US military adjusts Africa security strategy
Africa should take greater ownership of its own security challenges.
That was the message recently communicated by General Michael Langley, head of US Africa Command (USAFRICOM).
The unit is part of the US Department of Defence and is responsible for all defence operations and security cooperation on the African continent.
The announcement comes as the United States rethinks its military strategy in Africa, signalling a significant shift in its approach to security on the continent.
This adjustment aligns with a broader strategic pivot under the Trump administration, which is prioritising homeland security and a leaner, more lethal military force, while reducing the US military footprint overseas, including in Africa.
But what could it mean for the continent?
Africa's global relevance
With its growing population and vast natural resources, Africa is strategically important to Europe and the United States.
'Africa is a strategic partner with a large and growing youth population - projected to double by 2045 according to the African Economic Outlook,' Adib Saani, a foreign policy and security analyst, told DW.
'The continent is rich, holding vast mineral resources and strategic reserves like uranium that both Western and Eastern countries heavily rely on.'
The continent was also home to 11 of the world's 20 fastest-growing economies in 2024.
'The US and others engage with Africa not just out of goodwill but because these resources are vital for running industries worldwide,' Saani said.
This makes the relationship mutually beneficial - a win-win for Africa and the rest of the world.
Adib Saani
However, the Trump administration's defence strategy has shifted focus away from protecting the US from threats emanating from abroad, including countering terrorist organisations such as the so-called 'Islamic State' (IS) militant group and al-Qaeda, which have expanded their presence and capabilities in Africa.
'Sharing the burden' of security operations
Previously, US military efforts in Africa combined defence, diplomacy and development.
'America has been a close partner in countering violent extremism, especially in Eastern and West Africa,' Saani explained.
'We have relied heavily on US logistics, training and intelligence sharing to address these threats. In terms of human security, the US has also contributed through USAID and other programs that have helped lift many out of poverty.'
USAFRICOM head Langley said the military's priorities now focus on homeland protection, encouraging instead 'burden sharing' with African partners. He said the goal is to build local military capacity to enable independent operations and reduce reliance on US forces.
This shift was evident during the latest African Lion joint military exercise.
The annual event is the largest military exercise on the continent and emphasizes combined air, land and sea operations with more than 40 participating nations.
The latest edition, in May, lacked the US-led efforts usually apparent and instead focused on collaboration and cooperation.
What could reduced US involvement mean?
Yet foreign policy analyst Adib Saani warned that a diminished US presence could create a power vacuum, emboldening militant networks and undermining years of counterterrorism efforts.
'If the US withdraws its support, it would hit us hard. It could embolden terrorists to carry out more lethal and audacious attacks, knowing there is no major power backing our fight. This would also dampen the morale of our soldiers who face these threats daily, and place significant economic pressure on affected countries,' he said.
Abukar Mohamed Muhudin/Anadolu via Getty Images
USAFRICOM currently deploys roughly 6 500 personnel across Africa and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance. With that gone, Saani worries Africa will not be able to be fully independent when it comes to security.
'It will be difficult in terms of logistics and technology - we are simply not there yet. Security is a shared responsibility and works best when it involves multiple actors. In my opinion, Africa cannot do it alone.'
Russia, China step in to fill security vacuum
African countries will need to look for other allies - both new and old, say experts. China has already launched extensive military training programs for African forces, replicating aspects of the US military model, while Russian mercenaries have established themselves as key security partners in North, West and Central Africa.
'China's approach in the past has mainly been economic,' Saani explained.
The US, he pointed out, has primarily focused on military support, in addition to providing economic help.
'The Russians have strong presence with both economic and military involvement. It feels like everyone is competing for attention. The clear message is that there's a need to diversify partnerships. We can't rely solely on the US; we may also need to engage more with the Russians and others.'
Can Africa succeed alone?
Some voices say the lack of US support could be a wake-up call for African countries, forcing them to consider their own resources and rise to the challenge.
