Africa, with its developing export economies, is more vulnerable than other continents to the US-initiated global trade war. To avoid major economic disruptions, countries like South Africa are making strategic plans.

The US sparked a global trade war in January 2025 by mounting an offensive against, first, its largest trade partners and then the entire world, prompting defensive responses from other nations. Retaliatory tariffs put in place by targeted countries became countermeasures in response to sudden and high US tariffs on their products. Major Western countries were astounded but not daunted because of the size and resiliency of their economies. Unfortunately for African countries whose developing economies are delicate and more vulnerable to external shocks like tariffs, the US trade war might lead to the collapse of industries and increased unemployment and poverty.

The African Growth and Opportunities Act dilemma

The chaos in world trade was not initiated by US President Donald Trump for economic reasons but for domestic political reasons, to appease his xenophobic right-wing base that sees the rest of the world as enemies of America. The Trump administration within days of taking office halted humanitarian assistance to Africa, attributing unsubstantiated concerns for the affordability of such aid and suggesting that recipients should be responsible for their own support. However, the decision occurred in the context of ongoing challenges like droughts, which are linked to global warming and influenced by the industrialised world’s reliance on fossil fuels. In fact, USAID, which the Trump administration effectively shut down, was one of the most effective tools of US foreign policy. This institution provided life-saving assistance and showed Africans compassion and an earnest desire to make ordinary lives better that has never been offered by the US’s rivals, China or Russia.

Another successful piece of US legislation, the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), is also imperilled. It is being distorted by political conservatives in the US into something it is not, a form of aid. When promulgated by US President George Bush in 2000 as the cornerstone of the U.S.’ trade and investment policy toward sub-Saharan Africa, AGOA was designed to replace aid with trade opportunities. These would employ new African export industries, lessen poverty and boost economic growth, thereby making African countries less dependent on foreign aid. In Lesotho, for example, AGOA created the country’s industrial base by granting duty-free and quota-free access for their products that entered the US market. A textile industry resulted, making use of Lesotho’s famous indigenous wool. That industry is US market-dependent and will be abolished if AGOA is not extended – an action that must be done every few years by a US legislature now controlled by members of Trump’s party.

Countering economic extortion

The conflation of trade and aid is consistent with the true intent of the US to instigate a trade war. Trade is viewed as a tool for the Trump administration to achieve concessions from other countries, compelling them to comply with his demands. The US knows it is the world’s largest market, leading many other countries to align with US interests if they wish to access this market. This is being done firstly to the US’s oldest and most powerful allies like Canada and Mexico. The Trump administration is looking to bilateral agreements as the bedrock of US trade with Africa. Particular interest will be for minerals, particularly rare earth minerals, and natural resources that the US requires for its industries and technologies. The US is not interested in African products nor Africa’s development through economic growth. This reflects the historical pattern of the 19th century, when the West was primarily interested in Africa for the extraction of its natural resources.

President Trump presents himself as a businessperson whose philosophy is that business is a zero-sum game where one side wins while the other side loses. The economic policy system the Trump administration has put in place does not prioritise equitable trade but economic dominance.

However, the US may be overestimating its influence. While the US is the world’s largest market, it is not the only one. The world is filled with lucrative places to sell and purchase goods and resources. In Africa, the African Continental Free Trade Area has been approved by the continent’s nations as a means to facilitate regional economic interactions of all kinds. The recent system has yet to be fully harnessed but, with the US trade war as an impetus, it may be required sooner than expected.

South Africa considers its trade options

While AGOA benefits 35 African nations, the trade deal has made the US South Africa’s second-biggest trading partner behind China. A quarter of South Africa’s exports to the US are linked to AGOA, which resulted in US$3.6-billion in trade in 2023. If AGOA is not renewed, its benefits will conclude at the end of September 2025, and South African businesses will not wait until then. They recognise the impending challenges.

The Trump administration has imposed trade measures on South Africa for foreign policy reasons rather than trade issues. This includes South Africa’s legal actions in the International Criminal Court against Israel for human rights abuses of the Palestinians.

Leading South Africa’s defensive strategy against the US trade war are individual companies, industrial co-operatives and trade groups, such as the Citrus Growers Association of South Africa. The South African government has responded to pressure from Washington by stating that it will not succumb to extortion. However, it has not offered any policies to adapt trade to the realities of US-led protectionism. Some private entities are sending delegations to Washington for one-on-one talks with US trade officials. The citrus industry in particular is looking to new markets to mitigate the potential effects of the end of AGOA. Thousands of agricultural jobs may be lost, compounding unemployment, and more than US$54-million.

In 2025, 35 000 South African jobs and 20 000 jobs in the US depended on South Africa’s citrus exports, which have doubled since 2020 due to the high-quality produce. An end to AGOA may mean that South Africa’s exports will once again be subject to tariffs (US$0.09 per kilogram of citrus). In contrast, citrus from Chile and Peru, which benefit from separate tariff-free trade agreements with the US, have a cost advantage over South Africa. However, because the US accounts for only 9% of South Africa’s citrus exports, growers are already exploring alternative markets among the countries that currently purchase the other 91%. This will not be easy. For instance, while citrus exports to India have increased by 30% since 2020, India’s protectionist trade policies impose a 30% tariff on South African citrus. Despite this and other challenges, South African growers are finding Asia’s emerging markets to be receptive to new suppliers.

While the US may consider Africa’s agricultural exports as non-essential in the context of broader geopolitical priorities, Africa remains a key supplier of critical raw materials that are essential to various US industries. If Africa presents a united front in the AU, the US could negotiate continued access to these materials in exchange for the continuation of AGOA. Such strategic negotiations could normalise trade relations with evolving protectionist and nationalist US policies.

The critical points:

• The US has begun a global trade war by replacing economic co-operation with protectionism and nationalism, requiring a strong African response
• The African Growth and Opportunities Act has engaged trade with the US as a means to boost the economies of 35 African countries but is likely to end in September 2025
• The US has the world’s largest consumer market but not the only one, so African companies are exploring other destinations for their exports

Written by In on Africa