Zambia has accused the United States of conditioning a $2 billion health assistance package on access to the southern African nation's critical mineral resources, escalating tensions over the Trump administration's transactional approach to foreign aid and strategic resource competition with China.
Foreign Affairs Minister Mulambo Haimbe said Monday that negotiations have stalled over what he described as "unacceptable" data-sharing demands "in violation of our citizens' right to privacy" and "the insistence on preferential treatment of U.S companies over Zambia's critical minerals." Haimbe stated that Zambia "takes the view, first and foremost, that Zambians must have a say on how her critical minerals are used, and second that no one strategic partner is to be treated preferentially to others."
Diplomatic Tensions and Sovereignty Concerns
The dispute brought into the open simmering tensions over President Donald Trump's "America First" strategy, which is reshaping aid to Africa into transactional agreements. Haimbe described accusations by outgoing U.S. ambassador Michael Gonzales as "mischievous" and "deeply regrettable, undiplomatic and inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect."
Gonzales had said in late April that Zambian leaders had "abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets." He said Zambian authorities had "ignored" U.S. overtures to conclude a new deal. Gonzales dismissed Zambian concerns about mineral access as "alarmist allegations" that he called "disgusting" and "absolutely and patently false."
Strategic Competition for Critical Resources
The U.S. is seeking to challenge China, a dominant player in Zambia and much of Africa, whose minerals are critical to the green energy transition, including inputs for solar panels, electric vehicle batteries and energy storage systems. The new U.S. approach replaces decades of engagement anchored in the now-dismantled United States Agency for International Development and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.
U.S. officials are negotiating country-by-country agreements that recast aid as a transaction, tying funding to conditions including commercial provisions, domestic financing commitments, disease surveillance, pathogen sharing and even religion. Since late last year, the U.S has signed agreements with about 30 countries, many in Africa. Washington says the approach is meant to reduce donor dependency, promote local ownership and safeguard American interests, including against an aggressive China that dominates trade in Africa but contributes less aid.
Growing Pushback Across Africa
Ghana last week said it had rejected a proposed deal over provisions granting broad access to sensitive health data without safeguards. Zimbabwe walked away from a $367 million package over similar concerns. In Kenya, a $2.5 billion agreement signed in December has been put on hold after a court challenge arguing it violates data protection laws. In Lesotho, draft U.S. proposals sought 25 years of access to health data and biological samples before local officials secured a shorter five-year deal.
The new agreements aim to ensure the flow of disease surveillance data and biological samples, but through bilateral channels, after the U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organization in January. Countries currently report disease outbreaks primarily through the WHO, which coordinates responses and is negotiating new frameworks on pathogen-sharing and equitable access to vaccines. The U.S., now outside those talks, is pursuing direct access instead.
Financial Conditions and Accountability Questions
The deals come with tighter financial conditions. Many include reduced funding compared to previous levels of U.S. assistance, while requiring countries to increase domestic health spending, with aid at risk if targets are not met. "These are going to be very heavy lifts," said Jen Kates, a senior vice president at the Washington-based non-profit KFF. "Countries are already under strain."
The agreements with the U.S. are drawing criticism for closed-door negotiations and limited public scrutiny. "Secrecy is at the center of this. That puts accountability for results at risk," said Asia Russell, executive director of advocacy group Health GAP. "It's impossible to evaluate these deals properly without seeing the full terms. Part of what made PEPFAR successful was transparency. Now that's been taken away."
In Zimbabwe, a government spokesperson in February said the government terminated negotiations because the U.S. was not offering a "corresponding guarantee of access to any medical innovations — such as vaccines, diagnostics, or treatments — that might result from that shared data." "That raises serious concerns about who benefits," said Atilla Kisla of the Southern Africa Litigation Center.
Why This Matters:
The dispute highlights fundamental questions about how U.S. foreign assistance should balance American strategic interests with recipient nation sovereignty. The new transactional approach aims to reduce long-term dependency on foreign aid while securing access to critical minerals essential for American economic competitiveness and countering Chinese influence in resource-rich regions. The negotiations reveal the fiscal reality that countries receiving substantial external health funding must demonstrate domestic commitment and financial sustainability. However, the stalled talks also underscore the limits of leverage when dealing with sovereign nations controlling strategic resources, and the risks of closed-door negotiations that lack transparency and accountability mechanisms. The outcome will shape whether the U.S. can effectively compete with China for influence in Africa while maintaining partnerships based on mutual respect and clear terms that protect both American interests and local sovereignty.