Zambia has accused the United States of explicitly linking a $2 billion critical health assistance deal to access to the southern African nation’s rich mineral assets, revealing the transactional nature of imperialist aid. This accusation, made by Zambia’s foreign affairs minister, Mulambo Haimbe, on Monday, brings into the open the simmering tensions over the Trump administration’s “America First” strategy, which is reshaping aid to Africa into agreements that prioritize U.S. capital accumulation.
Haimbe also called the outgoing U.S. ambassador Michael Gonzales’s allegations of Zambian corruption “mischievous” and “undiplomatic.” He described Gonzales’s accusations of Zambian graft and negotiation inertia as “deeply regrettable, undiplomatic and inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect” in a statement.
The Trump administration’s strategy is criticized by some African leaders and health experts who object to the new U.S. stance and its demands for sensitive health data in exchange for badly needed support for health systems. These health systems are already strained by the Trump administration’s dismantling of foreign aid programs. Some critics also state they would not receive access to health innovations like vaccines in return for sharing data.
The U.S. is simultaneously seeking to challenge China, which holds a dominant position in Zambia and much of Africa, particularly regarding critical minerals. These minerals are essential for the global green energy transition, serving as inputs for solar panels, electric vehicle batteries, and energy storage systems.
Gonzales, the outgoing U.S. ambassador, had stated in late April 2026 that Zambian leaders had “abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets.” He further claimed that Zambian authorities had “ignored” U.S. overtures to conclude a new deal.
However, Haimbe countered that negotiations had stalled due to “unacceptable” data-sharing demands that he asserted were “in violation of our citizens’ right to privacy.” He also cited “the insistence on preferential treatment of U.S companies over Zambia’s critical minerals” as a key sticking point.
Zambia, Haimbe stated, “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.” The U.S. Embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding these accusations.
Who Profits: Resource & Data Extraction
The new U.S. approach replaces decades of engagement previously anchored in the now-dismantled United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Instead, U.S. officials are negotiating country-by-country agreements that recast aid as a transaction. These new deals tie funding to a range of conditions, including commercial provisions, domestic financing commitments, disease surveillance, pathogen sharing, and even religion.
Since late 2025, the U.S. has signed agreements with approximately 30 countries, many of them located in Africa. Washington claims this approach is intended to reduce donor dependency, promote local ownership, and safeguard American interests, particularly against China, which dominates trade in Africa but contributes less aid.
The U.S. withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO) in January 2026, and is now pursuing direct access to disease surveillance data and biological samples through these bilateral channels. 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.
Jen Kates, a senior vice president at the Washington-based non-profit KFF, noted that the U.S. wants to understand what is happening but is trying to do it in a “very different way.” Health advocates warn that this risks creating a parallel global health system.
In Zimbabwe, a government spokesperson stated in February 2026 that negotiations were terminated 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.” Atilla Kisla of the Southern Africa Litigation Center commented that this raises “serious concerns about who benefits.”
Advocates point to the harsh experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, when African countries contributed data and samples but were largely last in line for vaccines, illustrating the historical pattern of surplus extraction without equitable return.
The State's Role: Enforcing Capital's Interests
This transactional approach has met with significant pushback from other African nations. Ghana rejected a proposed deal last week 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 2025 has been put on hold after a court challenge arguing it violates data protection laws. Lesotho officials secured a shorter five-year deal for data access, reducing the U.S. proposal for 25 years of access to health data and biological samples.
Critics argue that the data-sharing demands inherently tilt toward U.S. interests, warning that the information-sharing would largely flow in just one direction: toward Washington.
The new agreements also come with tighter financial conditions. Many include reduced funding compared to previous levels of U.S. assistance, while simultaneously requiring countries to increase domestic health spending, with aid at risk if targets are not met. KFF’s Kates described these as “very heavy lifts,” noting that “Countries are already under strain.”
Critics further contend that some agreements advance U.S. commercial and political interests, blurring the line between aid and transactional diplomacy. Asia Russell, executive director of advocacy group Health GAP, warned, “When health becomes a bargaining chip, everyone becomes less safe.” Russell also criticized the closed-door negotiations and limited public scrutiny, stating, “Secrecy is at the center of this. That puts accountability for results at risk.” She added, “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.”
Keketso Phakela in Maseru, Lesotho, contributed to this report.