Trump's Second Term: A Rare Opportunity for Real African Energy Independence (By NJ Ayuk)
By NJ Ayuk, Executive Chairman, African Energy Chamber (https://EnergyChamber.org)
Donald Trump's return to the White House in 2025 represents a pivotal moment for Africa's fossil fuel industry. His administration's swift reapproval of a USD4.7 billion loan from the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Exim) for TotalEnergies' liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique — initially greenlit in 2020 during his first term but sent into deep-freeze for the full duration of the Biden years — sets the tone for what could be a transformative era for Africa's energy sector.
Despite Mozambique's stabilization of security issues and concerns that the transfer of power in America would delay receipt of the loan even further, the Biden Administration refused to release the funds ahead of Trump's inauguration, a decision reflective of the administration's reluctance to support new fossil fuel initiatives throughout Biden's time in office. In contrast, Trump's decisive action within weeks of taking office signals a renewed, positive working relationship between the United States and Africa — one that prioritizes energy development over ideological objections and the Green Agenda's influence.
The African Energy Chamber (AEC) contends that Africa should seize this potentially brief moment in history and embrace the Trump administration as a partner rather than an opponent. For too long, global pressures have insisted that African nations move toward green energy projects only and leave their fossil fuel resources behind.
While renewable energy has its place, and will be important to Africa's future, fossil fuels still clearly constitute the backbone of any realistic efforts for African industrialization and economic growth — goals we simply cannot afford to sideline.
Alignment with Trump's energy-first ethos would mean that Africa could unlock significant funding for wide-ranging fossil fuel projects, and not just the offshore oil and gas ventures that dominate the headlines. The continent should capitalize on all opportunities in onshore projects, wildcat wells (exploratory drilling in unproven areas), and the proliferation of numerous small operators. These avenues lead the way to diversity in Africa's energy portfolio, job creation, and massively strengthened energy security.
The reapproval of funding for Mozambique LNG is a case in point. The project's revival under Trump demonstrates how quickly thick bureaucratic congestion can dissolve when political will aligns with economic practicality. This USD4.7 billion infusion will boost Mozambique's economy while sending a message to other African nations: Under Trump, at long last, America is open for business.
In contrast to the previous administration, which openly regarded fossil fuel development with skepticism and disdain, Trump's 'drill baby drill' mantra — while rooted in an 'America First' agenda — pairs seamlessly with the ambitions of the African oil and gas industry. Africa should adopt a similar mindset and position itself as an attractive destination for American investment dollars.
Coal's Comeback
Another of Trump's domestic priorities, no doubt a response to China's unabashed expansion of coal production within its borders, is to revive clean coal production in the U.S. This initiative offers a compelling blueprint for Africa. While coal remains a contentious, harshly criticized resource globally, its advantages are undeniable: It's cheaper to produce, often doesn't require big bank financing, and is abundant across the continent. For African nations grappling with energy poverty, coal can serve as a means to an end, delivering affordable power to millions in the interim while the infrastructure for other energy sources matures. Simply put, Africa deserves to be the last global holdout on coal production and should leverage its coal reserves to meet domestic needs and export demands. Trump's willingness to disregard the international campaign against coal should embolden African leaders to reopen their abandoned coal mines and rest assured that this time around, they'll be able to operate freely, without fear of U.S. opposition.
Fossil Fuels Unleashed
Looking beyond coal, over the next four years, Africa has the rare chance to pursue an aggressive fossil fuel agenda. The continent should unite under an 'Africa First' banner and adopt its own 'drill baby drill' mentality in support of every promising oil exploration and production project, every possible natural gas project, and a multinational effort to slash through regulatory red tape.
In Nigeria, for instance, the wheels of progress moved agonizingly slowly when it came to passing the Petroleum Industry Act, first proposed in 2008 and not signed into law until 2021. Even after the law was passed, Nigeria has been slow to fully implement it. This kind of inertia deters investment and slows development. A Trump-inspired push to clean up such bureaucratic roadblocks could unleash a wave of prosperous development. Similarly, addressing security issues — like those that drove U.S. firms out of Libya — will be critical to restoring confidence and attracting capital from abroad.
