JOHANNESBURG—African countries reacted with shock when the U.S. government recently cut $13 billion in financial assistance.
But analysts said the move could spur those countries toward better governance, and even critics said it shines a spotlight on the most corrupt nations on the planet.
In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. government gave almost $13 billion in taxpayer funds to aid countries in Africa, which is rated the world’s most corrupt region by watchdog Transparency International.
Most of the money was administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has since had most of its programs paused and been folded into the State Department.
The money was largely directed to programs to feed people in famine-affected areas and to treat and prevent infectious diseases such as HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis.
The United Nations has suggested that millions of lives are at stake because of the withdrawal of U.S. aid.
It says nearly 16 million Ethiopians relied on grain donated by the United States in 2024, as the East African country was hammered by drought and a civil war.
In South Africa, money from USAID was paying the salaries of staff from hundreds of nonprofits that were working on the largest antiretroviral rollout program in the world, giving medicine to almost 6 million people infected with HIV.
Premium Picks
“The program is not even running at half capacity at the moment,“ Foster Mohale, spokesperson for South Africa’s National Department of Health, told The Epoch Times. ”Millions aren’t getting the pills they need to stay healthy because the organizations who were working with us are now closed.”
Stories like these abound across Africa.
But Chris Maroleng, of the nonprofit Good Governance Africa, told The Epoch Times that President Donald Trump’s decision to pause funding “shines a bright spotlight on the corruption and selfishness of many African regimes.”
“We must all put pressure on our leaders to govern cleanly and to share the wealth of our continent with their people—not by doling out money, but by providing basic services,” he said. “In the grand scheme of things, that’s not much to ask for.”
Maroleng said it is Trump’s right to halt financial assistance to Africa, but that many business, political, and civil society leaders he has spoken with “are disappointed, even angry, at the speed with which this was done.”
“It means they have no time in which to readjust budgets and little time to look elsewhere for help,” he said.
Jakkie Cilliers, head of South Africa’s Institute for Security Studies, used the University of Denver’s forecasting platform to predict that the U.S. aid cut would push almost 6 million Africans into extreme poverty within a year if other avenues of funding are not found.
“Cutting U.S. aid off so fast, so brutally, is wrong because it leaves the most vulnerable even more exposed to hunger, disease, and other social ills,” Cilliers told The Epoch Times.
He suggested that Washington could have phased out the aid over five years.
“That would have cushioned the impact and given policymakers more time to adjust and to gradually plug the funding gaps,” he said.
On the other hand, according to Nigerian economist Nengak Gondyi, “It is time for Africa to get its own house in order.”
The continent “cannot afford to wallow in self-pity and anger” at the Trump administration, he said.
“What’s most needed in Africa is not a big check, but an honest, hard look at the allocation and use of resources,” Gondyi told The Epoch Times.
“More efficient government revenue collection, stopping corruption and other financial crimes that are so rife in Africa, and broadening tax bases, are just some of the things that must now happen.”
Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index measures and analyzes graft in 180 countries.
According to its 2024 index, almost half of the 40 most corrupt countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region in the world, and one that for decades has received the most U.S. aid.
It rates 90 percent of Africa’s 54 nations as “highly corrupt.”
In 2023, all but one—Eritrea—received U.S. financial assistance.
In 2024, according to the U.S. government’s foreign assistance records, Washington donated almost $800 million to South Sudan, which Transparency International ranks as the world’s most corrupt country.
“Corruption is systemic across all levels of government and pervades nearly every economic sector, and perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity,” the organization’s website states.
“As such, it takes a heavy toll on the populace by diverting the wealth from the country’s extensive oil reserves into private pockets instead of public service provision or gross fixed capital formation.”
Last year, the United States gave $1.2 billion in assistance to Somalia, ranked by Transparency International as the world’s second most corrupt country.
The Horn of Africa nation has for decades been plagued by conflict between ethnic groups and an insurgency by the al-Shabaab terrorist organization, which is affiliated with the al-Qaeda terrorist group.
“Corruption is both one of the leading causes and consequences of endemic political instability in Somalia,” Transparency International wrote on its website.
“Corruption occurs at all levels in both the public and private sectors and is a visible and expected form of behavior.
“It affects virtually every aspect of the Somali society: from public officials’ misuse of public goods for private gain and the solicitation of bribes in exchange for basic services to the clan-based patronage networks used to obtain employment and political appointments.
“Businesses have likewise adjusted to the climate of lawlessness, for instance, by avoiding taxes and selling expired food and drugs.”
David Ansara, an economist at South Africa’s Free Market Foundation, told The Epoch Times, “What we have here is an endless cycle of the United States giving billions of dollars to African countries that are often among the most resource-rich on the planet, but their leaders are stealing the profits and not looking after their citizens.”
