logo
U.S. Says It Wants Trade, Not Aid, in Africa. Cuts Threaten Both.

U.S. Says It Wants Trade, Not Aid, in Africa. Cuts Threaten Both.

New York Times20-05-2025

Commuters in Abidjan, one of West Africa's largest cities, joke that it is impossible to run two errands a day because of traffic. A new overpass on the way to the airport could make their journeys smoother. About 120,000 vehicles will move through it every day, according to the Ivorian agency overseeing its construction.
For years, as the work continued, a billboard told Ivorians who made it possible: 'Financed by the American people.' But they are not so sure of that promise anymore. The billboard was removed earlier this year because President Trump has gutted U.S. foreign aid, leaving large infrastructure projects financed by the United States facing an uncertain future.
Now, construction workers in Abidjan are rushing to complete the overpass before the Trump administration turns off the funding. It is a sign of how African investors and government leaders, as well as drivers, are adapting to the new U.S. strategy on the continent.
The United States is not so much in a financing mood. It wants deals.
'Trade, not aid, is now the pillar of our policy in Africa,' Troy Fitrell, the State Department's top Africa official, said in a speech last week at a business summit in Abidjan. Minutes after he finished speaking, U.S. and Ivorian companies signed more than half a dozen deals, including to supply drones for agriculture and mining, and scanning systems for border monitoring.
Mr. Trump has broken with the terms that defined decades of U.S. involvement in Africa: He has shrunk the U.S. Agency for International Development, imposed tariffs that threaten a free-trade mechanism with dozens of African countries, and rolled back anti-corruption standards for American companies doing business with foreign partners.
Mr. Fitrell said last week that the United States would prioritize commercial diplomacy in Africa. The continent will be home to a quarter of the world's population by 2050, but countries south of the Sahara account for only 1 percent of U.S. trade in goods. The Trump administration's strategy is meant to boost that, said Mr. Fitrell.
Amid this broad shift to dismantle agencies and programs built under previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat, experts say that some projects that align with Mr. Trump's pro-trade priorities hang in the balance.
One is the overpass in Ivory Coast. The Trump administration has begun dismantling a little-known agency established by Congress in 2004 that finances it and dozens of large infrastructure projects in a short list of countries. These include projects to expand electricity grids, build roads or increase women's employment in places such as Indonesia, Nepal and Senegal.
The funds go to governments, selected for their growth potential and good governance, rather than nonprofit groups. As China brings stadiums and railroads to Africa and Turkey builds airports, these projects could also strengthen American influence.
African leaders and American experts, diplomats and entrepreneurs have said that the agency, known as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, directly benefits U.S. interests — especially when the Africa policy outlined by Mr. Fitrell includes large infrastructure projects.
Some have criticized the decision to shut it down. Erin Collinson, the director of policy outreach at the Center for Global Development in Washington, called it 'incredibly shortsighted.'
'The M.C.C. was funded as a unique aid agency that went around the U.S.A.I.D. model and in a singular direction: promoting economic growth,' she said.
This month, the U.S. ambassador to Ivory Coast, Jessica Davis Ba, visited the construction site of the overpass, which was started under the first Trump administration, and said that U.S. companies would benefit from better roads in the country. They include Cargill, which exports cocoa beans from Ivory Coast, and Exxon Mobil, which has deals for the exploration of two offshore oil blocks.
Mr. Fitrell said the Millennium Challenge Corporation's future has not yet been decided. The Trump administration has said it is willing to continue financing some infrastructure projects in Africa, like a $4 billion rail corridor in Angola meant to improve America's access to cobalt and copper.
The agency spent $1.7 billion last year — less than 2 percent of the $59 billion in U.S. foreign assistance obligations. It received waivers for five of the 20 projects it was planning or implementing before the Trump administration instituted a 90-day funding freeze on foreign aid earlier this year. The overpass in Abidjan got an extension of a few months.
The deadline to complete the project before the funding runs out is early August, and it is unclear whether the Ivorian government will be able to pay for any final touches needed after that.
On a recent morning, construction workers checked the waterproofing of the four-lane overpass towering over the jammed intersection while commuters baked in the sun. They had yet to lay out the asphalt.
Hassan Koné, 39, said he and the passengers in his van had been stuck in traffic for two hours. American flags fluttered in the hot wind. Mr. Koné watched them, then sighed, 'The Americans need to hurry up and finish what they've started.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Russia-backed Wagner Group says it is leaving Mali, but Africa Corps will remain
Russia-backed Wagner Group says it is leaving Mali, but Africa Corps will remain

