Is America’s Influence in Africa Worth the Cost?

For decades, the United States has poured billions of dollars into Africa, funding aid programs, military operations, and diplomatic initiatives in the hope of fostering stability, economic development, and goodwill. Policymakers have framed Africa as a strategic priority, citing its vast natural resources, growing population, and geopolitical significance. Yet despite these massive investments, China and Russia have overtaken the U.S. in influence, securing lucrative infrastructure contracts, mineral rights, and military agreements—often at America’s expense.

As Washington continues to debate its role in Africa, the time has come for a serious cost-benefit analysis. Is America’s investment in Africa delivering meaningful returns, or is it a wasteful endeavor that drains resources while failing to secure real strategic advantages? More importantly, should the U.S. continue subsidizing African stability when rivals like China and Russia reap the rewards without shouldering the costs?

The answer is becoming increasingly clear: America’s influence in Africa is not worth the cost—at least, not in its current form. U.S. policy in Africa needs a complete overhaul, moving away from open-ended aid and military commitments and refocusing on economic and security interests that directly benefit American national priorities.

America’s Costly and Failing Strategy

For years, the foreign policy establishment has insisted that Africa is a continent of opportunity. Through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), military aid programs, and diplomatic partnerships, the U.S. has spent over $50 billion annually on African initiatives, making it one of the largest financial contributors to the continent’s development and security.

Yet despite this massive investment, the results have been dismal. Many African nations remain plagued by poverty, political instability, and rampant corruption. U.S. aid money has often been squandered by elites, funneled into private accounts, or used to prop up regimes that offer little benefit to American interests. Africa’s security situation has not improved either—Islamist insurgencies continue to expand, military coups are on the rise, and state failure is becoming more frequent.

The U.S. military has maintained a costly but low-profile presence in Africa through AFRICOM (United States Africa Command), supporting counterterrorism operations in the Sahel and Horn of Africa. But despite years of drone strikes, special operations, and military training programs, terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Boko Haram, and ISIS affiliates remain active and more entrenched than ever. Military engagement has not led to lasting stability—it has only prolonged conflicts with no clear resolution.

Meanwhile, China and Russia have gained far more influence in Africa without committing the same level of resources. China has taken control of key infrastructure and critical mineral reserves, while Russia has expanded its military footprint through the Wagner Group, securing lucrative resource deals in exchange for security services. The fundamental flaw in America’s Africa policy is clear: the U.S. is footing the bill, while China and Russia reap the rewards.

China and Russia Are Winning—Without Paying the Price

While the U.S. spends billions on aid and military assistance, China and Russia are securing long-term strategic advantages with a far lower investment.

China has dominated Africa economically through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), financing and constructing roads, railways, ports, and telecommunications networks. These projects aren’t altruistic—they give Beijing control over vital trade routes, energy infrastructure, and raw materials, ensuring that African nations remain economically dependent on China. Through predatory lending, China has also forced African governments into debt-trap diplomacy, leaving them with few options but to grant Beijing favorable trade and investment terms.

Russia, meanwhile, has used its mercenary force, the Wagner Group, to extend its military and political influence. In countries like Mali, Sudan, and the Central African Republic, Wagner provides security to regimes in exchange for access to gold mines, uranium deposits, and key military installations. Moscow is gaining direct control over Africa’s most valuable resources while strengthening diplomatic ties that undermine Western influence in global institutions.

Unlike the U.S., neither China nor Russia wastes money on democracy promotion, nation-building, or humanitarian aid. Instead, they view Africa for what it is—a resource-rich, strategically located continent to be leveraged for maximum gain. Their approach is ruthless but effective, while America’s approach is expensive, naive, and strategically unsustainable.

Africa Is Turning Away from the West

Despite the billions of dollars the U.S. has funneled into Africa, anti-Western sentiment is rising. Many African nations resent American influence, viewing U.S. aid as paternalistic and its military presence as a form of neo-colonialism.

Recent coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have resulted in new governments expelling French and American forces while embracing Russian security partnerships instead. In many African nations, China is seen as a more attractive ally because it offers economic development without the political conditions and human rights demands that come with American assistance.

The reality is that Africa is not aligned with the West, nor does it seek to be. African nations will partner with whoever offers them the best deal, and right now, China and Russia are making offers that serve African elites far better than any Western aid program ever could.

If America’s vast investments in Africa have not secured goodwill, stability, or even diplomatic influence, then what exactly is the point?

A Smarter U.S. Africa Strategy: Interests Over Charity

The United States needs a complete overhaul of its Africa policy. Instead of burning billions on ineffective aid programs and counterinsurgency operations, Washington should focus on economic and strategic interests that directly benefit the U.S.

First, the U.S. should cut wasteful foreign aid. America should not be giving billions to African governments without expecting something in return. Any aid provided must be tied directly to economic and security benefits for the U.S., such as granting American companies preferential access to natural resources and infrastructure projects.

Second, the U.S. must aggressively compete with China for access to Africa’s critical minerals. American industries depend on African cobalt, lithium, and rare earth metals for advanced manufacturing and defense technology. Instead of allowing China to monopolize these resources, the U.S. must negotiate exclusive trade agreements with African nations that prioritize American supply chains.

Third, the U.S. should scale back military commitments that do not directly serve American security interests. Endless counterterrorism operations with no clear objectives should be reevaluated or eliminated. The focus should shift toward strengthening African-led security forces rather than maintaining an indefinite American military presence.

Finally, Washington must recognize that Africa will never be a loyal Western ally in the same way that NATO or Indo-Pacific partners are. African nations will always act in their own self-interest, shifting alliances between the U.S., China, and Russia as it suits them. The U.S. must engage with Africa pragmatically, treating it as a region to secure economic and strategic advantages rather than a continent to uplift through endless spending.

America Can’t Afford to Keep Losing in Africa

After decades of investment, America’s return on its engagement in Africa has been abysmal. The U.S. has funneled billions into aid and military operations, yet China and Russia have walked away with the strategic gains. If Washington continues down this path, it will find itself subsidizing Africa’s security and stability while its adversaries extract the continent’s wealth and political influence.

It’s time to abandon the failed strategy of endless aid, military interventions, and diplomatic idealism. America must shift to a self-interested approach that secures tangible benefits in Africa—resources, trade agreements, and strategic influence.

If Washington refuses to adapt, it will continue paying the price for a losing strategy—while Beijing and Moscow take home the rewards.