The Trump administration is considering downsizing or eliminating U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) as part of broader Pentagon cuts. AFRICOM, established in 2007, oversees U.S. military relations with 53 African nations, focusing on counterterrorism and regional security. The proposed reduction raises concerns about U.S. military engagement in Africa, as it could shift responsibilities to other global powers, including China, Türkiye, Russia, and Iran. Critics argue that AFRICOM’s operations have often harmed civilians and supported corrupt regimes rather than fostering genuine stability on the continent.
Trump’s Downsizing Proposal
Reports suggest that the Trump administration is exploring ways to either eliminate AFRICOM or downgrade it to a subcommand under U.S. European Command (EUCOM). This restructuring aligns with Trump’s broader effort to reduce U.S. military engagements abroad, cut defense expenditures, and shift focus toward domestic priorities.
Supporters of the plan believe merging AFRICOM with EUCOM could streamline operations and make it easier for the U.S. to withdraw troops from conflict zones such as Somalia. However, this move could also weaken Washington’s ability to monitor security threats and respond to crises across the continent.
Shifting Responsibilities to Other Powers
If the U.S. reduces its military footprint in Africa, other global powers—such as China, Türkiye, Russia, and Iran—could step in to fill the gap. These nations have been expanding their influence on the continent through military cooperation, economic investments, and security partnerships. Unlike AFRICOM, which has often relied on military intervention, these countries have pursued a mix of economic and diplomatic strategies, making them more appealing to African governments seeking alternatives to Western influence.
Criticism of U.S. Military Activities in Africa
Despite its stated goal of combating terrorism, AFRICOM has been accused of carrying out airstrikes and military raids that have resulted in civilian casualties. In Somalia, for instance, U.S. drone strikes have reportedly killed civilians alongside targeted militants, further fueling resentment against foreign military presence. The U.S. military has also been criticized for backing corrupt and authoritarian regimes in exchange for security cooperation, undermining democratic movements and enabling long-standing instability.
Beyond military actions, the U.S. has largely neglected Africa’s socio-economic needs, focusing on security partnerships rather than addressing issues such as poverty, infrastructure, and governance. While AFRICOM has helped train some African security forces, critics argue that these efforts have often empowered militarized states rather than fostering genuine peace and stability.
The Trump administration’s potential downsizing or elimination of AFRICOM marks a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Africa. While this move could reduce Washington’s military presence, it also raises questions about the long-term impact on regional security. The U.S. approach to Africa has long been criticized for being overly militaristic, often at the expense of civilian lives and democratic governance. If AFRICOM is reduced or dismantled, it may create an opportunity for African nations to seek alternative partnerships that prioritize economic development and diplomatic engagement over military intervention.
What is AFRICOM?
The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was established in 2007 and became fully operational in 2008. The command was created to oversee U.S. military operations across Africa, with a primary focus on counterterrorism, security cooperation, and crisis response. AFRICOM operates with around 2,000 personnel and is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, rather than Africa itself—a controversial decision that many African leaders have criticized as a sign of detachment from the continent’s realities.
While the U.S. claims AFRICOM promotes stability, the command has often been associated with drone strikes, military interventions, and direct combat operations that have led to civilian casualties. Critics argue that AFRICOM has prioritized military solutions over diplomatic and developmental approaches, exacerbating tensions rather than resolving conflicts.