CBS News

time32 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Russia-backed Wagner Group says it is leaving Mali, but Africa Corps will remain

The Russia-backed Wagner Group said Friday it is leaving Mali after more than three and a half years of fighting Islamic extremists and insurgents in the country. Despite Wagner's announcement, Russia will continue to have a mercenary presence in the West African country. The Africa Corps, Russia's state-controlled paramilitary force, said on its Telegram channel Friday that Wagner's departure would not introduce any changes and the Russian contingent will remain in Mali. Wagner is a group of entities that operate as a private military company, or PMC. These PMCs can be hired by governments for security or combat services. "Mission accomplished. Private Military Company Wagner returns home," the group announced via its channel on the messaging app Telegram. It said it had brought all regional capitals under control of the Malian army, pushed out armed militants and killed their commanders. Mali, along with neighbors Burkina Faso and Niger, has for more than a decade battled an insurgency fought by armed groups, including some allied with al-Qaida and the Islamic State group. As Western influence in the region has waned, Russia has sought to step into the vacuum, sweeping in with offers of assistance. Moscow initially expanded its military cooperation with African nations by using the Wagner Group of mercenaries. But since the group's leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, was killed in a plane crash in 2023, after mounting a brief armed rebellion in Russia that challenged the rule of President Vladimir Putin, Moscow has been developing the Africa Corps as a rival force to Wagner. Africa Corps is under direct command of the Russian defense ministry. According to U.S. officials, there are around 2,000 mercenaries in Mali. It is unclear how many are with Wagner and how many are part of the Africa Corps. Beverly Ochieng, a security analyst specializing in the Sahel for Control Risks consultancy, said the Russian defense ministry had been negotiating with Mali to take on more Africa Corps fighters and for Wagner mercenaries to join Russia's state-controlled paramilitary force. "Since the death of Prigozhin, Russia has had this whole plan to then make the Wagner Group fall under the command of the Ministry of Defense. One of the steps they made was to revamp or introduce the Africa Corps, which is the way in which the Russian paramilitaries would retain a presence in areas where the Wagner group has been operating," Ochieng said. Wagner has been present in Mali since late 2021 following a military coup, replacing French troops and international peacekeepers to help fight the militants. But the Malian army and Russian mercenaries struggled to curb violence in the country and have both been accused of targeting civilians. Last month, United Nations experts urged Malian authorities to investigate reports of alleged summary executions and forced disappearances by Wagner mercenaries and the army. In December, Human Rights Watch accused Malian armed forces and the Wagner Group of deliberately killing at least 32 civilians over an 8-month span. The announcement of Wagner's withdrawal comes as the Malian army and the Russian mercenaries suffered heavy losses during attacks by the al-Qaida linked group JNIM in recent weeks. Last week, JNIM fighters killed dozens of soldiers in an attack on a military base in central Mali. Rida Lyammouri, a Sahel expert at the Morocco-based Policy Center for the New South, said the major losses might have caused the possible end of Wagner's mission. "The lack of an official and mutual announcement from both the Malian authorities and Wagner indicate possible internal dispute which led to this sudden decision. Simultaneously, this could point to a new framework for Russian presence in the country," he said. Replacing Wagner with Africa Corps troops would likely shift Russia's focus in Mali from fighting alongside the Malian army to training, said Ulf Laessing, head of the Sahel program at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. "Africa Corps has a lighter footprint and focuses more on training, providing equipment and doing protection services. They fight less than the 'Rambo-type' Wagner mercenaries," Laessing said.

Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump
Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump

