Africa: A New Model for Economic Prosperity in Africa

SENIOR BUREAU OFFICIAL CHECKER: Good morning, it's really a pleasure to be here with all of you. Thank you so much to CSIS for the invitation--and for convening this conversation at such a consequential moment.

My objective here is really just to clearly and unambiguously talk about the Trump administration's very new and different approach to development. Because we are not just talking about incremental reform. We are talking about a fundamental reset in how the United States approaches development.

For decades, our approach was defined by how much assistance we delivered, how quickly we could spend, and how many programs we could launch. In this administration, that era is over. We are entering a new era--defined not by inputs, but outcomes; not by aid flows, but by economic growth; and not by dependency, but by mutually beneficial partnerships. And nowhere is that shift more important--or more overdue--than on the African continent. This new approach creates targeted opportunities in Africa, particularly where American strategic and commercial interests directly align with African aspirations.

Let me start with a simple truth: The United States has been and continues to be the most generous nation in the world. Since 1991, we have provided more than $200 billion in foreign assistance to Africa. That generosity has saved lives and alleviated suffering. But it has not delivered the structural transformation required for long-term prosperity. Across much of Africa, we still see limited industrialization, narrow export bases, persistent infrastructure gaps, and continued dependence on external financing for public services

This is not because we didn't spend enough. It is because the model is fundamentally wrong. For too long, we treated symptoms rather than root causes. We measured success by dollars spent and programs launched, rather than by economies transformed. We funded programs without requiring performance, accepting commitments instead of insisting on results. And when governments failed to deliver, we often responded with more assistance--not less.

That is not development. That is a system that creates moral hazard--shielding poor governance from consequences and in some cases, enabling corruption rather than reducing it. We have seen the failures of the status quo and previous way of thinking. In South Sudan, corruption and humanitarian need has increased despite more than $9.5 billion in U.S. assistance since 2011. At the same time, this approach has not advanced our national interests or strengthened our partnerships.

Too often, relationships became one-sided--defined by the United States providing and partners receiving, without reciprocity. In 2023, sub-Saharan African nations voted with the United States only 29 percent of the time on key UN resolutions, despite receiving over billions and billions in assistance since 1991.

The delivery model itself has also been inefficient. Too much funding has been absorbed by layers of intermediaries and implementing organizations otherwise known as the NGO industrial complex, leaving only a fraction reaching the people it was intended to help.

So, the outcome should not surprise us. We built a system that reinforced dependency, crowded out private sector-led growth, and too often failed both the American taxpayer and our African partners. If the model were working, we would see different results by now. We do not. That is why we are changing it.

Because sustainable economic growth does not come from aid. It comes from private enterprise. It comes from companies investing capital, from workers producing goods, from infrastructure that supports markets and from value created in that marketplace.

So, we are making a clear shift, from aid to trade, from assistance to investment, and from dependency to partnership. And we are engaging African nations accordingly--not as aid recipients, but as capable commercial partners. This means working with governments as they are, not as Washington wishes them to be--focusing on mutual economic benefit rather than unsuccessful political transformation.

Because Africa is not a marginal opportunity. It is the next major engine of global growth. Africa is too important to let idealistic aspirations detract focus from its immense potential--2.5 billion people by 2050, that's a quarter of the world's population, with a projected purchasing power of over $16 trillion, and tremendous human capital and abundant natural resources. This will rival the economies of our largest global trading partners.

And yet, U.S. exports to Sub-Saharan Africa remain below one percent of our total trade. That is not just a missed opportunity. It is a strategic and development failure. Because trade and investment--not aid--are what drive: job creation, industrialization, innovation and technology transfer, and long-term self-reliance. And importantly, this shift is not just driven by us. Across the continent, we consistently hear the same message from African leaders, businesses and citizens. They do not want dependency. They want investment, they want opportunity, and they want the ability to compete. As President Museveni put it: "the solutions are with us. Over-reliance on foreign support undermines long-term progress."

So, what does this look like in practice? We call it commercial diplomacy. It means using our diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of commercial deals, infrastructure development and real economic outcomes. It means using every tool we have--our embassies, our financing, our assistance--to advance these outcomes. It means working with countries that are committed to reform, transparency and growth--countries that are willing to take the steps necessary to attract investment and create opportunities. And it means organizing our government not around programs--but around outcomes. Not asking, "how much aid did we deliver?" but asking, "How many deals did we help close?"

We have operationalized this through our Commercial Diplomacy Strategy, built on six actions:

First, we made commercial diplomacy a core mission. U.S. Ambassadors are now evaluated on results--how effectively they advocate for American businesses and how many deals they help deliver.

Second, we are driving market reforms. That means open and competitive tenders, transparent regulatory systems, and a level playing field for U.S. firms. The evidence is clear: countries that reduce non-tariff barriers achieve stronger, more sustained economic growth.

