The New Trumpism: How the “MAGA” Movement is Shaping the Future of American Politics in Africa
Senator JD Vance of Ohio once described Donald Trump as “America’s Hitler” and likened him to “cultural heroin.” However, after a failed assassination attempt on Trump, Vance was chosen on July 15, 2024, as the vice-presidential candidate on the Republican ticket for the 2024 election. This is a smart and calculated choice, signaling Trump’s broad base. More than any other contender, Vance’s selection shows that Trump wants to attract supporters of the “MAGA” movement and ensure their turnout, even if it means losing more moderate and independent voters. Vance, on the brink of his forties, sometimes delivers speeches harsher and more heated than Trump’s, with even more extreme positions, making the sharp-tongued senator a young and strong heir to the “MAGA” movement. His selection sends a clear message to the country that Trump is building a movement to reshape the nation not just for one term, but for the foreseeable future.
The “Make America Great Again” movement, known by its acronym “MAGA,” led by former President Donald Trump, has had a significant impact on US foreign policy, including its relations with Africa. This political approach, characterized by a blend of isolationism, economic chauvinism, and transactional diplomacy, has led to a noticeable shift in how the US interacts with the African continent. This article attempts to understand who controls the Republican Party and what Trump’s re-election means for Africa.
Three Main Currents
There are three main currents within the Republican Party currently vying for influence over foreign policy: “dominance supporters,” the “centrist current,” and the “isolationists.” The first group, which believes in a dominance strategy according to realist international relations concepts, enjoys broad support in Congress and among the Washington political establishment. They support the continued leadership of the United States globally and the maintenance of US military forces worldwide. The isolationists, who want to drastically reduce the US security role abroad, likely have the backing of the Republican base. On the other hand, the centrist current has less support among voters, but their calls to focus US foreign policy on Asia, particularly China, are increasingly influential in foreign policy-making circles.
Notably, Trump, who now clearly dominates the Republican Party, has inconsistently shifted among these three groups since he began his presidential campaign nine years ago. In his 2024 campaign, he publicly distanced himself from dominance supporters, calling them “globalists” and “warmongers.” Nevertheless, these three groups will continue to influence his administration and remain ideologically competitive with each other, all striving to shape a coherent foreign policy narrative aligned with the new “Trumpism.” Each group is likely to try to appoint (or be) the political figures who will lead the foreign policy agenda in Trump’s second term.
General Features
Several general features and potential impacts of the movement on US policy towards Africa can be highlighted:
Isolationism and Reducing Presence: One of the most prominent features of the “MAGA” movement is its isolationist tendencies. Under Trump, there was a noticeable decline in traditional US engagement with Africa. The administration reduced aid budgets, withdrew from multilateral initiatives that had long been pillars of US-African relations, and programs like the Peace Corps saw funding cuts. Initiatives to combat diseases like HIV and malaria faced uncertainty, signaling to many African countries that they could no longer rely on the US as a stable partner in development and humanitarian efforts. Trump did not visit Africa, a move mirrored by Biden, who nevertheless hosted African leaders at the second US-Africa summit in late 2022.
Economic Trade Policies: The rise of the “MAGA” movement also affected economic and trade policies with Africa. The Trump administration criticized trade deals that were perceived to harm American workers and industries, impacting the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a key legislation allowing eligible African countries to export certain products to the US duty-free. While AGOA remained in place, there was ongoing uncertainty about its future, creating instability in African economies that depended on this preferential access.
Preference for Transactional Diplomacy: Another hallmark of the “MAGA” movement is its preference for transactional diplomacy, often summarized by the question: “What’s in it for us?” This approach was evident in Africa as well. Aid and military support became more conditional, often tied to specific demands or actions by African countries aligned with US interests. This shift from value-based to more transactional diplomacy undermined long-standing diplomatic relationships, creating unpredictability in US-African relations.
Impact on Geopolitical Interactions: The foreign policy of the “MAGA” movement also had broader geopolitical implications. As the US reduced its engagement, other global powers, notably China and Russia, seized the opportunity to expand their influence in Africa. This trend may intensify in the Sahel region following the expulsion of French and American forces from their bases. China’s Belt and Road Initiative continued to achieve significant successes, with Beijing heavily investing in infrastructure projects across the continent. Russia also strengthened its military and economic ties with African nations. The vacuum left by the US allowed these countries to solidify their foothold, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape in Africa for years to come.
Reduced Priority on Governance and Human Rights Issues: The Trump administration’s approach to human rights and governance in Africa was also noteworthy. Unlike previous administrations that often focused on promoting democratic values and human rights from an American perspective, the “MAGA” movement adopted a more pragmatic stance. Support was provided to governments regardless of their human rights records, as long as they aligned with US strategic interests. This pragmatism often came at the expense of advocating for principles of transparency, accountability, and good governance, which are crucial for sustainable development and stability in Africa.
Conclusion
The impact of the “MAGA” movement on US foreign policy in Africa has been profound and multifaceted. Its isolationist tendencies, economic mercantilism, and transactional diplomacy have led to a reduced American presence in Africa, creating opportunities for other global powers to step in. While the long-term effects of these policies are still unfolding, it is clear that this approach could reshape US-African relations in various ways. The potential re-election of Donald Trump and the return of the “MAGA” movement could have significant implications for Africa, potentially steering US policies towards a more isolated and restrictive perspective on international relations. Many aid and development programs might see cuts or redirection, weakening cooperation in crucial areas such as health, education, and infrastructure. Renewed focus on direct American interests could heighten geopolitical tensions in the continent, especially amidst growing competition with China and Russia. Moreover, neglecting environmental and climate change issues could exacerbate the challenges Africa faces in this regard, threatening sustainable development and regional stability.
