The USAID Transition and Its Implications for Africa

The recent announcement made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio signals a paradigm shift in U.S. foreign engagement, particularly concerning Africa. This significant transition, which will take effect on July 1, has left many wondering about its repercussions. For decades, USAID has played a crucial role in development, acting as a dependable partner in the region. Yet, this revamped approach prompts serious questions about the future of global development efforts.

Rubio defended this decision with noteworthy conviction, stating, “This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end. Under the Trump administration, we will finally have a foreign funding mission that prioritizes national interests… USAID will no longer implement foreign assistance. Programs that align with administration policies will be handled by the State Department—with more accountability, strategy, and efficiency.” This bold assertion aims to bolster the efficiency of foreign aid; however, one can’t help but wonder: at what cost?

The overhaul aligns with President Donald Trump’s executive order issued on January 20, which directed a 90-day review of USAID to assess its alignment with U.S. interests. As a direct consequence, by March 10, Rubio had proceeded to cancel a staggering 5,200 USAID contracts—approximately 83% of its entire portfolio—leaving the State Department in charge of the remaining 1,000 contracts. This radical move raises questions about the long-term viability of countless development initiatives.

Before this shutdown, USAID was active in over 100 countries, employing more than 10,000 staff members. Its efforts were essential, advancing critical areas like education, health, food security, and crisis response, especially across sub-Saharan Africa. Now, its closure sets off alarm bells regarding the potential gaps in these vital global development frameworks.

What This Means for Africa

While Rubio indicated that specific “high-priority” programs might persist under the State Department, the lack of clarity on which regions or sectors will receive support leaves many African nations on edge. Countries that have relied on USAID for decades now face the prospect of significant geopolitical and developmental upheaval.

The dismantling of USAID creates considerable challenges for Africa. The agency has been a cornerstone in providing essential funding for healthcare, education, food security, and governance programs within the region. In 2024, USAID allocated a robust $6.5 billion in humanitarian aid to Africa—a figure that, curiously enough, represents less than 0.1% of the U.S. federal budget.

In the recent fiscal year, U.S. foreign assistance funneled $10.6 billion toward HIV/AIDS programs and $1.5 billion for combatting diseases like Ebola, malaria, and tuberculosis—outlays that were predominantly directed to Africa. Noteworthy initiatives, such as malaria prevention in Nigeria and agricultural resilience in the Sahel, now hang in the balance due to this policy overhaul.

Beyond health-related support, USAID has been instrumental in job creation and trade facilitation. Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, its East African Trade and Investment Hub enabled exports worth an impressive $600 million and generated over 40,000 jobs from 2014 to 2019. Initiatives like Feed the Future also demonstrated success, effectively reducing rural poverty in Uganda by 16% between 2010 and 2013.

Although the U.S. has yet to rule out assistance to Africa entirely, experts caution that the State Department may struggle to maintain continuity without a clear transition plan. This abrupt shift threatens delays, funding gaps, and the potential collapse of critical programs that relied on USAID’s well-established infrastructure.

Does Africa Need Aid or Partnership?

As traditional donors like USAID recalibrate their priorities, the pressing question arises: Does Africa require aid or a more robust partnership? While foreign aid has been instrumental in emergencies and basic developmental needs, its tendency to foster dependency is worrisome. The reality is that once funding ceases, the real challenge begins.

Since 2018, we have witnessed a steady decline in aid to Africa as nations such as Germany, France, and Norway reduce their contributions. The UK’s decision to cut its Overseas Development Aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income in 2020 further underscores this trend.

Compounding these challenges, African governments currently allocate less than 10% of their GDP to healthcare. With just $4.5 billion in capital expenditure falling woefully short of the $26 billion required annually to satisfy burgeoning health demands, one has to wonder: Where will the necessary resources come from?

As Africa finds itself at a crossroads, what it increasingly needs are equitable partnerships built on trade, investment, and shared interests. Programs like Feed the Future and the East African Trade Hub illustrate how collaborative efforts can create jobs, boost exports, and alleviate poverty.

This shift toward a partnership-driven approach was highlighted during the recently concluded 17th U.S.-Africa Business Summit in Luanda, where African leaders fervently urged the U.S. to invest in human capital and infrastructure development. Angolan President João Lourenço aptly called for a new chapter in U.S.-Africa relations, advocating for the end of aid dependency in favor of partnerships based on investment, innovation, and mutual respect.

He stated, “It is time to replace the logic of aid with the logic of ambition and private investment.” He passionately implored that Africa be seen as a credible partner rich in potential, eager to collaborate for mutual benefit.

Ultimately—and perhaps most importantly—Africa requires a form of cooperation that empowers its institutions and economies. The future lies not in more aid but in partnerships that foster lasting impact and mutual benefits.

In this moment of uncertainty and change, what can we learn from history? How can we forge a more collaborative path forward, one that respects Africa’s agency and insight into its development needs? The answers to these questions will help us shape a better future.

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International – Monitoring.