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.