In a dramatic shift in foreign aid strategy, the United States government has fundamentally restructured how it provides health assistance globally — especially in Africa. Rather than continuing with traditional, multilateral aid channels, Washington is now signing direct bilateral health agreements worth billions of dollars with African nations, linking much-needed assistance to political commitments and co-financing pledges from local governments. The result: a major restructuring of U.S. health aid that is reshaping not only public health outcomes but also geopolitical relationships across the African continent.
Since the beginning of this new approach, the U.S. has signed health aid agreements exceeding $11 billion with multiple African countries, under what the Trump administration calls the “America First Global Health Strategy.” These pacts mark a sharp departure from decades of U.S. foreign assistance practices and tariff foreign aid priorities with far-reaching implications.
A Radical Shift From Traditional Aid to Strategic Deals
For decades, U.S. foreign aid — particularly in public health — was administered through agencies like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID historically funded broad global health programs, partnering with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multilateral bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO), and public health institutions to deliver services ranging from HIV/AIDS treatment to maternal health and nutrition.
However, under the current Trump-led administration (2025–2028), this architecture has been dismantled. USAID has been significantly restructured — effectively eliminated as an independent agency — and its roles absorbed into a rebranded foreign health strategy meant to place U.S. interests at the center of aid delivery.
This new strategy emphasizes government-to-government bilateral agreements rather than funding NGOs or multilateral organizations. The logic, according to U.S. officials, is that this approach strengthens accountability, reduces perceived inefficiencies, and encourages recipient countries to become more self-sufficient in financing key public health services.
The $11 Billion Health Aid Agreements in Africa
Under the new framework, the United States has signed large-scale health cooperation agreements with at least nine African countries, which collectively account for more than $11 billion in projected funding over five years. These pacts signify a strategic pivot in how the U.S. supports health initiatives like HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, polio, maternal and child health, and disease surveillance.
Key Agreements Include:
🇰🇪 Kenya
In December 2025, the U.S. and Kenya signed a $2.5 billion five-year agreement under the “America First” health strategy.
Funding is focused on combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and polio.
Kenya pledged to increase its own health budget by approximately $850 million during the same period, matching the U.S. emphasis on shared responsibility.
🇺🇬 Uganda
Uganda reached a federal health cooperation agreement with the U.S. worth up to $1.7 billion over five years.
This pact supports priority health areas including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, and infectious disease preparedness.
The Ugandan government agreed to increase its own health spending by hundreds of millions over the period to foster co-financing and eventual self-reliance.
🇳🇬 Nigeria
Nigeria, Africa’s largest nation by population, agreed to a multi-billion dollar five-year health pact.
Notably, the agreement places emphasis on Christian faith-based healthcare providers, reflecting a U.S. political priority embedded in the deal.
The pact requires Nigeria to mobilize additional domestic resources (an estimated $2.9 billion) to meet shared health goals.
🇲🇿 Mozambique, 🇪🇸 Eswatini, 🇱🇸 Lesotho, 🇨🇲 Cameroon, 🇱🇷 Liberia & 🇷🇼 Rwanda
These countries have also signed agreements or are in advanced negotiations with Washington.
Funding commitments vary based on country size, disease burden, and alignment with U.S. policy priorities.
🇨🇮 Ivory Coast
Côte d’Ivoire recently signed a pact valued at approximately $480 million, committing to shared health financing, data access, and program monitoring aligned with U.S. goals.
What’s Different About This New Aid Model?
1. Aid Is Tied to Political and Funding Commitments
Unlike traditional health aid, which provided grants or technical assistance based on need alone, the new U.S. model conditions funding on political alignment, policy pledges, and co-financing commitments from recipient governments. Countries must demonstrate they are willing to invest domestic resources and align with U.S. foreign policy priorities.
2. Reduced Overall Aid Volume
Analyses from think tanks like the Center for Global Development show that under these new pacts, total U.S. health aid committed annually is nearly 49% lower per country than under the old USAID model.
3. Focus on Direct Government Partnerships
The U.S. now bypasses many NGOs and multilateral organizations, instead opting for direct government-to-government engagement. This aims to strengthen local health infrastructure but raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and potential for political influence.
4. Deeper Policy Preferences Embedded in Aid
Rather than solely targeting public health outcomes, the aid agreements also reflect wider political considerations, including ideological priorities — such as support for faith-based providers and certain governance reforms. Critics argue this blurs the line between humanitarian help and geopolitical leverage.
Criticism and Controversy
The U.S. shift has drawn significant concern from global health experts, NGOs, and international development advocates. Key criticisms include:
📉 Weakened Health Systems
The abrupt restructuring of USAID and drastic aid cuts have disabled many existing health programs, particularly those focused on HIV/AIDS, malaria prevention, maternal and child health, and chronic disease treatment. Research estimates that reductions in funding could reverse decades of progress and result in increased mortality.
🔗 Political Conditionality Over Health Needs
Critics warn that linking health aid to political conditions — including policy reforms and security partnerships — risks subordinating health outcomes to political goals, sometimes at the expense of communities that need support the most.
📉 Exclusion of Major African Nations
Some countries with high disease burdens and longstanding aid relationships, such as South Africa, have been left out of the new agreements due to diplomatic disagreements. This exclusion has further strained health systems already coping with reduced funding.
⚖ Impact on Global Health Leadership
Shifting from multilateral engagement back to transactional bilateral deals weakens cooperative international health efforts — including collaboration with WHO and global disease eradication initiatives.
The Future of U.S. Health Aid in Africa
The United States’ new health aid strategy represents a turning point in global health diplomacy. While proponents argue that the approach encourages sustainability and efficiency, detractors underscore the risks of reduced funding, politicized aid conditions, and weakened health systems. As these agreements unfold, African governments face the dual challenge of meeting global health needs while navigating the political and financial demands embedded in their U.S. pacts.
Ultimately, how these changes impact health outcomes — from HIV/AIDS mortality to epidemic preparedness — remains an open question. Stakeholders in Africa and beyond are watching closely: will this model deliver stronger health systems, or will it exacerbate existing vulnerabilities in some of the world’s most fragile health sectors?
0 Comments