What If U.S. President TrumpShifts From Aid To Trade? (1)

 President Donald J. Trump’s execu­tive order eliminating USAID has sent shockwaves across the globe, particularly in aid-dependent na­tions, most of which are in Africa. In line with the saying that “when America sneez­es, the world catches a cold,” many coun­tries are now facing severe consequences due to the proposed end of US aid.

CNN’s Larry Madowo highlighted the crisis unfolding in Africa with a report on a Ugandan HIV/AIDS patient who lost access to life-saving medication following the with­drawal of USAID funding. This situation in Uganda mirrors what could happen across Africa, where the impact is expected to be devastating.

However, Nigeria appears to be an ex­ception to this looming crisis. The country has taken a proactive approach by allocat­ing N700 billion in its 2025 budget to sup­port healthcare services and mitigate the effects of the anticipated aid withdrawal. Not since the tenure of Ngozi Okonjo-Iwea­la as Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy has Nigeria been this well-prepared for an impending crisis. Her policies during the 2008 global finan­cial meltdown—triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis in the US—helped shield Ni­geria from the worst effects of the recession.

Similarly, Nigeria’s current strategy, led by Health Minister, Prof. Ali Pate; Finance Minister, Wale Edun, and their colleagues in the Budget and Planning Ministry aims to cushion the blow of the USAID funding cut. As a result, Nigeria may avoid the se­vere consequences that other aid-dependent countries could face.

Given this development, my advice to other vulnerable African nations is to fol­low Nigeria’s example by making proactive budgetary provisions to address the new reality. Some leaders may argue that they lack the resources to provide free or af­fordable healthcare services, such as HIV/ AIDS treatment, to their indigent popula­tions. However, the counterargument is that they must prioritize the well-being of their citizens over personal luxuries, which they often display both at home and during inter­national events.

Ironically, many of the leaders whose nations rely on US aid are known for ex­travagant lifestyles. Instead of depending on foreign assistance, they should focus on efficiently managing their scarce resources to support their people.

This was evident during the African Union meeting in Addis Ababa, where sev­eral aircraft bearing the logos and names of impoverished nations were seen on the tarmac, having transported their leaders to the summit. Ironically, many of these coun­tries are among the largest beneficiaries of USAID assistance, which is intended to support vulnerable populations, yet their leaders continue to enjoy lavish lifestyles.

Trump

Rather than prioritizing luxury travel, these leaders should focus on the well-being of their citizens by allocating resources to essential healthcare services, such as HIV/ AIDS treatment. CNN’s Larry Madowo has already warned that the withdrawal of US­AID funding could have devastating conse­quences for those who depend on it.

On the other side of the debate are those who see USAID as more than just a hu­manitarian organization, arguing that it has functioned as a tool of U.S. geopolitical influence under the guise of goodwill. Now that its role as an instrument of American soft power has come to light, many—both within the U.S. (especially those opposed to foreign interventions) and globally—have rallied behind President Trump and his gov­ernment efficiency czar, Elon Musk.

For these critics, the revelation that USAID not only engages in foreign inter­ference but also serves as a platform for promoting American goods and services worldwide is a welcome development. U.S. Congressman Scott Perry, in a congressio­nal briefing, exposed USAID’s operations, suggesting that its activities may rival or even surpass those of the CIA during the Cold War, when global influence was con­tested between the U.S. and the now-defunct Soviet Union. Perry’s statements align with Trump’s claim that USAID had “strayed from its original mission of responsibly advancing interests abroad.”

Had Trump not taken the drastic step of ordering Musk to review USAID’s activities, many of its controversial operations might have remained hidden. In response, the U.S. Congress has launched an investigation into what has been described as a shocking revelation. Similarly, in Nigeria, Senator Ali Ndume of Borno State—the region hardest hit by Boko Haram insurgency—has called for further scrutiny, following claims that USAID funds may have indirectly benefited terrorist groups.

The argument that foreign aid rarely helps its intended recipients is not new. Economist Dr. Dambisa Moyo, a Harvard alumna, made a similar case in her book ‘Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa’. Against this backdrop, Trump’s push to transition from aid to trade could mark a significant shift, especially if it leads to Africa moving beyond its historical role as a supplier of raw materials.

As Trump works to rebalance global trade by imposing high tariffs to reduce deficits with key partners—Mexico ($172 billion), Canada ($63.3 billion), China ($295 billion), and major European and Indian economies—he may come to realize that U.S.-Africa trade is relatively small but heavily skewed in America’s favor. Africa is one of the few regions where the U.S. en­joys a trade surplus while simultaneously extending substantial aid.

The lack of significant African partic­ipation in global trade (less than 3%) has been cited as a key factor in the continent’s persistent poverty and disease burdens.

As Trump’s return to the White House re­shapes global dynamics, two opposing forc­es have emerged. On one side are Washing­ton’s political establishment figures, who opposed his reelection on November 5 and continue to resist his policies, as evidenced by the numerous legal challenges against him. Their opposition is unlikely to wane as they seek to maintain the old global order.

On the other side is Trump’s vast base of support—over 77 million Americans— who propelled him to victory in all seven swing states, securing his position as the 47th president. This unprecedented political shift is now influencing U.S. foreign policy and Africa’s economic future.

In the past two decades, no U.S. president who lost a re-election bid has returned in the next election cycle to defeat the incumbent and reclaim the White House. Given this precedent, Trump’s victory should be re­spected, especially since his party controls the Senate, the House of Representatives, and, to some extent, the Supreme Court.

However, as is typical in politics, the mi­nority of voters who opposed him have been vocal in their discontent. Many of these individuals are part of the Washington es­tablishment, which is resistant to change and closely tied to USAID. Additionally, numerous Americans benefit directly from USAID contracts, supplying goods and ser­vices that the agency is meant to provide to vulnerable populations worldwide. With Trump’s decision to scale back or eliminate USAID, their financial interests have been disrupted, fueling their opposition to his administration’s reforms.

Critics argue that dismantling USAID diminishes America’s global influence by weakening its use of soft power, which the agency represents as a humanitarian arm of U.S. foreign policy. However, their objec­tions may be more self-serving than altruis­tic. After all, if their primary concern were genuine humanitarian aid, a public audit of USAID should not provoke such intense opposition—unless those protesting have hidden agendas.

A key question arises: Why do establish­ment figures in the U.S. and abroad believe that American influence can only be exert­ed through USAID? Why not prioritize trade over aid? Since Trump’s return to the White House on January 20, his administration has shifted U.S. foreign policy toward em­phasizing high trade tariffs and reducing aid.

Reflecting on historical patterns, my master’s thesis at Tufts University’s Fletch­er School of Law and Diplomacy—Darfur: Why the West Failed to Help—analyzed global conflicts over the past century. I traced how competition for natural re­sources, dating back to the Rockefeller and Rothschild families’ dominance in the oil industry, fueled international crises. One of the most devastating consequences was the 1915 Armenian genocide, reportedly carried out under the influence of these powerful industrialists.