As election day nears, the Let's Find Common Ground podcast speaks with two members of Congress, one Republican and one Democrat, who are reaching across rigid partisan divides, recognizing the value of compromise and seeking constructive change.
Royal Moroccan Armed Forces service members and U.S. Army Soldiers hold an African Lion banner during a Moroccan F-16 flyover at the closing day of African Lion 2025 (AL25) at Tantan, Morocco, May 23, 2025.
WASHINGTON – Both the Trump administration and its critics agree the U.S. risks losing influence in Africa to rivals like China and Russia. But while the administration argues its commercially driven foreign policy will reverse the trend, critics warn that retreating from development and diplomacy could deepen the problem.
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. plans to consolidate embassies, scale back USAID operations, and pivot towards a security and commercial driven approach on the continent. While U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) defense officials insist their core missions within Africa will remain intact, civilian experts and lawmakers argue that abandoning diplomatic and development tools opens the door for strategic competitors to fill the void and fails to take into account what would best benefit African countries.
AFRICOM is one of 11 Department of Defense combatant commands responsible for operations and relationships with African countries, not including Egypt. AFRICOM operates in Stuttgart, Germany, with missions focused on counterterrorism, regional security, and U.S. interests.
“The Trump Administration’s approach to Africa isn’t America first, it is America in retreat. From gutting USAID to proposing a budget that dismantles key diplomatic tools to weakening AFRICOM,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy. “The Administration is reversing years of progress and investment in countries across Africa, while leaving a void that our adversaries are all too happy to fill.”
Troy Fitrell, senior bureau official of the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs and former ambassador to the Republic of Guinea, defended the Trump administration’s Africa policy earlier this month at a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing.
The Trump administration is "fundamentally shifting our approach to Africa to a strategy that prioritizes robust commercial engagement," adding that the U.S. must recognize African nations "as equal partners in trade and investment," Fitrell said.
Fitrell said Trump’s new strategy is necessary to counter China and Russia, which have greatly expanded trade with Africa.
“The opportunity in Sub-Saharan Africa is not theoretical. It’s already being seized by our adversaries,” said Fitrell, who testified earlier this month at a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy hearing regarding China’s aggressive economic playbook.
Fitrell highlighted that while the U.S. trade with Africa has declined, China has used government-backed deals to dominate African markets, exporting over $137 billion to Sub-Saharan Africa last year, more than seven times what the U.S. exported.
Relying on China and Russia does not help Africa, he said.
“One African country after another has asked us to bring in big tech. Oracle, Microsoft, Google, but they won’t come because they can’t trust the Chinese-built digital infrastructure,” Fitrell said at the June 4th hearing, arguing that "if we want to have a modern digital economy, we need to rip out those systems and replace them.”
AFRICOM’S budget is part of the overall Department of Defense budget and is not publicly released as a separate line item, though in the Defense Fiscal Year 2024 bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an additional $400 million towards AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM (responsible for defense strategy in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean).
The Department of Defense’s AFRICOM declined requests for an on-the-record interview but responded by providing links to webpages. An official from AFRICOM spoke on behalf of the Department but only in background without being named because they are not supposed to speak with the media.
The official said there had been no shift in African policy at the Defense Department. They are pursuing the same missions within AFRICOM but making them more “refined.”
According to the official, these refinements have been happening for the last three years, given the increasing importance on the continent, but now AFRICOM leaders are searching for ways to make processes more “efficient.”
To determine if a mission is “efficient,” the Defense Department assesses if there are direct U.S. interests prevalent. If not, missions could be discontinued. The official mentioned that the same assessment would be conducted for embassies when determining which should be shut down, and that consolidations would be happening in the future, but they would not say where.
Although the official works in AFRICOM, they said that although USAID has been terminated, USAID projects in Africa would continue through the State Department. This seemed to contradict a statement President Donald Trump made in April, saying he would draft an order to shut down the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs.
As of publication, the State Department did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
Of the three USAID personnel contacted for this story, two responded, stating they were not permitted to comment on agency matters until July 1, when they no longer work for the government. They were on administrative leave per the Trump administration’s orders.
Multiple current and former Peace Corps volunteers in Africa were contacted for this story to understand their projects and presence, given cuts to funding, but they expressed hesitancy to speak on the subject for similar reasons.
Some experts in U.S. aid to Africa said U.S. assistance had already been focused on helping U.S. companies and had largely failed to successfully reach communities in need.
“What Africa needs is a serious industrial revolution. And that is not where the money is going,” said Yaw Kissi, a Ghanaian consultant working on Africa’s development.
He said U.S. assistance primarily benefits U.S. companies and does not build a strong foundational infrastructure, which is what African countries need to commercially develop on their own.
“How can you say you want to help me, but through your help, you are only serving a certain interest, and you are not really looking at what I need? That is not help,” Kissi added.