While the offshore sector will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of Africa's fossil fuel strategy, the continent's onshore potential is equally vast. Wildcat wells offer high-risk/ high-reward prospects that could uncover new reserves. Meanwhile, instead of relying solely on multinational oil and gas giants, empowerment of more independent companies and indigenous small operators could diversify the industry, build up local entrepreneurship, and ensure the economic benefits are more widespread. It is highly unlikely that the Trump administration, with its emphasis on deregulation and energy independence for its own shores, would obstruct such efforts on ours. Conversely, it may actively encourage them through financing and technical support, as seen with the Exim loan.
Balancing Development and Climate Realities
Though critics will argue that this push for fossil fuel proliferation contradicts global climate goals, at the AEC, we insist that the calculations for Africa are simply different.
Africa accounts for a fraction of global emissions but bears a disproportionate burden when it comes to energy poverty. Fossil fuels offer a realistic and relatively quick path to electrification and industrialization, the proven prerequisites for lifting millions out of poverty. Trump's indifference to international climate orthodoxy, while controversial, gives Africa the much-needed breathing room to prioritize development over decarbonization. This is in no way an outright rejection of renewables but a recognition that fossil fuels can and will facilitate a just transition to green technologies once their capabilities catch up to Africa's current needs.
Seizing the Moment
The next four years under Trump could redefine Africa's energy landscape. With U.S. interference a thing of the past, Africa can pursue a multi-pronged energy strategy. With a ramp-up in natural gas to meet global demand, a coal revival to power its own grids, and on and offshore opportunities tapped into, Africa could finally secure its full resource base.
However, this approach will require bold leadership. Governments will have to eliminate obstructive policies and address security challenges head-on to secure foreign investments. The payoff could be immense: energy abundance, economic growth, and a partnership with the U.S. that is stronger than ever before.
For example, Nigeria's oil and gas sector has been hampered by regulatory uncertainty and security threats in the Niger Delta. A Nigerian 'drill baby drill' mindset could accelerate regulatory, social, and economic reforms needed to address the Niger Delta's deep-rooted instability. This kind of mindset could restart stalled projects and attract American firms eager to invest in a Trump-approved climate. Likewise, in Libya, a resolution to security concerns could lure back U.S. companies that fled during years of instability, reviving a once-thriving oil industry. Across the continent, small operators could flourish under a lighter regulatory touch, drilling wildcat wells and tapping into overlooked reserves.
South Africa, with its vast coal deposits, could take the lead on clean coal technologies to balance affordability and environmental concerns. Smaller nations with untapped coal reserves could follow Trump's lead in defying global pressures against production. The result would be a continent less dependent on foreign aid and more capable of powering its own future.
Trump's presidency offers Africa a chance to unapologetically double down on its fossil fuel potential. The USD4.7 billion Mozambique loan is just the beginning — a proof of concept for what collaboration with the U.S. can achieve. By embracing this partnership, Africa can shed the shackles of the Biden era and chart a course toward energy sovereignty.
The tools are all there: offshore rigs, onshore fields, wildcat wells, established mines, and a willing ally in Washington. The question that remains is whether Africa's leaders have the courage to stand up to the anti-carbon lobby.
Trump's second term could be remembered as the moment Africa's fossil fuel industry came into its own — as a partner to the U.S. in a shared vision of energy abundance. With four years of clear skies ahead, there is no question that Africa should build, mine, and yes, drill, baby, drill like never before.
If we don't act now, it might be a very long wait for an opportunity like this one to present itself again.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Energy Chamber.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
8 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
Gulf Today
8 hours ago
- Gulf Today
How big of a threat is Asian superpower China really?
