 Few US-Africa policies have been more controversial than the pivot to aid-for-minerals under the Trump administration. But the strategy may not be as new as it appears. In a recent speech about securing critical mineral supply chains, the US Development Finance Corporation chief pointed to the Marshall Plan — an American-led initiative to rebuild European economies post World War II. He suggested that Washington was granted “first priority” to Europe’s raw materials in exchange for capital investment. The comments raised some eyebrows. Were they an attempt to “justify” the new US strategy in Africa, asked Katie Auth of the Energy for Growth Hub think tank in an incisive Substack post. Auth argued that while the Marshall Plan wasn’t primarily about minerals, it did eventually help the US win more access to them, and noted legislative provisions have long embedded expectations of US commercial advantage in aid and development arrangements, even as Washington remained the world’s largest provider of foreign assistance. On that reading, the Trump-era approach may represent less a break with tradition than a more explicit, less diplomatic articulation of longstanding practice. The shift under the Trump administration, however, is one of emphasis, according to Daniele Nyirandutiye, a former senior USAID official who is now partner at Washington-based Desmos Capital Partners: “The question is whether leading with mineral extraction, rather than investment and mutual benefit, produces the durable relationships that actually serve US long-term interests.” African governments have good reason to be cautious, particularly where mineral access is framed alongside sensitive sectors like public health, and they are not passive actors: Just last week, Zambia said it had opposed a US attempt to tie health funding to access to critical minerals. As Zainab Usman of Columbia University notes, the continent’s nations now operate in a more competitive environment. “This time around, the global economy is much different, the US is still No. 1 but China is hot on its heels. African countries have some options now compared to previous eras.” Agency might not guarantee good outcomes, but it does change the calculus for Washington as much as for the capitals on the other side of the table. | 