Kissi also criticized AFRICOM’s presence on the continent as misaligned with African priorities, stating, “We don’t need a military base.”
The defense official said that the U.S. will be increasing its focus on Africa because U.S. adversaries, Chinese and Russian, have growing investments on the African continent.
While defense officials emphasized efficiency and refinement in military engagement, development experts and some lawmakers argued that sustained diplomatic and humanitarian investments are equally vital.
“The U.S. has had, and should maintain, a key role in promoting peace and security, upholding human rights, creating pathways for inclusive economic growth, strengthening democratic institutions, and building invaluable people-to-people ties,” Van Hollen continued.
Critics warned that drawing down civilian-led programs in favor of security-heavy strategies could destabilize long-term partnerships and undermine broader U.S. interests on the continent.
“These investments not only support our values, they also help maintain regional stability, improve our national security, open markets for American businesses, and foster long-term partnerships rooted in mutual respect,” Van Hollen added. “I am working in Congress to continue to advance these shared priorities with African nations despite this Administration’s actions.”
AFRICOM’s goal moving forward is to no longer be the “crutch” for African countries, allowing the countries to lead their own security efforts and not rely solely on the U.S.
While defense officials emphasized efficiency and refinement in military engagement, development experts and some lawmakers argue that sustained diplomatic and humanitarian investments are equally vital.
"For too long, the United States has prioritized development assistance over commercial engagement,” Fitrell said. “Trade over aid is now truly America’s policy for Africa."
Bridget Erin Craig is a graduate student at Northwestern Medill in the Politics, Policy and Foreign Affairs specialization. She graduated with a B.A. from the University of Miami in Political Science, Criminology and Sustainable Development.
On May 8th, 2025, the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) convened a session to discuss the future of the transition to clean energy in the face of some stiff headwinds caused by the new US administration led by Donald Trump. The panel included Dale Bryk, Director of State and Regional Policy at the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program and a Senior Fellow at the Regional Plan Association, and Dan Sosland, President of the Acadia Center. The discussion was moderated by Richard Eidlin, National Policy Director for Business for America.
The actions of the Trump administration are somewhat surprising, given the campaign rhetoric at face value. While the administration promised an end to burdensome Federal regulation and an era of new Federalism, the current policy regarding clean energy and the environment has been anything but. The president’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy”, issued on January 20th, 2025, is, in fact, a heavy-handed intrusion by the Federal government into state and local energy policies, and reads, according to Bryk, like a “mindless assault on anything that sounds clean.”
While the acts of the current administration will make a transition to clean energy more difficult, the message from Bryk was that “the arc of history bends towards clean energy.” The transition will happen because, politics aside, the science is now clear and not in dispute. So what can be done in the face of an administration that is antagonistic to this transition? As described by the panel, US states in fact have a tremendous amount of jurisdiction over not only energy policies, but over the industries that primarily contribute to climate change, such as transportation and housing. And the advice from Bryk to those state and local governments is “not to chase the chaos.” Most states and communities have affirmative agendas for their energy policies, and those need to be defended, including in the courts.
There is a long history of Federal and state collaboration on various programs, and many states also cooperate among themselves to agree on, for example, emission limits from power plants operating within those states. Historically, these efforts have broad bipartisan support. One of the points repeatedly mentioned during this presentation was that there is more agreement on the need for an energy transition than might be apparent based on the highly polarized talking points visible at the national level. But how is this possible?
Part of the reason is that the discussion at the state and local levels is not necessarily about “climate change.” In fact, how we discuss the transition to clean energy is a complicated issue itself, and what we say can also obscure what is happening in many states. Bryk emphasized that in many states, “climate is not the driver. Job creation is the driver.” Or, reducing energy costs is the driver, or just trying to keep energy dollars local is the driver. It can be surprising for people steeped in climate change discussions to learn that the US states that generate the most wind power (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) or have the most widespread use of heat pumps (South Carolina) do not have the most aggressive climate policies. They have other priorities that align with the desire to make a transition to clean energy, and the climate impact may be just a side benefit, for now. On the topic of the transition to clean energy, the American electorate has more in common than it has differences. Even conservatives argue that the Trump energy policy is interfering in the market, and is not allowing renewable energy sources to move to the forefront. However, it is often economically advantageous for them to do so.
So, how we talk about this issue matters. As Sosland emphasized, we are all paying for the costs of the energy choices we are currently making. We pay not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the impact on the climate and our own health. “We need to do a better job in the climate community of framing a message that works. We talk so much about cost, so much about utility and other kinds of economics…we are really talking about human beings in flood zones, coughing, getting sick. We are talking about humans here. The human impact of this issue is not even being addressed. That has to change. It has to turn around.” As Bryk put it, “The underlying values that we have are not controversial, and that’s a place where we can start and have conversations about these things with our families and our friends.”