Ansara said USAID was doing a “fantastic job in Africa, and its money was tightly controlled, but that’s not the point.”
“The point is, it’s now time for African governments to look after their own people, especially those that control billions of dollars in natural resources,” he said.
Ansara pointed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria.
“Why should the United States give countries like this a cent?“ he said. ”There’s no excuse for their citizens to be wallowing in poverty.
“In theory, these countries are filthy rich. But in reality, it’s only the political elites that are rich because income is either stolen and hoarded in offshore accounts, or it’s mismanaged.”
U.S. taxpayers in 2024 gave almost $1 billion to war-torn DRC. It is one of the world’s most resource-rich countries, with vast deposits of critical minerals such as cobalt, tantalum, copper, and gold.
“Historically, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has experienced violence and extensive abuses of power,” Transparency International wrote on its website.
“Protracted civil wars coupled with the continued mismanagement of state resources have placed DRC among the group of fragile states with the world’s poorest infrastructure.
“Bribery, lack of political integrity and weak oversight institutions worsen clientele politics, rent-seeking and instability throughout the country.”
Last year, the U.S. government donated $1 billion to Nigeria, one of the world’s leading oil producers.
The West African country, the second-largest economy in Africa, derives most of its income from oil and gas, but also from minerals such as coal, tin, iron ore, limestone, and gemstones.
In 2024, Nigeria’s crude oil revenue reached approximately 51 trillion naira (almost $33 billion), according to the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission.
“In Nigeria, widespread corruption occurs across politics and public administration where patronage networks play a dominant role,” Transparency International’s website states.
“This manifests at federal, but also state and local levels of government, as well as in the judiciary, the electricity sector, and extractive industries.
“Oil revenues have disproportionately benefited ruling elites through systemic corruption, embezzlement, and capital flight.”
Given this context, Ansara said, he was not surprised when Trump turned the aid tap off.
“When any logical person looks at the status quo, that’s not a radical decision to make,” he said. “Why give more than a billion dollars to a country that’s selling billions of dollars worth of oil every year?
“Surely Nigeria can feed its own people, give health services to its own people? What’s been happening is crooked politicians using aid to avoid their responsibilities and to plunder more money and Trump recognized this.”
A similar scenario played out in Mozambique, which received $780 million in aid from Washington in 2024.
Transparency International said that Mozambique’s vast oil and gas wealth has been “captured” by an elite connected to former President Felipe Nyusi, leaving donors with the responsibility of feeding and keeping citizens healthy.
In 2024, the United States even gave $310 million to Zimbabwe, whose China-friendly leader, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is under sanctions from Washington and often rails against the United States, accusing it of “imperialism” and “neo-colonialism.”
The U.S. Treasury Department said that Mnangagwa “is involved in corrupt activities, in particular those relating to gold and diamond smuggling networks.”
“Mnangagwa provides a protective shield to smugglers to operate in Zimbabwe and has directed Zimbabwean officials to facilitate the sale of gold and diamonds in illicit markets, taking bribes in exchange for his services,“ the Treasury Department stated. ”Mnangagwa also oversees Zimbabwe’s security services, which have violently repressed political opponents and civil society groups.”
In addition to its significant coal and gold resources, Zimbabwe is a top producer of lithium, one of the most valuable critical minerals.
Instead of helping citizens out of poverty, the Mnangagwa regime pockets the proceeds and shares profits with mining companies connected to Beijing, Transparency International said.
“Illicit financial flows (IFF) have drained billions of dollars from [Zimbabwe], particularly in sectors related to natural resources like mining, timber and wildlife,“ the watchdog wrote. ”Many of the IFF proceeds are linked to corruption.”
Gondyi said Africa can no longer rely on external aid.
“With all the resources we have in Africa, and even more money coming in through foreign direct investment and remittances, we can do things for ourselves,” he said.
“The challenge is to manage resources properly and to promote investments that provide solutions to societal ills and don’t just boost profits.”
Gondyi said African philanthropy should be harnessed to fund critical projects previously managed by USAID.
According to him, this could be achieved through individual and corporate donations, organized crowdfunding, and subscriptions to social impact investments and social bonds.
“Crucially, the projects must be well monitored by trusted experts not connected to governments,” Gondyi said.
Cilliers suggested that Africa’s private sector must step up its contributions to causes and that other countries must also help fill the void.
“China has indicated a willingness to become more of a donor country than one that just harvests African mineral resources,” he said.
Last year, Beijing pledged to increase its support for Africa to $51 billion over the next three years.
“China should now bring those plans forward, and must also increase its grants to Africa and not just loan money to the continent,” Cilliers said.
“[United Arab Emirates] and Saudi Arabia, who are now big aid providers to several low-income nations, should also start giving more to Africa.”
Ultimately, Maroleng said, the continent should use the shock of the sudden departure of U.S. aid to become more self-sufficient.