A federal judge in Massachusetts on Thursday granted Harvard University's emergency request to block, for now, the Trump administration's effort to ban international students from its campus, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if enforced. The temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs blocks the administration from immediately stripping Harvard of its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVP — a program run by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. Burroughs said in her order that Harvard has demonstrated evidence it "will suffer immediate and irreparable injury before there is an opportunity to hear from all parties," prompting her to temporarily block the SEVP revocation. Still, some see the order as a mere Band-Aid, forestalling a larger court fight between Harvard and the Trump administration — and one that Trump critics say could be unfairly weighted against the nation's oldest university. State Department Now Scrutinizing All Visa Holders Associated With Harvard "Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview discussing the Trump administration's actions. Read On The Fox News App Since President Donald Trump took office in January, the administration has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts awarded to the university. It is also targeting the university with investigations led by six separate federal agencies. Combined, these actions have created a wide degree of uncertainty at Harvard. The temporary restraining order handed down on Thursday night is also just that — temporary. Though the decision does block Trump from revoking Harvard's SEVP status, it's a near-term fix, designed to allow the merits of the case to be more fully heard. Meanwhile, the administration is almost certain to appeal the case to higher courts, which could be more inclined to side in favor of the administration. And that's just the procedural angle. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda Should Harvard lose its status for SEVP certification — a certification it has held for some 70 years — the thousands of international students currently enrolled at Harvard would have a very narrow window to either transfer to another U.S. university, or risk losing their student visas within 180 days, experts told Fox News. Some may opt not to take that chance, and transfer to a different school that's less likely to be targeted by the administration — even if it means sacrificing, for certainty, a certain level of prestige. Regardless of how the court rules, these actions create "a chilling effect" for international students at Harvard, Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and a former Justice Department attorney, said in an interview. Students "who would otherwise be attending or applying to Harvard University [could be] less inclined to do so, or to make alternative plans for their education In the U.S.," Gavoor said. Even if the Trump administration loses on the merits of the case, "there's a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy," Gavoor said. Meanwhile, any financial fallout the school might see as a result is another matter entirely. Though the uncertainty yielded by Trump's fight against Harvard could prove damaging to the school's priority of maintaining a diverse international student body, or by offering financial aid to students via the federally operated Pell Grant, these actions alone would unlikely to prove financially devastating in the near-term, experts told Fox News. Harvard could simply opt to fill the slots once taken by international students with any number of eager, well-qualified U.S.-based applicants, David Feldman, a professor at William & Mary who focuses on economic issues and higher education, said in an interview. Harvard is one of just a handful of American universities that has a "need-blind" admissions policy for domestic and international students — that is, they do not take into consideration a student's financial need or the aid required in weighing a potential applicant. But because international students in the U.S. typically require more aid than domestic students, replacing their slots with domestic students, in the near-term, would likely have little noticeable impact on the revenue it receives for tuition, fees and housing, he said. "This is all about Harvard, choosing the best group of students possible," Feldman said in an interview. If the administration successfully revokes their SEVP certification, this would effectively just be "constraining them to choose the second-best group," he said. "Harvard could dump the entire 1,500-person entering class, just dump it completely, and look at the next 1,500 [applicants]," Feldman said. "And by all measurables that you and I would look at, it would look just as good." Unlike public schools, which are subject to the vagaries of state budgets, private universities like Harvard often have margins built into their budgets in the form of seed money that allows them to allocate more money towards things they've identified as goals for the year or years ahead. This allows them to operate with more stability as a result — and inoculates them to a larger degree from the administration's financial hits. "Uncertainty is bad for them," Feldman acknowledged. But at the end of the day, he said, "these institutions have the capacity to resist." "They would rather not — they would rather this whole thing go away," Feldman said. But the big takeaway, in his view, is that Harvard "is not defenseless."Original article source: Continued court fights could put Harvard in unwinnable position vs Trump

Should you invest in crypto now?
Should you invest in crypto now?

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Should you invest in crypto now?

