By Shemei Ndawula
The legendary Austrian aristocrat Prïñcë Metternich is credited for coining the phrase “when France sneezes, Europe catches a cold”. In the peripherals of the Napoleonic era, his belief was that anything that happened in France had an immediate impact on the whole Europe. At the moment, when America sneezes, the world starts drafting Covid advisories.
For the last few months we have been holding baited breaths watching the largely two horse race of President Trump and Vice President Harris. Someone recently joked that the Americans should host a masterclass on how to turn your elections into the Grammys of elective politics. Even as the world shifts to a multipolar balance of power, there’s no election remotely close to being as followed as the American presidential election.
President Donald Trump’s first term marked a seeming shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Africa, with an emphasis on reducing direct U.S. involvement while promoting a competitive stance toward European and by large China’s influence. For Uganda and other African nations, the return of President Trump means notable shifts in diplomatic relations, trade policies, and the flow of U.S. aid.
There’s an urban myth that the sitting President does not impact the foreign policies of America much because of how entrenched its bureaucratic machine is. However Trump has pitted himself against this very machine throughout his campaign so his effectiveness will be measured(in the eyes of his voters) in how much he’s able to dislodge it.
The Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy is simply“America First”. For Africans, this often translates to a reduction in direct political engagement and a heightened focus on countering the influence of global powers like China and Russia. President Trump’s rhetoric and actions seem to view Africa as a strategic foothold against economic and political rivals rather than a region of developmental and diplomatic partnership.
In this second term, we could expect Trump to continue this stance, potentially minimizing U.S. diplomatic engagement unless they are directly aligned with American economic or security interests. This could result in a more transactional relationship where support or partnerships is more negotiable upon political alignment with U.S. strategic interests.
As a country , our position in East Africa as a counter-terrorism ally can possibly still bolster our negotiating power as a valuable partner of the United States. However, our diplomatic corp needs to understand that Trump means business so we need a comprehensive diplomatic shift transitioning to the Trump Presidency and not just feeling our way through the process.
In trade, President Trump’s past stance involved a shift toward bilateral agreements over multilateral trade deals, which could reshape how the U.S. interacts economically with African countries. Previously, the Trump administration showed limited interest in enhancing or modernizing the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which provides African countries duty-free access to U.S. markets(Uganda was excluded with much fanfare earlier this year). A second term might see the continuation of this stance, potentially pushing African nations, including Uganda, to negotiate individual trade agreements with the U.S.
Uganda has historically benefited from aid from the United States especially in areas like healthcare, particularly through PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), which provides critical support for HIV/AIDS programs. On the other hand President Trump’s approach to aid is more transactional, suggesting that countries benefitting from U.S. aid might be expected to align with U.S foreign policy objectives.
Arguably security aid might not be as directly affected and may even increase, particularly if Uganda continues its role in regional counter-terrorism initiatives in countries like Somalia, where our boots on ground have historically supported United States aligned missions. This creates a lopsided aid structure favoring security funding over health, education, or infrastructure, making Uganda’s development trajectory more challenging to sustain.
In President Trump’s first administration he consistently tried to counter what he called China’s influence on the global stage. On the other hand Uganda has embraced significant investment and infrastructure development from China. Unlike the Biden administration, President Trump has often employed a blunt, public approach in addressing governance challenges in other countries, and a similar stance in Uganda could create friction.
However, given Trump’s non-interventionist tendencies in such matters, any direct influence would likely be more rhetorical than otherwise. The Ugandan government might face fewer direct repercussions, but heightened criticism could still impact Uganda’s and perhaps Africa’s world outlook and potentially influence other Western nations’ policies.
Ultimately, this presidency means that African nations should explore diversified international alliances and self-sustained growth, a concept we’ve flirted with for decades. Perhaps a Trump presidency is exactly what we need to benchmark on how to (or perhaps not to) put Africa first
Shemei Ndawula is a Senior Research Fellow at Development Watch Center.
