Trump’s African policy faces new scrutiny as midterm polls balance power

…president holds veto power

Africa’s relationship with the United States is expected to enter a more complicated phase as President Donald Trump’s foreign policy priorities encounter a new congressional balance of power following the Democratic Party’s takeover of Congress.

The Democrats’ victory in the November 3 midterm elections could bring fresh scrutiny to Washington’s engagement with African countries, particularly its military operations, arms transfers, civilian protection, artificial intelligence and immigration policies.

While Trump retains significant authority over American foreign policy, a Democratic-controlled Congress could use its oversight powers, budgetary control and legislative mechanisms to influence how his administration manages relations with Africa.

For African governments, the emerging political landscape presents both diplomatic opportunities and challenges, particularly over human rights, religious violence and the economic consequences of Washington’s increasingly restrictive policies.

Africa’s relationship with the US has come under increasing strain since Trump returned to the White House.

Trump’s second administration has adopted a more transactional approach to relations with African countries, prioritising American trade interests, security concerns and immigration controls.

The shift has strained relations with several governments, particularly South Africa, which has faced repeated criticism from Washington over its land reform policies, foreign relations and treatment of its white minority.

In February 2025, Trump signed an executive order suspending US assistance to South Africa, accusing its government of pursuing discriminatory land policies and taking positions hostile to American interests. Pretoria rejected the allegations, defending its land reform programme as an effort to address inequalities inherited from apartheid.

Trade has also become a source of tension. Trump’s administration has used tariffs and access to the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) to advance its trade and foreign policy objectives.

Although Congress reauthorised AGOA in February 2026 until December 31, the administration has continued to demand changes to the programme in line with its America First trade policy.

On November 2, 2026, the US Trade Representative announced that Trump had notified Congress and the governments of South Africa and Rwanda of his intention to terminate their AGOA eligibility from January 1, 2027, citing concerns over trade barriers, governance and national security.

South Africa is among the programme’s largest exporters to the US, making the proposed exclusion significant for its exporters.

The administration’s approach to foreign assistance has created another source of friction. Trump’s decision to dismantle much of the US Agency for International Development’s traditional aid operations and reduce foreign assistance has affected African countries that depend on American funding for healthcare, humanitarian programmes, food security and development.

The changes have particularly affected health programmes, including HIV/AIDS interventions supported through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

While Washington has sought to restructure assistance around bilateral agreements and greater recipient-country responsibility, African governments and health organisations have raised concerns about funding gaps and disruptions to essential services.

Immigration restrictions have further complicated relations, with several African countries facing tighter visa requirements and restrictions on entry into the United States.

In December 2025, Trump expanded travel restrictions to include countries such as Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone and South Sudan, while maintaining partial restrictions on others, including Burundi and Togo.

Nigeria has also faced restrictions affecting several categories of travellers, including students, business visitors and tourists. Washington has additionally pursued arrangements with African governments to accept deportees from the United States, prompting concerns among some African officials about sovereignty, security and the financial implications of receiving third-country nationals.

Security and human rights have also become increasingly contentious in Washington’s engagement with Africa. Trump’s designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern over religious freedom in October 2025 intensified pressure on President Bola Tinubu’s administration to address attacks against Christian communities and improve civilian protection.

The administration subsequently ordered military strikes against Islamic State-linked targets in north-western Nigeria in December 2025, while continuing security cooperation with Nigerian forces.

The US position has attracted debate over religious violence, civilian protection and the balance between military intervention and diplomatic engagement, issues that could attract greater congressional scrutiny.

Relations with other African governments have also been shaped by Washington’s security priorities and competition for strategic resources.

The Trump administration has sanctioned Rwandan officials over the conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and criticised Kigali’s role in the fighting involving M23 rebels.

It has also pursued closer economic and security partnerships in countries with significant mineral resources, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, as Washington seeks to reduce reliance on China for critical minerals.

These competing priorities illustrate the administration’s emphasis on securing American commercial and strategic interests while placing greater conditions on its relationships with African governments.

Congress could tighten conditions

The Democratic-controlled Congress is expected to increase scrutiny of American financial and military assistance, arms transfers and counterterrorism operations involving African countries.

Under the Leahy Law, the United States is prohibited from providing military assistance to foreign security units implicated in gross human rights violations unless the required accountability conditions are met.

Lawmakers could also use congressional reviews of major arms transfers to demand greater transparency regarding civilian protection, the use of American equipment and the legal authority governing military operations.

Such oversight could complicate the administration’s efforts to fast-track defence cooperation.

A Democratic-controlled Congress could also use its budgetary authority to protect funding for global health programmes, humanitarian assistance and democracy initiatives, particularly those facing cuts under the administration.

However, its influence would depend on specific appropriations decisions and the administration’s willingness to implement congressional directives.

“Congress may overturn or constrain some of his policies, but its authority is not absolute. The president still has the final say on major foreign policy decisions,” said Bamidele Olajide, a lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Lagos.

The political shift therefore offers Africa both an opportunity and a risk. It could provide additional channels for diplomatic engagement, but it could also expose African governments to tougher scrutiny over governance, security and human rights, analysts have said.