Much has changed in the crypto landscape over the past year and a half. And with it, so may more investors' minds about cryptocurrencies — especially bitcoin, the (very young) granddaddy of them all. Crucially, crypto has gained greater acceptance among regulators and large institutional investors as an asset class that is likely here to stay. The Securities and Exchange Commission now regulates spot bitcoin and ethereum exchange-traded funds. Coinbase, the crypto currency exchange, is now on the S&P 500. Stablecoin provider Circle just went public. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is very supportive of crypto, and the Labor Department just rescinded its 2022 guidance urging 401(k) fiduciaries to 'exercise extreme care' if they include a crypto investment option to plan participants. With bitcoin now trading above $100,000 and US lawmakers actively working on crypto regulations, it may be worth revisiting the question of whether you should have exposure in your portfolio. The answer will be highly personal, driven by your risk tolerance, time horizon and knowledge. Despite being a crypto advocate, Tyrone Ross, founder of financial planning firm 401 Financial, put it this way: 'We have a long way to go before you should be YOLO-ing your way into crypto.' When financial advisers have been asked over the past several years whether they would recommend that clients invest in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, many were reluctant because digital assets were not regulated, pricing was highly volatile and their use case and valuation was hard for both adviser and client to understand. Unlike stocks, which can be valued on the basis of tangible components such a company's goods and services, bitcoin is considered a store of value, and its price is driven by what others are willing to pay for it. That caution was understandable, said Ric Edelman, who founded Edelman Financial Engines and then created the Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals, which provides certification courses in blockchain and digital assets for financial professionals and investors. But, at this point, Edelman believes that advisers who value diversification as a strategy in their clients' portfolio — eg, across asset classes, sectors, etc. — would be remiss not to recommend adding at least a small amount of digital asset exposure. 'They ought to be cautious. But being cautious doesn't mean abstinence,' he noted. 'We've seen bitcoin reach all-time highs and seen institutional investors engage for the first time.' Several years ago, when crypto's future was far less certain, Edelman had recommended a 1% asset allocation to crypto, an amount small enough that even if a crypto investment fell to zero it would not greatly harm the long-term trajectory of a person's portfolio. In March this year, using bitcoin as an example, he compared the performance of a balanced 60% stocks/40% bonds portfolio with an average annual return of 7% over a decade, to a portfolio where the equity portion is reduced to 59% in favor of a 1% investment in bitcoin. In the extreme, if bitcoin became worthless the average return would only drop to 6.9%. And, equally extreme, if the price rose to $1 million, the return would increase to 7.4%. If the equity portion were reduced to 57% with 3% put into bitcoin, the average return drops to 6.8% in the worthless scenario and jumps to 8.2% if bitcoin hits $1 million. If bitcoin exposure were upped to 5%, the downside return would be 6.7% and the upside return would be 9%. Despite bitcoin trading around $100,000 — a nosebleed level relative to where it had fallen during the so-called crypto winter of 2022 — Edelman believes that the price still has a lot of upward potential because the number of bitcoins is permanently limited and demand for it is increasing. For those who have yet to invest in crypto and would like to, 'the best place to begin is bitcoin,' Edelman said. 'It is by the far the largest digital asset — and it's the digital asset of choice for institutional investors.' And, he added, 'it's different than all other digital assets. It's a store of value and a transmittal (instrument). All the others are designed for specific commercial uses and it's far less certain as to which of the others will be successful.' But investing directly in bitcoin and storing it in your own wallet can be a complicated proposition unless you know what you're doing. 'Scams are a big issue in this space,' Ross said. A far safer route for the novice crypto investor, he and Edelman said, is through an SEC-regulated bitcoin ETF. Not everyone is as immediately bullish as Edelman. In a March note to clients, TIAA chief investment officer Niladri Mukherjee said, 'While broadening enthusiasm around crypto adoption and the bitcoin ETFs are an encouraging sign for the industry, from an investment perspective, its value drivers will take time to develop and to be well understood by market participants.' Given that the industry is still 'quite opaque and unregulated,' Mukherjee added that individuals should do their due diligence before investing. But even before you do that, gut check yourself. When asked who absolutely should not invest in crypto, Edelman was quick to reply: 'Those who cannot emotionally tolerate volatility. Because we know (cryptocurrencies are) highly volatile. You're likely to sell when prices are low.' That's especially the case if you decide to invest directly in a given coin. A good way to test your appetite for volatility is to consider how much you might spend on a nice meal at a favorite restaurant and invest that amount into crypto if it doesn't strain your household budget. Then just watch to see what happens over the next several months, Ross said. 'Track it, read about it, understand its ebbs and flows.' In other words, educate yourself about how things work before making any real commitment to it. Then if you think you're comfortable enough, you might invest small amounts monthly — again, nothing that would compromise you financially, he suggested. In terms of an overall allocation of your assets, Lazetta Rainey Braxton, founder of the financial planning firm The Real Wealth Coterie, said you want an amount that is small enough that it won't undermine the valuation of your portfolio if things go south. And, she added, '(stick) with players that are well known and respected and have the infrastructure in place to make sure that they are offering a solid investment and also the information associated with that.' Trent Porter, a certified financial planner and certified public accountant at Priority Financial Partners, is not a big fan of crypto even with all the developments in recent months easing investment in the space. 'My core advice remains unchanged: Crypto exposure should match an investor's personal risk tolerance and capacity, keeping the allocation small (no more than 5%) for most people. Regulatory risk might have eased, but market risk is still very real, and as we all know, the regulatory environment can change quickly.' Sign in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store