Africa-Press – Ghana. The 2025 US-Africa Business Summit, held in Luanda, concluded with headlines celebrating a record $2.5 billion in business, 2,700 participants from around the world, and the promise of a renewed economic partnership between the US and Africa.
However, beneath the surface of this seemingly prosperous event lies a more complex and controversial reality. Decades of mistrust, new punitive US policies, and the shadow of historical exploitation have cast a long shadow over the carefully cultivated optimism surrounding the summit. While promises of investment shine brightly, African leaders offered a rare and unified rebuff to Washington, indicating that this “shared vision” remains deeply divided.
While some see the glitz and glamour of the event, others recognize the tensions and challenges that continue to shape the relationship between the U.S. and African countries. It’s essential to acknowledge these complexities and work toward a more inclusive and equitable partnership that benefits all parties involved.
This summit, the 17th edition organized by the Corporate Council on Africa (CCA), was not just another business forum. Held in Angola, a country that symbolizes both colonial history and recent US involvement, especially after President Biden’s historic visit in 2024, the event sought to build on the momentum generated by the Democratic administration. The US government pledged $65 billion to Africa, supported the African Union’s accession to the G20, and prioritized projects such as the Lobito Corridor—a transformative infrastructure initiative connecting Angola with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia.
Biden’s visit to Angola, focused on trade and reconciliation, with a symbolic stop at the National Slavery Museum, represented a potential turning point. However, just months after Donald Trump returned to the White House, these advances began to dissipate. Aid programs faced drastic cuts, crucial HIV initiatives were curtailed, and severe new visa restrictions were imposed on citizens of Chad, Somalia, Sudan, and Equatorial Guinea. There were even rumors that these restrictions could be extended to other countries, such as Angola. Simultaneously, the Trump administration announced plans for new tariffs on African exports, some exceeding 40%, exploiting the imminent expiration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), now seen as a threat rather than an opportunity for renewal.
In this tense context, the Luanda Summit unexpectedly became a battleground for political and diplomatic confrontation. Angolan President João Lourenço, the event’s host, struck a firm tone from the outset: “The time has come to replace the aid mentality with one of investment and trade.” This view was broadly echoed by the Chairman of the African Union Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, who condemned the new visa bans and tariffs imposed by the US as violations of international trade rules and an obstacle to building a genuine partnership. He insisted that Africa does not seek aid, but rather jointly developed solutions.
Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, president of the African Development Bank, reinforced this call, demanding a reversal of protectionist measures: “We need to review these high tariffs. There must be more trade between Africa and the United States, not less.” The message was clear: Africa would reject unilateral relations disguised as cooperation.
The controversy deepened after the removal of an opinion piece containing these criticisms from the ZAWYA portal less than an hour after its publication, fueling suspicions of US pressure to silence dissenting voices. The move only fueled outrage among African leaders.
While significant, the announced agreements offered little relief from these structural concerns. The $2.5 billion package prioritized projects such as: Amer-Con Corporation’s grain silos in the Lobito Corridor, a $170 million digital agreement between Cybastion and Angola Telecom, a $1.5 billion Hydro-Link transmission line connecting Angolan dams to DRC mines, and energy investments such as the Ruzizi III hydroelectric dam. Although presented as “partnerships,” these projects primarily benefit US companies, securing their strategic interests, especially in mineral resources and energy.
The rhetoric of “trade over aid” and “equality among partners” rang hollow in the face of looming punitive tariffs and the dismantling of essential programs. Troy Fitrell, head of the U.S. delegation, attempted to defuse the crisis by denying that there were visa “bans,” classifying the measures as security standards, and describing the tariffs as negotiating tactics for a “balanced and reciprocal” agreement. His claim that the U.S. remains committed to renewing AGOA was at odds with the administration’s own simultaneous actions and threats.
This dissonance highlights a trust issue exacerbated by President Trump’s rhetoric and track record. Fitrell used platitudes about mutual benefits, citing the Lobito Corridor as an example of a lasting agreement. But Trump’s past statements, such as when he suggested “taking back” the Panama Canal if Panamanian tariffs became unfavorable, provide worrying precedents. His transactional approach to international relations, combined with aggressive tariff policies and visa restrictions already applied to Africa, raise legitimate questions: what’s to stop the Trump administration from using similar tactics against Angola or the DRC in future trade disputes?
The history of American intervention, under the guise of protecting its interests, is still fresh in the minds of many African leaders, who recognize in the present an echo of the colonial past. Ultimately, the Luanda Summit highlighted a profound disconnect. For the US, especially under the Trump administration, the summit appeared to be more of a platform for securing strategic resources and commercial advantages than for promoting shared prosperity. While significant, the $2.5 billion investment carries real risks of primarily benefiting American companies and Angolan elites, with little concrete impact on improving the lives of the population.
Abrupt cuts to health and agriculture programs reveal a worrying disconnect between the narratives and the real needs of Africans. Africa, on the other hand, has sent a firm message: it demands genuine partnership, not recycled paternalism. It refuses to be seen as a mere recipient of aid while facing restrictions and economic sanctions. The continent possesses vast natural resources and a dynamic youth with the potential to shape the global economy.
As Greenpeace Africa has stated, it is time to break the “toxic cycle of extraction and poverty” and reject the neocolonial model that transforms African resources into foreign wealth, while its people bear the costs of climate change and economic instability. The colonial past will not be erased by summit speeches or million-dollar agreements. A true partnership requires dismantling the structures of exploitation, not repackaging them with the rhetoric of “mutual benefit,” while simultaneously using tariffs and visas as political weapons.
Until the US addresses this fundamental conflict, the “benefits of Luanda” will continue to be bittersweet for many Africans, and the path to shared prosperity will remain blocked by the very power imbalances the summit was intended to address.
angola24
For More News And Analysis About Ghana Follow Africa-Press