Who gains first: immigrants already inside America

New York-based Latoya McBean Pompy, an immigration lawyer at McBean Immigration Law, distinguishes immigrants already in the United States and applicants seeking entry from abroad.

“If the Democrats take control of one chamber, it can make a very significant difference for immigrants inside the US, not those outside of the US,” she said.

With Democrats now controlling both chambers, she expects greater congressional scrutiny of immigration agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

African applicants experiencing delayed or denied applications could benefit from increased oversight, particularly if lawmakers use hearings, investigations and requests for agency reports to examine administrative decisions and processing backlogs.

Such scrutiny could also bring attention to deportation practices, detention conditions and the treatment of non-citizens already living and working in the country.

However, congressional investigations do not automatically reverse individual immigration decisions or compel agencies to approve applications. Their immediate impact is more likely to come through greater transparency, political pressure and possible changes to agency funding or legislation.

The catch for applicants abroad: Visas and H-1B mobility

For Africans applying from overseas, the outlook remains more complicated because congressional control does not give lawmakers direct authority over individual visa decisions.

McBean Pompy said the president and executive agencies retain considerable influence over policies governing entry into the United States.

“For those outside of the United States, however, the executive still has a tremendous amount of authority and power over what happens on the policy side of allowing people into the US. I think it will still remain tough for individuals outside of the United States to get a visa,” she said.

This distinction is particularly important for H-1B visa applicants, technology workers and other skilled professionals from Nigeria and across Africa.

H-1B visas allow US employers to hire foreign professionals in specialised occupations, making the programme an important route for international talent seeking employment in the American technology, healthcare and financial services industries.

During the period of unified Republican control, administrative scrutiny and immigration restrictions affected international applicants. While a Democratic Congress can challenge restrictive legislation, examine processing backlogs and propose changes to existing immigration laws, it cannot independently direct consular officers to approve visas.

The annual H-1B visa cap and several employment-based immigration limits are established by legislation. Changing these provisions would require congressional action, while administrative requirements and consular procedures remain subject to executive branch authority.

Fortun Abang, a foreign affairs analyst, sees an opportunity for developing countries but cautions against expecting immediate changes.

“While I acknowledge that the Democrats’ win and control of key legislative departments might signal a potential shift in US-Africa engagement, we shouldn’t be too hasty in assuming they will immediately sweep in and change everything,” he said.

On visas, Abang suggests Democrats may review the immigration regime established under Trump.

He argues that their control of Congress gives them legislative leverage to potentially roll back restrictions, reduce processing backlogs and rejection rates, and expand legal pathways for African professionals and students.

However, any significant legislative changes would need to navigate the political and constitutional relationship between Congress and the presidency.

Democratic lawmakers are also expected to increase scrutiny of immigration enforcement agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), using congressional hearings and investigations to examine deportation practices and enforcement priorities.

Congress, oversight and the Iran war

Foreign policy is also expected to face increased congressional scrutiny, particularly following the military conflict between the United States and Iran.

The conflict has disrupted global supply chains and maritime routes, with implications for energy prices, shipping costs and inflation across developing economies, including African oil-importing countries.

Matt Duss, executive vice-president at the Center for International Policy, highlighted how Democrats could use their control of congressional committees and spending powers to challenge the administration’s military decisions.

“This is a war that is hugely unpopular among Democrats… I would expect to see hearings focusing on the war. I think we’re definitely going to see an attempt to focus on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, possibly to move forward with an impeachment,” he said.

Foreign affairs expert Waiel Awwad also pointed to the implications of the new congressional balance for Trump’s military decisions.

“If he loses the Houses, then I think there will be a vote in Congress before going for any military action. That will have a great impact on his way of conducting the war in Iran,” he said.

While Congress has constitutional powers relating to war authorisation and military funding, a Democratic majority does not automatically require a congressional vote before every military operation. Lawmakers can, however, increase oversight, challenge funding decisions and use legislative mechanisms to constrain military action.

For African economies, the significance extends beyond the conflict itself. Greater congressional scrutiny of US foreign policy could influence Washington’s approach to energy security, development assistance and diplomatic engagement with countries across the continent.

Trump retains presidential veto powers

Despite the shift in congressional control, Trump retains the power to veto legislation passed by lawmakers.

During his first term, when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Trump exercised his veto power 10 times between 2019 and 2020.

Although Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers, Republicans controlled the Senate during that period, making it difficult for Democrats to secure the votes required to overturn his decisions.

The same constitutional constraint could shape the relationship between Trump and the new Democratic-controlled Congress, particularly where legislation challenges his administrations foreign policy, immigration restrictions or spending priorities.

The prospect of legislative disagreements and presidential vetoes could therefore complicate efforts by Democrats to reverse some of Trump’s policies, even as their congressional majority gives them greater authority over investigations, oversight and federal spending.

Taofeek Oyedokun

Taofeek Oyedokun is a correspondent at BusinessDay with years of experience reporting on political economy, public policy, migration, environment/climate change,…