African nations must now take the opportunity to review their security resources, Saani said, and collaborate more closely.
'Building up our defence industry is also critical. This means developing industrial capacity and enhancing the capabilities of our armed forces,' he added.
'We also need to tackle corruption to ensure that funds are not getting lost in people's pockets but are instead used to improve people's lives.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A longer ‘winter': Public funding slowdown heightens pressure on biotech startups
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Biotechnology industry watchers were hopeful at the start of 2025. Venture funding appeared to be rebounding after a lengthy slump, and a smattering of new stock offerings and company acquisitions brewed optimism that the public markets might be similarly warming up to young drugmakers. But the positivity quickly dissipated. Trump administration policies gutted scientific research funding and raised questions about U.S. drug prices. Large layoffs and upheaval at public health agencies created regulatory turmoil that added risk to what's already, by its nature, a risky sector to invest in. The results were laid out in a June report from David Windley and Tucker Remmers, two analysts at the investment bank Jefferies. According to that report, funding in public biotech companies — be it from initial public offerings, follow-on stock offerings, or 'PIPE' deals — plummeted in May. The 'political and economic uncertainties' have "cast a cloud over biotech investment,' they wrote. 'Since product development cycles can range 12-15 years in this industry, biotechs (and their boards and investors) want clarity on FDA regulation, drug pricing, and funding before committing to large, [long-term] investments,' Windley and Remmers wrote. Investors and industry insiders interviewed by BioPharma Dive say that the public slowdown is trickling down to startups that have already been under intense pressure during a prolonged pullback. Companies and investors are struggling to align on valuations, making funding rounds more difficult to close than in prior years. The uphill battle in the public markets is further delaying IPO plans, too. "People are waiting to see what happens, and it's extended that winter," said Tim Scott, the president of Biocom California, an industry trade group. To date, only seven biotech companies have priced IPOs in 2025, and no large offerings have occurred since mid-February. No biotechs have publicly disclosed IPO ambitions in several months either, and one of the last to do so, Odyssey Therapeutics, pulled its offering in May. In a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, CEO Gary Glick wrote that it was 'not in the best interests of the company' to go public at that time. One reason IPOs have ground to a halt, experts say, is that the public markets aren't rewarding drug startups as predictably as they once were. Typically, drug companies can expect their value to climb after delivering positive clinical results. But 'even companies with good data aren't seeing a lot of movement in the public markets,' said Jonathan Norris, a managing director at HSBC Innovation Banking. As a result, Norris said, companies are looking at the time and expense it takes in the monthslong process to go public and wondering: 'What's the benefit?' 'If you have any readouts that are even eye squinting, you're going to get crushed,' he said. 'It's a tough, tough endeavor.' The shuttered IPO window is exacerbating problems for young biotechs. "If you don't have a public market opportunity, then the companies that are private have to think about ways to raise capital and stay private for longer," said Maina Bhaman, a partner at Sofinnova Partners. Feeling that burden, venture investors are becoming more conservative. While private funding hasn't plummeted as much as its public counterpart, investors are more selective and slower-moving. Funding has become increasingly consolidated into fewer and larger 'megarounds,' to the extent that more firms are compiling similar portfolios. And they're hard to finalize, even when most of a funding syndicate is already onboard, according to Norris. "People are struggling to figure out where the bottom of the market is and what's the appropriate valuation and expectation for that investment,' he said. "A lot of VCs are pencils down right now on deals they would otherwise be moving forward on,' Scott added. Pullbacks are nothing new in biotech. But what has been unusual, some say, is how long the sector has spent in the doldrums after peaking in early 2021. One reason is the most recent boom flooded the market with more companies than it could support. But another is that the ensuing correction has intensified amid regulatory and political upheaval. A report last week from Roel van den Akker, PwC's U.S. pharma and life science deals leader, predicted that companies will be 'preparing