110 kg,” said Benta Angola, a mother of six who has lived with HIV for 24 years. Speaking to local media, Angola expressed deep concern about the consequences of losing access to medication, which the US government essentially funds.

Patients were informed that they would receive only a month’s supply of drugs instead of the usual three-month dosage. Despite government assurances that drug stocks would last for three months, USAID’s defunding has caused significant disruptions to supply chains.

What African Leaders Say

Leaders like President Uhuru Kenyatta in Kenya and General Muhoozi Kainerugaba of Uganda urged governments to act as fear spread through the continent. Different perspectives emerged on how African governments might respond to Trump’s policies.

Initial calls advocated for African countries to negotiate with the United States. Countries felt they had been thrown over a cliff with the abrupt halting of funding. If not for reinstatement of assistance, more time would allow USAID to hand over operations to governments in a structured process.

Muhoozi Kainerugaba, a general in the Ugandan army and the president’s son, stated that “our people will be grateful” as he urged Trump to reconsider the policies.

Other leaders called for local solutions. However, raising homegrown funds would be challenging for many African countries without a notice period.

Some African leaders are taking an unusual stand on suspending development aid under Trump’s foreign policy. Instead of complaining and shifting blame, they call for nations to live within their means.

Uhuru Kenyatta, the former president of Kenya, pointed out that citizens should not complain about Trump’s aid freeze. Trump was putting the interests of his country first and appealing to his citizens.

Speaking in Mombasa, a coastal city in Kenya, the former president stated, “Why are you crying? It’s not your government. It’s not your country. He (Trump) has no reason to give you anything. You don’t pay taxes in America. He’s appealing to his people.”

Kenyatta concluded that Africans were on their own and should ask their leaders to prioritize their countries’ needs and provide solutions. Uhuru termed the aid freeze a wake-up call to start considering what Africans can do to help themselves instead of crying.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame ultimately agreed with Trump. In an interview, Kagame stated, “President Trump’s unconventional way of doing things, I completely agree with him on many things.” While Kigali received significant aid from the United States, the president does not believe that countries should survive through foreign aid.

“I think we might learn some lessons from being hurt,” the president added. Kagame noted that from the freeze on aid, African countries should learn to do the things they have not been doing.

Temporary Relief

The United States announced exemptions, heeding the requests of global leaders. The exemptions were specifically for life-saving programs. They meant that persons living with HIV would continue receiving medications for some time as the programs went under review.

However, the exemption is a temporary measure to cushion beneficiaries from imminent danger. They also exclude some sections of society, including the LGBTQ community. Considering the discriminatory treatment of such minority groups in countries like Uganda, the aid freeze is viewed as a threat to global health.

Pius Kennedy, who is a program officer at African Queer Network in Kampala, noted that the minority community would no longer access lubricants, condoms, and self-testing kits. Transmission and infection rates are expected to increase. The spread of disease in the LGBTQ community is likely to cause further infections across the population.

According to Pius, the withdrawal of HIV funding for the queer was unfortunate because the community looked at the United States as the last country they could turn to when facing insecurities everywhere else. More than 30 countries in Africa criminalize the queer community.

Response of African Governments to the Aid Freeze

Governments started enhancing their budgets for programs affected by US policies.

In Kenya, the Treasury pointed out that there would be a budget deficit of more than 54 billion shillings, which is equivalent to more than 415 million dollars. Without foreign aid, the government would need to raise funds from taxes and debt or by approaching new development partners.

South Africa indicated it was already seeking partners among the G20 countries. It aims to plug the 17% HIV budget deficit left by the cancellation of USAID.

African governments must eliminate wastage and downsize to raise funds for critical government roles. Patrick Amuriat Oboi, president of the Forum for Democratic Change in Uganda, stated that wasteful government expenditures must be eliminated and the funds repurposed to finance healthcare, education, and other areas impacted by the aid cut.

The call for downsizing is more critical because inefficiency and mismanagement of donor funds are some reasons for halting the assistance. These factors will also be at play when the US reconsiders funding development in Africa.

Can Countries Replace U.S. Funding Immediately?

African countries cannot instantly replace US funding from local sources. Doing so would require them to increase tax rates rapidly, a move that could cause protests and demonstrations from their citizens.

Kenya has recently faced violent anti-tax protests. Most African countries have maxed out their tax potential, and they need new development partners in the short run. Infrastructure of any sort, after all, cannot be built overnight.

A Crucial Moment for Multilateral and Bilateral RelationsReplacing USAID with assistance from other countries creates a crucial turning point in multilateralism and bilateral agreements between African countries, the EU, China, and Russia.

The global powers were already focused on enhancing relations with Africa. Trump’s policies may result in the replacement of American funding by foreign direct investments from other countries.

China expressed its support for the WHO after Trump announced funding cuts. China recently announced its support for South Africa after the US threatened tariff and non-tariff trade sanctions.

Another possible development is the entrenchment of relations between Russia and Africa. Russia has quickly offered alternatives to African countries like Sudan, Chad, and Burkina Faso. While Russia’s support has mainly been in the military, relations between Africa and Russia could involve other funding, including health.

Another angle is the enhanced role of the EU and European countries in Africa. In the past, the EU waited for signals from Washington on how to set policy for Africa. That approach is under threat as Trump’s “America First” policy doesn’t spare America’s old allies and partners.

The EU may increasingly decouple its African policies from the US. Changes in the EU’s policy towards Africa are also necessary as the former colonial masters face threats to their interests in Africa. Likely actions from the EU include increased funding for African countries and enhanced bilateral relations.

Overall, U.S. policy for Africa will likely have a domino effect on global policies, especially in multilateralism and bilateralism. A rise in bilateralism over multilateralism may disadvantage some African countries. Africa may still need to negotiate with the US to restore the aid package.

U.S. Influence in Africa after USAID

Washington still maintains huge influence over Africa, even after halting the flow of aid. The U.S. is a major shareholder in multilateral institutions, notably the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Further, the US has a significant influence on the African Development Bank. The US’s control of the Bretton Woods institutions means it still has substantial hard power. The consequence is that African countries are better off considering living within their means and negotiating with the US than increasing their leaning towards Eastern powers, including China and Russia.

What’s Next for African Countries?

Uncertainty will be central to U.S.-Africa policy for at least four years. Just as the US pulled aid, the AGOA agreement ends in 2025.

Individual countries like South Africa, Rwanda, and Sudan are increasingly attracting the attention of the US. Also, new land laws in South Africa have resulted in the US threatening further sanctions against the country. At the same time, some officials in Rwanda have faced sanctions over the war in eastern Congo.

Such developments imply a heightened level of uncertainty. As a result, African leaders might wake up each day of the next four years thinking about what new policies President Trump may come up with.

The way forward and solution to the uncertainties is the development of African solutions for African problems. Developing homegrown solutions ensures sustainability in funding and derisking from overdependence on foreign aid and loans. Until the countries can ensure sustainable funding models, leaders in those countries might wake up daily worrying about what Trump might do next.

Ensuring that African countries live within their means will be crucial. That calls for African leaders to tap the potential of its young, educated, entrepreneurial minds, the continent’s most excellent resource. Of essence, it also taps into its rich mineral sources, ending entrenched corruption and perennial conflict that continue to destroy livelihoods.