Trump’s Transactional Focus on Africa’s Resources 

The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) signals a clear shift in how Washington thinks about Africa. 

For years, United States (US) policy leaned heavily on humanitarian aid and democracy promotion. This document leaves that behind and takes a straightforward investment-first view that puts US economic and national security interests at the centre. The focus is simple: secure critical minerals, energy partnerships, and reliable allies. 

From Aid to Investment 

The core of this reorientation is the recognition that Africa is indispensable to US economic resilience. The strategy prioritises securing critical mineral supplies, such as lithium and cobalt, essential for batteries and defence systems. This is a crucial issue for the US, which is completely import-dependent for 12 critical minerals and over 50% dependent for 28 others. Africa holds an estimated 30% of global critical minerals reserves. 

The administration has been keen to leverage diplomacy to unlock these deals. For instance, the US has prioritised efforts to secure a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda in order to pave the way for major US investment in the DRC's vast mineral resources. 

The document also emphasises increasing investments in energy sectors, including "nuclear energy, liquid petroleum gas, and liquified natural gas technologies". While former president Joe Biden explicitly prioritised climate change in his National Security Strategy, the Trump NSS moves away from this entirely. This signals that the US will not place pressure on African nations to industrialise using green energy. 

Competition and the Balance of Power 

The strategy's "balance of power" principle creates a paradox in Africa. The document states the US "cannot allow any nation to become so dominant that it could threaten our interests", yet China's economic footprint across the continent is already substantial.

China's trade with Africa reached $296 billion in 2024, more than double America's $104.9 billion.

To counter China in Africa, the Trump administration may apply elements of its Western Hemisphere strategy, where it aims to "deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities" in the region. The strategy aims to position America as the preferred partner for countries in the region, both economically and on security matters. The administration's pitch emphasises what it characterises as the hidden costs of Chinese and Russian aid: the espionage risks, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and debt traps embedded in ostensibly low-cost assistance.

For Africa, this could mean that Washington selectively partners with stable governments willing to open their markets to American businesses. 

But the strategy's non-interventionist stance limits traditional balance-of-power tools. Without sustained diplomatic engagement or willingness to operate in unstable regions where China moves freely, Washington relies almost entirely on private sector competitiveness and superior technology.

Security, Ideology, and the Christian Tilt 

On security, the strategy strikes a careful balance. While acknowledging the need to "remain wary of resurgent Islamist terrorist activity in parts of Africa," it commits to "avoiding any long-term American presence or commitments". 

The administration's recent alignment with Christian communities facing an Islamist insurgency in Nigeria reveals how security priorities now intersect with religious identity. The strategy explicitly ties American strength to "the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health" and emphasises "traditional families" as essential to national power. This marks a departure from the secular human rights framework of previous administrations toward what analysts describe as Christian nationalism, a values framework that replaces liberal internationalism with explicit religious and civilisational priorities. This system may determine which African conflicts merit Washington's attention, and which partners receive support. 

South Africa: A Point of Shared Values 

Relations between South Africa and the US are at an all-time low, culminating in the US boycotting the G20 summit in Johannesburg and with bills circulating in both chambers of the US Congress to rethink the relationship. This newspaper has written at length about the bilateral worries and how it can be rectified. 

The irony is that despite the diplomatic lows, a potential point of overlap now exists. Although the Trump administration's new strategy shifts totally away from a liberal world order, a common ground may be found in the perception of both nations as Christian conservative-based societies. The South African public remains overwhelmingly Christian and socially conservative, a fact which, if leveraged, could potentially overcome current diplomatic lows by creating alignment on certain values-based priorities that resonate with the new US administration's ideological tilt. 

Nevertheless, South Africa now faces the looming risk of US sanctions at a moment when a major opportunity for partnership could slip away. The strategy’s emphasis on “the development of US-backed nuclear energy [that] can generate profits for US businesses and help us compete for critical minerals and other resources” highlights a potential area for co-operation. South Africa is well placed to contribute, with world-class nuclear engineers already working on cutting-edge nuclear technology in the US. 

For all its sharp edges, the US is ultimately looking for partnership in Africa. The transactional frame is a deliberate and necessary shift, shaped by the world as it is rather than the world Washington once imagined.