contingency plans' to account for delays in 'trial oversight' and drug applications. Drug companies are used to dealing with a high level of risk, as most experimental medicines never make it to market. But 'now you've got a lot more macro uncertainty that is being layered on top," Bhaman said. On the public side, that uncertainty has resulted in less patient investors, some of whom are pressing company boards to shut down after setbacks rather than change course. But some startups are taking drastic steps, too, such as cutting programs and staff to, some experts believe, depress their value so they can still attract investment. The "lack of surety" is pressuring biotechs to be as efficient as possible with their cash, Scott said, perhaps working on one program instead of a few. There have been multiple high-profile examples of late. Eikon Therapeutics and Insitro, two well-funded startups, both cited a need for 'prudence' in laying off staff. Norris expects more companies to proactively cut staff, or even close, as the longer-than-expected winter drags on. 'Most of those companies are not going to find the investors that they're hoping for,' he said. 'And I think that's just the unfortunate truth.' Recommended Reading Radiopharmaceutical drugmaker RayzeBio signals plans to go public
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla plans $8 billion U.S. investment this fiscal year
-- Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) announced plans to invest approximately $8 billion in United States infrastructure and manufacturing during the current fiscal year, according to a post on X on late Friday. The electric vehicle manufacturer revealed it has already invested around $44 billion in capital expenditures in the US since the company's founding. Tesla noted that in the previous fiscal year alone, it made approximately $10 billion in capital expenditures. "Tesla has been focused on investing in manufacturing and infrastructure in the US since our inception and till the beginning of the year, we had invested ~$44B of capital expenditures. Just in the last fiscal year alone, we did ~$10B of capital expenditure and plan to invest another ~$8B this fiscal year," the company stated in its social media post. Related articles Tesla plans $8 billion U.S. investment this fiscal year Meet the nine private humanoid robot firms shaping the future stocks of the week Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mark Cuban Says Were He To Become President For A Day, He Would Make These Two Simple Moves To Overhaul US Healthcare
Billionaire entrepreneur and Cost Plus Drugs founder Mark Cuban believes that these two changes could dramatically improve the U.S. healthcare system. What Happened: On Thursday, Cuban responded to a question about what two changes he would make to fix the U.S. healthcare system, if he had full power for one day as president. Instead of just giving two, he outlined several bold policy ideas targeting one major issue: prescription drug pricing and healthcare payment systems. He proposed separating formularies from pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and any companies they own. "They removed their leverage," Cuban said, implying that PBMs have too much control over pricing and access. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — The billionaire also suggested a rule that would force Medicare Advantage and Part D plans to buy from any provider offering a lower price than what patients currently pay out of pocket. Beyond those two ideas, Cuban added more potential reforms: requiring providers to honor publicly listed cash prices, banning specialty drug pricing tiers and making provider CEOs personally liable in cases of billing fraud. 'Put together a financing plan for all healthcare out-of-pocket costs, held by the provider, guaranteed by the Feds. And personally guaranteed against fraud by provider CEOs (to end provider fraud),' he said. Why It's Important: Cuban's Cost Plus Drug Company, launched in 2022, has quickly grown by offering transparent pricing and cutting out middlemen to lower prescription drug costs. Its Cost Plus Marketplace, introduced in February 2024, started with over 4,000 medicines—mainly those in short supply—and has since expanded to over 6,000, supporting healthcare providers nationwide. Earlier, Elon Musk criticized the high cost of U.S. healthcare, questioning the lack of value for the money spent. In response, Cuban responded by blaming not just the government but also CEOs of self-insured companies for signing contracts with PBMs that drive up drug prices. Photo Courtesy: Kathy Hutchins on Read Next: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. Bezos' Favorite Real Estate Platform Launches A Way To Ride The Ongoing Private Credit Boom Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article Mark Cuban Says Were He To Become President For A Day, He Would Make These Two Simple Moves To Overhaul US Healthcare originally appeared on
