Kate Hixon is the Advocacy Director for Africa at Amnesty International USA and Kehinde Togun is the Managing Director for Public Engagement & Partnerships at Humanity United and a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for International Policy.
When Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the Trump administration’s vision for foreign policy, he said every decision must answer three questions: does it make the U.S. safer; does it make the U.S. stronger; does it make the U.S. more prosperous? The administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) quickly decided that many existing policies and agencies failed to affirmatively answer these three questions. As a result, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was rapidly dismantled; attacks were launched against any program or policy that focused on human rights or good governance; and defenestration began of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. All these actions signaled to the private sector that the U.S. is open for business, no matter the human rights cost.
At the same time, these and other measures taken against supporting good governance and human rights create a contradictory environment for the administration’s stated goals: they do not make the U.S. safer, or stronger, or more prosperous.
Bad Deals
Most visibly, the Trump administration made a brazen play for critical mineral assets in Ukraine by attempting to browbeat the Ukrainian government for exploratory rights in exchange for ongoing security support. Other countries quickly took notice. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) President Felix Tshisekedi quickly offered mineral deals in exchange for assistance fighting the Rwandan-backed M23 armed group in eastern DRC, and dozens of lobbyists descended on Washington in “support” of the Congolese government to try and secure a deal. On June 27, the DRC and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington – the first step for both to also secure tentative mineral deals with the U.S. The administration’s Senior Advisor for Africa, Massad Boulos, acknowledged that in order for the mineral deals to work, the signatories needed “a more stable environment.”
The Trump administration is not unique in its desire to prioritize U.S. interests or to seek to give the U.S. private sector a leg up in access to natural resources. However, unlike previous U.S. administrations, resource extraction appears to be the sole goal of the Trump administration when engaging with African countries. Nonetheless, both the administration and U.S. companies, regardless of sector, are constrained by externalities. Markets rely on stability that comes not only from inking deals between countries or their entrepreneurs, but also from ensuring that agreements are honored, processes are in place, and that people in those countries have their rights respected and benefit from those deals.
Good governance is good for business
For U.S. companies to succeed in African markets, they need to trust the rule of law. That principle — that business can only flourish amid reliable governance structures — is why the Millenium Challenge Corporation placed so much emphasis on governance. It’s also why the Development Finance Corporation and USAID partnered so closely to ensure an enabling legal environment existed for successful investments across the globe. When a U.S. company is assessing a country’s investment profile, it will investigate a number of legitimate questions, including if fair arbitration can be expected in the national courts, whether there is risk of being overtaken by the state or being impacted by conflict, and whether there will be a struggle with recruitment because the population lacks basic health care.
Without the rule of law, good governance and stability that comes from it, many U.S. companies will simply deem mineral-rich sub-Saharan African countries far too risky for investment.
Yet, when Elon Musk’s DOGE put USAID through the woodchipper, it simultaneously halted Washington’s ability to bolster civil society and support good governance programs overseas. It also eliminated the agency’s investment support via the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), making the investment climate harder for U.S. companies.
In the vacuum left by a retreating U.S., other governments will fill the void. Chinese parastatal companies will have a greater advantage, as their government’s support allows much higher risk tolerance, and fewer human rights safeguards, than many U.S. companies are willing to stomach.
Great prosperity through human dignity
If the Trump administration wants to make the U.S. safer, stronger and more prosperous, it must emphasize its comparative advantage, not eliminate it. While previous U.S. administrations didn’t do enough, they understood that U.S. companies required some semblance of good governance and respect for human rights to invest.
The DRC recently offered its critical minerals to the U.S. in exchange for the Trump administration supporting Tshekedi’s government. Eastern Congo is home to vast resources of gold, diamonds and the three Ts (tin, tungsten and tantalum). Further south is the world’s largest cobalt reserve — crucial for batteries and electric vehicles. Eastern Congo has a long history of instability, despite regional and international players seeking to cash in on these rich mineral reserves. However, very few U.S. companies have operated in eastern DRC, in part because of Chinese dominance but more broadly because of the high risk associated with operating in the region. Pervasive armed group activity in the area presents a real risk that a company’s mine could be taken over, as happened with the Rubaya mine captured by the M23. Amid a nearly five-year state of siege in eastern DRC, all civilian courts have been replaced with military courts, leaving doubt to companies about the independence of other courts in Congo should they need arbitration.
The DRC also ranks incredibly high on Transparency International’s corruption index, making it more expensive for U.S. companies to operate, especially without the protection of a robust enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
While USAID would not have been a panacea, in countries like DRC and around the world USAID and the State Department were focused on working to improve security, ensure transparency and support people to seek accountability from their governments. Behind the scenes, the private sector is raising candid concern that the closure of USAID and downsizing of State Department agencies will make investing in African countries even more expensive for U.S. companies.
If the Trump administration wishes to make the U.S. safer, stronger, and more prosperous through U.S. investment in critical mineral sectors abroad, it has to grapple with the loss of that expertise housed at USAID and begin ideating how it will help strengthen independent judiciaries and give companies more confidence in fair arbitration, support peacebuilding projects to help reduce levels of conflict, make a safer security environment for private sector investment, and simultaneously support investigative journalism as an external anti-corruption and accountability mechanism. It might also support health programs in mining communities that fill gaps where government services for critical healthcare were unavailable, and have an agency that works closely with the DRC de-risk investments for U.S. companies.
Companies also can’t sit it out while the administration dismantles the work and programs they need to invest responsibly and sustainably in the region. They need to speak not only to the ability of U.S. businesses to contribute materially to one of the fastest growing economic environments, but also to the value of programs that support rule of law, human rights and labor for their intrinsic good.