Daniel DePetris, Tribune News Service Last June, during an annual security conference in East Asia, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin underscored that the United States was not seeking conflict with China. Maintaining a consistent dialogue with Beijing, he hinted, was just as vital to effective deterrence as ensuring the US military was fully equipped and prepared. Fast-forward a year later and the message from Washington is far different. Unlike his predecessor, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth name-dropped China in his speech to the same security conference multiple times, as if to shame the Asian superpower for running roughshod over the so-called rules-based international order. China, Hegseth warned, was trying to become a hegemon in Asia, where it could dominate its neighbours, exploit the South China Sea's vast natural resources and coerce other countries into accepting Beijing's demands. In Hegseth's words, 'It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.' An invasion of Taiwan, he added, could be 'imminent.' If this all sounds scary, that's because it is. His comments raise the rhetorical gamesmanship to a level US officials weren't comfortable with in the past. The Biden administration was no slouch on China policy, but it still didn't want to inflame things unnecessarily. The Pentagon, for instance, repeatedly emphasized that while China's military drills around Taiwan were aggressive and designed to wear down the island's will to resist, a conflict in the Taiwan Strait was 'neither imminent nor inevitable.' In other words, there was still an opportunity to defuse any tensions before they exploded into a war that could drag the United States in, kill tens of thousands of people and throw a heavy wrench into the global economy. The Trump administration, however, has deployed noticeably sharper words during its first four months. Although the fundamentals of its wider policy in East Asia mimic the Biden administration's own — reinforcing US alliances; engaging in regular freedom of navigation exercises with Japan and the Philippines; and stressing the utility of preserving the status quo in the Taiwan Strait — Trump's advisers aren't afraid of poking Beijing in the eye. If managing the systemic rivalry with Beijing was a core component of Washington's overall strategy throughout Biden's four years, it increasingly looks like the guardrails that were put in place to prevent miscalculations are now eroding. Even so, does the Trump administration have a point? Is a conflict over Taiwan imminent as Hegseth suggests? And how real is the risk of China becoming Asia's hegemon? First, we should acknowledge that China is a threat in certain respects, particularly to its neighbors who have competing jurisdictional claims. The People's Liberation Army, or PLA, is arguably the strongest military in the region today, a consequence of Chinese President Xi Jinping's long-standing policy of pouring money into its coffers to fund a large-scale modernization campaign. China spent $314 billion on defense in 2024, a 7% increase from the year prior and a whopping 59% increase from a decade ago. The PLA boasts the largest ballistic missile arsenal in Asia and continues to invest in hypersonic missiles, which are difficult for conventional air defenses to intercept. The PLA is also throwing out the old rulebook that used to govern affairs in East Asia. As I mentioned last week, the median line that once served as an unofficial boundary separating Chinese and Taiwanese airspace is now imaginary as the Chinese air force flies closer to the self-ruled island to test Taiwan's defenses and wear down morale. Yet the United States would be wise to refrain from overestimating China's military capability and underestimating the capability of its allies like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Australia — all of whom have an even greater interest in preventing Chinese hegemony in Asia than Washington does. China is its own worst enemy in this regard: The more it presses its territorial claims, the more incentive its neighbors have to balance Beijing. For the most part, this is exactly what China's neighbours are doing. Japan is the most obvious case study. Traditionally a pacifist country that kept to an artificially low defense budget relative to its wealth, Japan has spent the last three years adding resources to its so-called Self-Defense Forces and buying American weapons off the shelf. Tokyo's latest national security strategy, unveiled in 2022, was a sea-change in how Japan typically talks about its security environment. In that document, China was called out for challenging the international order, partnering with Russia in its war against Ukraine and trying to change the region's status quo by force. Japan's defense budget is set to double by 2027, and with more resources comes a greater capability to preserve the balance of power. The Philippines is another example. While the country can't possibly compete with China in conventional terms, the Philippine government under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has effectively given up on rapprochement with Beijing and thrown in its lot with Washington. China's incessant clashes with Philippine forces in the South China Sea have served as a wake-up call to a country whose previous administration under Rodrigo Duterte (who is now in custody at the Hague for war crimes) drifted into the Chinese camp and took a more suspicious view of US intentions. Today, Manila is not only buttressing its navy and coast guard but also increasingly partnering with countries like Japan and Australia who have a similar threat perception about China.