Third, we are advancing commercially viable infrastructure. No vanity projects. No short-term fixes that fail after a decade. We are focused on durable, high-quality infrastructure--and that means partnering with U.S. companies that set the global standard.

Fourth, we are redesigning diplomacy around business. We are leading diplomatic trips focused exclusively on advancing trade and investment with countries that are serious about reform and offer real opportunities--not just aspirations. And for the first time, U.S. companies are at the table--shaping the agenda and engaging directly with decision-makers, both on these trips and in our broader policy engagements.

Fifth, we are connecting more American companies to the opportunities in Africa. We are expanding the pipeline of opportunities and ensuring more U.S. firms are aware of--and positioned to compete for--these opportunities.

Sixth, we are reforming our own system. For too long, our tools have been too slow, too fragmented and too risk-averse to compete. That is changing. We are driving faster financing, more competitive terms, greater project preparation and tighter coordination across agencies. And most importantly, we are aligning these tools behind U.S. strategic priorities--not allowing them to operate in silos or serve bureaucratic interests.

This approach is selective and strategic. We're focusing our resources where American interests are most directly advanced--in critical minerals, strategic infrastructure, and markets that offer genuine commercial opportunity for U.S. firms. And this is not theoretical. Since the start of this administration, we have supported tens of billions of dollars in deals across the continent and are on track to see a 23 percent increase in U.S. exports to Sub-Saharan Africa this year--evidence that when diplomacy aligns with private sector opportunity, investment follows.

This approach also defines how we think about critical minerals and energy. Africa sits at the center of the global race for critical minerals--from cobalt and copper to graphite and rare earth elements. These minerals are essential to American reindustrialization and technological dominance--core national security priorities. Yet for too long, these sectors have been dominated by opaque and often predatory investment models that extract value without building local economies.

African governments increasingly recognize this--and are seeking a different kind of partner: one that delivers transparency, job creation, skills transfer and long-term economic value. Through our critical minerals strategy, the United States is that partner. The goal of that strategy is clear: to ensure that critical minerals from Africa increasingly flow to the United States as part of secure, reliable supply chains.

A key step toward this goal was the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed with the DRC under the Washington Accords. That agreement reflects a fundamentally different model. Our objective is not extraction--it is value creation. That means creating the conditions for increased U.S. investment in the sector and identifying and addressing the structural factors that have inhibited investment. This will increase transparent investment, support local value addition and secure U.S. supply chain requirements. The result is long-term, shared benefit. The DRC captures greater value from its own resources. The United States secures access to minerals critical to our industry and national security. And together, we strengthen both U.S. supply chains and African economies. This is not charity. This is strategic partnership--and it is exactly what African governments are asking for.

However, none of this works without stability--and here, too, we are taking a different approach. We are linking peace to economic integration. Because peace agreements alone rarely hold. But peace built on shared economic interest does. You see this in our work in the Great Lakes region, where we are pairing diplomacy with economic frameworks--such as the Regional Economic Integration Framework between Rwanda and the DRC--to create real, sustained incentives for stability. That is how peace becomes durable.

Let me close by returning to foreign assistance--because it sits at the center of this Summit. Let me be clear: we are not ending foreign assistance. We are ending the old model of foreign assistance. Because assistance is most effective when utilized as strategic capital. And we are going to treat it that way. That means it will be: targeted, conditional, time-bound, and measured by results--not intentions. We will no longer fund programs indefinitely without outcomes. We will no longer finance failed governments; we will prioritize countries that demonstrate both the ability and the willingness to help themselves, including through co-financing and reform. And we will no longer assume that more money produces better results. It does not.

Going forward, assistance will focus on one thing: advancing American safety, security and prosperity. In practice, that means:

Creating the conditions for private sector growth--by reducing corruption, removing barriers to investment, strengthening institutions that enable markets.

Providing rapid, targeted support to help U.S. companies move deals forward.

Using assistance strategically to make U.S. bids more competitive--and projects more bankable.

Financing infrastructure that advances both economic growth and U.S. strategic interests--and is built by U.S. firms.

Supporting private sector-led solutions to humanitarian and health challenges--by funding those solutions directly, as we have done with companies like Zipline.

And implementing performance-based funding--where assistance is disbursed based on results achieved, not effort expended.

It also means accountability, transparency, and an educated workforce. If a government is not willing to take the steps necessary to grow its own economy, we should not make that growth our responsibility. The countries that demonstrate reform and commitment will see deeper partnership. And those that do not--will not. Because self-reliance cannot be something we want more than our partners do.

Let me close with this: Our goal is not to sustain aid dependence in Africa. It is to make it unnecessary while advancing U.S. economic interests and mutual prosperity. And that is exactly what our new model is designed to do. Thank you.

These remarks are originally from the U.S State Department website

Read the original article on U.S. Embassy Kampala.

Africa: A New Model for Economic Prosperity in Africa

Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters

Success!

Error!

Error!