If the transition is going to happen, however, it’s not the case that unleashed market forces by themselves will get us to where we want to be. As Bryk recognized, we know that there are “communities across the country that have been overburdened by pollution and underserved by the clean energy solutions.” There is a disconnect, and it’s important to think about what, as she says, a “just and orderly transition looks like, economic sector by economic sector. To make that transition orderly, we will need policies to be put into place that avoid the failures that often occur in the market. “That’s part of what we have to think about when we are thinking about equitable transition … all of those opportunities to intervene and help it work better and prevent the bad things from happening that can happen in a transition.”
The approach of the current administration will pose the greatest challenges to our ability to create just policies. Although states and communities have power, states cannot do everything when plans involve, for example, Federal leases, and the government may renege on those contracts. This makes it extremely difficult to conduct business. “What can you rely on if you can’t rely on the signature of the US government on a signed contract?” Bryk asked. The opposition of the Federal government to enabling a clean energy transition is especially surprising, given that data shows economic forces are already pushing in that direction. Sosland reminded us that in the Northeast region of the country, energy production was 21% based on coal just 10-15 years ago. It is now less than 1% coal. Market pressures are driving the shift away from fossil fuels. This is why the panel believes that the transition is inevitable, but the opposition of the Federal government will delay the transition timeframe, and that may or may not be the time that we have. International agreements aim to achieve goals by 2030, 2035, and 2050. If we are not on track to meet the first targets, we will either not meet or it will be much more expensive to meet the 2050 target. So, while the technology and ingenuity is in place, the policies of the current administration are incredibly damaging. “This isn’t a blip, necessarily, that is affordable. Losing four or more years is really going to be damaging to meeting the 2030, 2035 targets as we head to 2050,” Sosland reminded us. “There is an enormous amount to worry about,” Bryk said. We are currently in a very precarious position. I have confidence in the states, cities, communities, and some businesses. But, we are not meeting many targets that many states and companies have set. And now we are being hamstrung in a way … that’s out of our power. But there are always other places where we can make a lot of progress,” said Bryk.
And this last comment highlighted the areas of optimism that the panel wanted to emphasize. While the stance of the current US administration can be disheartening, the panel believes that considerable good can be achieved at the state and local levels.
For example, small communities are doing quite a bit. Putting solar farms on landfills. Creating bike paths as alternatives to cars. Massachusetts has incentives to adopt very stringent energy codes, so new buildings are being constructed to very high standards. Many states with climate policies are demonstrably improving the quality of life in their communities. Almost all states (44) participate in the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program, a policy initiated under the IRA. Whether or not these states have explicit climate policies doesn’t matter as much as the fact that they see good reasons to pursue a migration to a clean energy infrastructure. They have recognized that we are always spending money on energy infrastructure, so we can choose to allocate it to options that will yield greater benefits and longer lifespans.
If there is so much agreement on the underlying principles, why does it still seem so difficult to talk about it? The answer to that seems to be that, at the current level of polarization in our society, it is challenging to discuss anything that has become a political litmus test. How to talk about this issue was branded by Bryk as the “question of our time.” The advice given by this panel was to adopt the old aphorism, “think globally, and act locally.” It is hard to have these conversations at the national level, but easier at the state level, and even easier at the community level. And there is something happening in almost every community that is part of a clean energy transition. So, getting involved at the local level, for example, with local faith organizations, was described as one of the best ways to engage in this issue while avoiding much of the damaging political rhetoric.
Leigh Chinitz is a Board Member of the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP).
Democracy in America is being driven into the shadows. Anyone in doubt need only pause to reflect on the events of June, when the military parade of the autocrat-in-chief in DC coincided with a manhunt for an assassin of lawmakers in Minnesota. Lawmakers who had stood up for reproductive freedom, as well as other progressive issues.
Let us say their names. Melissa Hortman. John Hoffman. They died by gun violence for what they believed in, and as a result of what they had worked for as elected officials. The gunman who robbed us of them also killed Hortman’s husband, Mark Hortman.
If news reports are accurate, the killer planned to target many more, including Planned Parenthood offices.
We must acknowledge that Melissa and John died in the line of duty. This, in a country where acting as an elected official serving the interests you pledged to your constituents, you would advocate for, puts a bounty on your head, especially if you are committed to reproductive rights.
As U.S. democracy is being eclipsed by lethal forces, we must look directly into the sun and acknowledge this truth: the future of feminism is now. Women and men, gay and straight, LGBTQ and trans, are in the streets talking at the top of their lungs about rights – to our own bodies, to the justice and human dignity which flow from those rights, and to the democratic processes which protect them.