Middle East Eye
8 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump-Musk fight creates unprecedented elite power struggle in the US
It is hard to find a historic or contemporary precedent for the battle raging between Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Elon Musk, the world's richest man. There may be a couple of examples that come close, but nothing that quite captures the current moment. For instance, in 2017, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rounded up his profligate cousins and businessmen at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton for a royal shakedown. They got into line quickly. And almost two decades before, Russian President Vladimir Putin managed to bend the oligarchs who got rich off post-Soviet capitalism to his will. On its surface, the Trump-Musk feud seems to be over policy. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The Tesla chief and former head of DOGE attacked Trump's tax bill this week as a 'disgusting abomination'. Musk was channelling the concerns of deficit hawks in the US, who worry the bill will add trillions to the US debt pile at a time when the dollar has weakened and demand for more US debt is looking stretched. Trump, who has positioned the bill as a do-or-die piece of legislation, said on Thursday during a meeting in the Oval Office with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, that 'I'd rather have Elon criticise me than the bill,' adding later, 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' Then it got nasty. Within hours, Musk was on X calling for Trump's impeachment, to be replaced by Vice President JD Vance. The vice president himself was catapulted to power in part by Peter Thiel, a billionaire tech entrepreneur who mentored and groomed Vance's career in politics. He threatened to form a new political party and stop ferrying Nasa astronauts into space. He said Trump would have lost the US presidential election without his endorsement. And for good measure, insinuated that Trump was linked to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Trump fired back. He suggested Musk was attacking the bill, not out of patriotic fervour, but because he had snatched away perks for electric vehicles from which Tesla benefits. 'Elon was wearing thin,' Trump said. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said in another post on Thursday night, threatening to leverage the power of the presidency against Musk's business empire, which includes Tesla and SpaceX. Tesla shares dropped about 14 percent on Thursday amid the spat. According to Bloomberg's billionaires index, Musk's net worth plunged $34bn that day. Tesla was trading up around five percent on Friday. Silicon Valley vs 'America First' nationalists The Trump-Musk feud is a decidedly American affair - partly performative, very populist, and made for social media. And on that note, Musk has been posting on X, the social media platform he bought before the US election, and Trump has been posting on Truth Social - owned by Trump Media & Technology Group - that was purposely built as a right-leaning competitor to X before Musk bought it. Of course, the US is no stranger to elite power struggles capturing the public's attention, particularly during its rambunctious, early years as a republic. Aaron Burr, a former vice president, famously killed Alexander Hamilton, the one-time treasury secretary, in a dual in 1804. A century later, Teddy Roosevelt rode a populist 'trust busting' wave that pitted him against the gilded elite, making men like JD Rockefeller his foe. But the Trump-Musk feud has key differences. JD Vance's mentor co-founded company that helps Israel generate 'kill lists' of Palestinians in Gaza Read More » The two men had forged an unprecedented alliance that, to a point, symbolised a broader one between Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and crypto bros on one side, and working-class "America First" nationalists on the other. While some media reports say that allies of the two men are urging both to reconcile, the standard bearers of "America First" nationalism appear to be egging Trump on and savouring Musk's fall from grace. Steve Bannon, a former Trump advisor whose podcast WarRoom advocates for "America First" positions, called on Trump to seize Musk's company SpaceX and examine the billionaire's immigration status. Musk was born in South Africa. Bannon himself was critical of Trump's tax bill, but he was one of the few supporters who called for tax hikes on the wealthy. 'You're going to have a few of the tech bros and the crypto crowd stick with Elon because you have the cult of Elon. But MAGA will 100% back Trump. You aren't going to have a person in MAGA who will buy a Tesla,' Bannon said. But Musk donated over $250m to Trump's 2024 campaign and has made clear he has no qualms about deploying his cash against those who turn on him within the Republican Party. On Thursday night, Musk wrote, 'some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years…' Do Musk and Trump have options? Trump has a history of engaging in brutal public spats, only to mend fences later. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vance both lambasted Trump during his 2016 run for the White House. But the key difference here is that neither of these men had the deep pockets of the world's richest man to endure a battle with the president. To an extent, Musk is a country unto himself. His technology, like Starlink, is hovering over battlefields in Ukraine, while his company ferries Nasa astronauts into space. The knowledge he has gained of Trump's family and the inner workings of the White House would make him a valuable catch for any foreign leader, including US allies. More broadly speaking, the feud is likely to reaffirm a perception among American friends and foes that something within the US system is cracking. In less than one day, the president of the US threatened on social media to use the power of his office against a comrade-turned-foe, while the world's richest man called for his impeachment. Elon Musk: How a tech nerd became Trump's 'first buddy' Read More » Many observers said the bonhomie between Trump and his former 'first buddy' was bound to implode eventually, given both men's power and outsized egos. Musk also felt his investment in Trump's campaign wasn't paying off, reports suggest. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk tried to block OpenAI from building one of the world's largest artificial intelligence data centres in Abu Dhabi. Trump and his aides rejected Musk's bid to cancel the deal in favour of his AI company. On Wednesday, Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire friend of Musk, suggested Trump pulled his nomination to run Nasa because of his ties to Musk. Things could get ugly if the feud refuses to die down, and the president has several institutions that could be weaponised against Musk and his businesses. Trump has not been shy about using state leverage to settle old scores since his return to power. However, Musk has pockets deep enough to make mid-term elections an uphill battle for Trump and his loyalists. If the gloves come off, the world will have a front row seat to an unprecedented battle between the world's most powerful politician and the world's richest man, as it all plays out in real time on social media.
