President Cyril Ramaphosa with US President Donald Trump at the White House earlier this year. (X)
A few months ago, the chairman of the Africa and Global Health Policy Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Ted Cruz, hosted a roundtable discussion that tackled energy and critical mineral partnerships with the ambassadors and representatives of 19 African countries and the AU. Those African countries included Gabon, Mauritania and Senegal.
Now, President Donald Trump is slated to host the heads of state of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania and Senegal for a luncheon discussion at the White House. According to a White House official, next week’s event will explore “incredible commercial opportunities which benefit both the American people and our African partners”.
If that is the intent, the visit will provide an extraordinary opportunity for these coastal African countries to unlock tangible benefits from the increased emphasis on expanded trade and private investment in the African affairs of the US government. In parallel, it will provide the Trump administration with a valuable opportunity to demonstrate to the American people that peace, security and prosperity can be better achieved through commerce and investment than through development assistance.
As with any White House visit, the event is not without known downside risks. To mitigate some of those, the invited heads of state should identify and address any serious concerns with bilateral relations held by the Trump administration. They should also arrive with a concrete set of commercial and investment proposals endorsed by the private sector. Otherwise, they could meet the same fate as the recent South African delegation.
Invited Countries
The Trump administration selected a set of African countries with important similarities. One is that all of them are perceived to be of high importance in countering the spread of violent extremism on the African continent. That is because the US government is extremely concerned about the risk of violent extremism spreading into coastal West and Central African countries with low impacts of terrorism (e.g. Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania and Senegal) from neighboring Sahelean countries with high impacts of terrorism (i.e. Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mali, Niger, Nigeria).
Another is that none of the invited countries have been designated as having an exceptional lack of reciprocity in their bilateral trade relationships with the US. When the Trump administration recently set reciprocal tariffs, they were not identified as “worst offenders” among US trading partners.
At the same time, the Trump administration has selected a set of African countries with important differences. One is that the majority have diplomatic relations with Israel. However, one does not — Mauritania.
Another is that there is a wide range of military expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product. At the low end, Liberia spent 0.7% in 2024. At the high end, Mauritania spent 2.2%. That suggests varying commitments to conducting independent operations.
Yet another is that some of the countries appear to meet the stated criteria for the partial suspension of the admission of their citizens to the US. One invitee has been identified as being at risk of becoming a recalcitrant country by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Gabon. One invited country has a higher B1-B2 overstay rate than Burundi — Liberia. And, two invited countries have a higher nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors overstay rate than Burundi — Gabon and Liberia.
That raises important questions about why those countries received invitations, given that the Trump administration recently imposed partial suspension on the admission of citizens from Burundi and Sierra Leone over their overstay rates and/or historical recalcitrance status.
Valuable Opportunities
The White House visit will provide coastal African countries with an exceptional opportunity to expand trade and private investment with the US. The Trump administration has indicated that it is committed to driving economic growth through expanded trade and private investment rather than development assistance.
In response, the US Department of State has made commercial diplomacy a “core focus” in African affairs. US Chiefs of Mission are now being evaluated on their ability to advocate for market reforms identified by the private sector, facilitate new commercial and investment opportunities for US individuals and companies and implement major infrastructure projects that “unlock economic growth and attract private investment”. This focus on “trade not aid” provides the heads of state of Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania and Senegal with an extraordinary opportunity to pursue prosperity through commerce and investment in their bilateral relations with the US.
At the same time, the White House visit will provide the Trump administration with a timely opportunity to demonstrate that their strategic approach to African affairs is better than the strategic approaches of the Biden and Obama administrations. That will require proof points. The Trump administration will need to show that it actually has delivered on its promise to increase the prosperity of Americans through African affairs.
Such proof points might include cases of new market expansion for US companies, new US investments by Africans and new reforms in African markets demanded by the private sector. In the process, the Trump administration will be looking for proof points that reinforce other whole-of-government priorities. Examples could include higher use of US maritime industries, expanded access to critical mineral resources, increased exports of American coal, liquid natural gas and associated energy generation technologies and improved capacity of African partners to conduct independent military operations. Those could be controversial but they are entirely consistent with what Trump promised American voters throughout his recent presidential campaign.
Good Preparation
The recent White House visit by President Cyril Ramaphosa serves as a warning to the invited heads of state. To mitigate against a similar confrontation, they should proactively seek to identify and address any serious problems with bilateral relations held by the Trump administration prior to arriving at the White House.
For example, they should seek to identify and address any immigration and travel-related concerns that the administration might have about overstay rates, information-sharing cooperation, identity-management procedures, public safety risks and terrorism-related risks. That includes anti-semitism concerns. They should seek to identify and address any unfair exploitation concerns that the administration might have about the fines, practices, policies and taxes that their government levies on American companies.
And, they should seek to identify and address any strategic competition concerns that the Trump administration might have about their relations with US adversaries and rivals (e.g. China, Iran, Venezuela). That includes proliferation and sanctions-busting concerns. If they can take those concerns off the table, they will create more room for laying down the cards on commercial and investment deals.
To be clear, that is not the only lesson to be learned from the South African visit. Another is that it is critical for African heads of state to arrive at the White House with a concrete set of commercial and investment proposals that have the endorsement of US companies and investors.
President Trump does not invite African heads of state over to talk about golf. He wants to deliver on his campaign commitments to the American people. Moreover, he wants to deliver on those commitments prior to the midterm elections. It is therefore imperative that the invited heads of state not only build rapport, ask smart questions and make smart tradeoffs during their luncheon discussion. They should seek to jumpstart and anchor the deal-making process by putting an initial set of multiple equivalent proposals simultaneously on the table.
That will signal to Trump that their governments are willing and able to strike big commercial and investment deals with the US. Unfortunately, the South African delegation failed to go down that path. It is therefore not surprising that their visit failed to significantly improve the prosperity of either Americans or South Africans.
Michael Walsh is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.