“Hands Off!” signs – a staple phrase of abortion advocacy – abound, and have taken on new meanings. As in, hands off my body; hands off my health care; hands off, DOGE; hands off, ICE.
Reproductive freedom is a potent rallying cry: the nexus, even, around which many other cries for justice are assembling. And with it comes feminism: an equally powerful resource in the fight against the deadly march towards authoritarianism in the US.
It’s well known that feminists themselves have not been immune from racism, classism and heteronormative ways of thinking. As scholars have shown for decades, including myself, mainstream feminist organizations and advocates have tended to imagine gender equality through a white, middle-class liberal lens.
And historians have often excluded Black, Brown, and Indigenous women from their narratives, thereby contributing to the erasure of the forms of solidarity and equity those women and their comrades practiced in their communities and traditions.
Meanwhile, American history is rife with examples of women of color who stood up to violence and hatred. Of the many studies of civil rights worker Fannie Lou Hamer, Keisha Blain’s Until I am Free: Fannie Lou Hamer’s Enduring Message to America, stands out for its determination to make visible the sheer force of Hamer’s relentless refusal of police brutality and economic injustice under Jim Crow.
If Americans want to draw knowledge as well as strength from the futures to be found in the feminist past, they need to look beyond a strictly US history perspective as well. In her study, Scales of Resistance, for example, Maylei Blackwell shows how Indigenous women in Mexico grounded their vision in a combination of bodily autonomy and community practice.
Have a look too at Emma Mashinini’s autobiography, Strikes Have Followed Me All My Life, a harrowing account of her trade unionism under threat of death from the South African government – all in service of a better future for working people.
And with a title evoking the perpetual pull of the horizon, there’s Sara Rahnama’s The Future is Feminist. Her research documents the role of Muslim reform movements in keeping “the woman question” at the heart of public policy debate about the very future of Algeria in the brutalizing context of French colonialism – the backstory, in other words, to Algerian women’s contributions to the struggle for independence.
The takeaway here is not only the power of remembering these warriors and studying their example to gird ourselves for the struggle we face now. It is the urgency of understanding that despite the terror of the times they lived in – and of course, because of it – feminists and their allies have always had their eye trained on the horizon.
They thought and acted beyond the present because they were resolutely against the present.
When war is at your doorstep, the present is well-nigh impossible to escape. In our time, with the surround sound of social media, the present pours into our minds and psyches with a relentlessness and a velocity it’s hard to ignore or stop.
To truly move against the present, we need to pause and reorient ourselves toward the future, as many feminists have done in the past.
We need their individual example, yes. And we need the histories of the future-thinking they worked with and for.
When Fannie Lou Hamer famously said, “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired,” she diagnosed the high price she paid as a Black woman for the violence of racism and misogyny. She also declared her intolerance of the present and identified it as the threshold for Afrofuturist action.
It’s time for a feminist countermovement that rejects the anti-democratic insurgency of the present. That counterinsurgency must be rooted in a vision of a better world than the one those in power are trying to normalize today.
That future vision includes universal, gender-affirming healthcare; universal basic income; equal access to higher education; humane border policies; immigration justice; gun safety laws; electoral security and protections; and democratic agendas that prioritize the poor and disenfranchised.
And last but not least, reproductive freedom. For without guaranteed protections for the choices we make regarding our bodies, the future is the past. For everyone.
As history has shown, there is no single pathway to the future of feminism. But however we manifest it, the only way out of the shadows engulfing democracy now is to be resolutely against the present is. It’s what we owe to those who have paid with their lives for rejecting the order of things today.
My next rally sign? “Hand Off Feminist History. Hands off the Feminist Future.”
Antoinette Burton is a historian at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and an alumna of the OpEd Project.
U.S. President Donald Trump, joined by first lady Melania Trump, delivers remarks during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. At the picnic President Trump signed the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act into law.
Washington — With pomp and circumstance, President Donald Trump signed the "big, beautiful bill" on Friday at an Independence Day ceremony at the White House.
“We made promises, and it’s really promises made, promises kept, and we’ve kept them,” Trump said. “This is a triumph of democracy on the birthday of democracy. And I have to say, the people are happy.”
Despite not appeasing all Republicans, the President and Congress managed to pass the legislation Thursday afternoon in a 218-214 vote—Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick and Thomas Massie voted against the legislation, while no Democrats supported it.
Unanimous in their opposition, Democrats criticized the bill as a giveaway to the rich that will steal lower-income people's health insurance, food assistance, and financial stability.
"I never thought that I’d be on the House floor saying that this is a crime scene," Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said during a record-breaking speech that delayed the bill's passage by eight-plus hours. "It’s a crime scene, going after the health, and the safety, and the well-being of the American people."
So, what's in the "big, beautiful bill"? As we like to say here at the Fulcrum, "Here are 'just the facts'":
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network
