Opinion

What If US President Trump Shifts from Aid to Trade?

Published

3 weeks ago

February 23, 2025

Eric

By Magnus Onyibe

President Donald J. Trump’s executive order eliminating USAID has sent shockwaves across the globe, particularly in aid-dependent nations, most of which are in Africa. In line with the saying that “when America sneezes, the world catches a cold,” many countries are now facing severe consequences due to the proposed end of US aid.

CNN’s Larry Madowo highlighted the crisis unfolding in Africa with a report on a Ugandan HIV/AIDS patient who lost access to life-saving medication following the withdrawal of USAID funding. This situation in Uganda mirrors what could happen across Africa, where the impact is expected to be devastating.

However, Nigeria appears to be an exception to this looming crisis. The country has taken a proactive approach by allocating N700 billion in its 2025 budget to support healthcare services and mitigate the effects of the anticipated aid withdrawal. Not since the tenure of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as Finance Minister and Coordinating Minister of the Economy has Nigeria been this well-prepared for an impending crisis. Her policies during the 2008 global financial meltdown—triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis in the US—helped shield Nigeria from the worst effects of the recession.

Similarly, Nigeria’s current strategy, led by Health Minister Prof. Ali Pate, Finance Minister Wale Edun, and their colleagues in the Budget and Planning Ministry, aims to cushion the blow of the USAID funding cut. As a result, Nigeria may avoid the severe consequences that other aid-dependent countries could face.

Given this development, my advice to other vulnerable African nations is to follow Nigeria’s example by making proactive budgetary provisions to address the new reality. Some leaders may argue that they lack the resources to provide free or affordable healthcare services, such as HIV/AIDS treatment, to their indigent populations. However, the counterargument is that they must prioritize the well-being of their citizens over personal luxuries, which they often display both at home and during international events.

Ironically, many of the leaders whose nations rely on US aid are known for extravagant lifestyles. Instead of depending on foreign assistance, they should focus on efficiently managing their scarce resources to support their people.

This was evident during the African Union meeting in Addis Ababa, where several aircraft bearing the logos and names of impoverished nations were seen on the tarmac, having transported their leaders to the summit. Ironically, many of these countries are among the largest beneficiaries of USAID assistance, which is intended to support vulnerable populations, yet their leaders continue to enjoy lavish lifestyles.

Rather than prioritizing luxury travel, these leaders should focus on the well-being of their citizens by allocating resources to essential healthcare services, such as HIV/AIDS treatment. CNN’s Larry Madowo has already warned that the withdrawal of USAID funding could have devastating consequences for those who depend on it.

On the other side of the debate are those who see USAID as more than just a humanitarian organization, arguing that it has functioned as a tool of U.S. geopolitical influence under the guise of goodwill. Now that its role as an instrument of American soft power has come to light, many—both within the U.S. (especially those opposed to foreign interventions) and globally—have rallied behind President Trump and his government efficiency czar, Elon Musk.

For these critics, the revelation that USAID not only engages in foreign interference but also serves as a platform for promoting American goods and services worldwide is a welcome development. U.S. Congressman Scott Perry, in a congressional briefing, exposed USAID’s operations, suggesting that its activities may rival or even surpass those of the CIA during the Cold War, when global influence was contested between the U.S. and the now-defunct Soviet Union. Perry’s statements align with Trump’s claim that USAID had “strayed from its original mission of responsibly advancing interests abroad.”

Had Trump not taken the drastic step of ordering Musk to review USAID’s activities, many of its controversial operations might have remained hidden. In response, the U.S. Congress has launched an investigation into what has been described as a shocking revelation. Similarly, in Nigeria, Senator Ali Ndume of Borno State—the region hardest hit by Boko Haram insurgency—has called for further scrutiny, following claims that USAID funds may have indirectly benefited terrorist groups.

The argument that foreign aid rarely helps its intended recipients is not new. Economist Dr. Dambisa Moyo, a Harvard alumna, made a similar case in her book Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. Against this backdrop, Trump’s push to transition from aid to trade could mark a significant shift, especially if it leads to Africa moving beyond its historical role as a supplier of raw materials.

As Trump works to rebalance global trade by imposing high tariffs to reduce deficits with key partners—Mexico ($172 billion), Canada ($63.3 billion), China ($295 billion), and major European and Indian economies—he may come to realize that U.S.-Africa trade is relatively small but heavily skewed in America’s favor. Africa is one of the few regions where the U.S. enjoys a trade surplus while simultaneously extending substantial aid.

The lack of significant African participation in global trade (less than 3%) has been cited as a key factor in the continent’s persistent poverty and disease burdens.

As Trump’s return to the White House reshapes global dynamics, two opposing forces have emerged. On one side are Washington’s political establishment figures, who opposed his reelection on November 5 and continue to resist his policies, as evidenced by the numerous legal challenges against him. Their opposition is unlikely to wane as they seek to maintain the old global order.

On the other side is Trump’s vast base of support—over 77 million Americans—who propelled him to victory in all seven swing states, securing his position as the 47th president. This unprecedented political shift is now influencing U.S. foreign policy and Africa’s economic future.

In the past two decades, no U.S. president who lost a re-election bid has returned in the next election cycle to defeat the incumbent and reclaim the White House. Given this precedent, Trump’s victory should be respected, especially since his party controls the Senate, the House of Representatives, and, to some extent, the Supreme Court.

However, as is typical in politics, the minority of voters who opposed him have been vocal in their discontent. Many of these individuals are part of the Washington establishment, which is resistant to change and closely tied to USAID. Additionally, numerous Americans benefit directly from USAID contracts, supplying goods and services that the agency is meant to provide to vulnerable populations worldwide. With Trump’s decision to scale back or eliminate USAID, their financial interests have been disrupted, fueling their opposition to his administration’s reforms.

Critics argue that dismantling USAID diminishes America’s global influence by weakening its use of soft power, which the agency represents as a humanitarian arm of U.S. foreign policy. However, their objections may be more self-serving than altruistic. After all, if their primary concern were genuine humanitarian aid, a public audit of USAID should not provoke such intense opposition—unless those protesting have hidden agendas.

A key question arises: Why do establishment figures in the U.S. and abroad believe that American influence can only be exerted through USAID? Why not prioritize trade over aid? Since Trump’s return to the White House on January 20, his administration has shifted U.S. foreign policy toward emphasizing high trade tariffs and reducing aid.

Reflecting on historical patterns, my master’s thesis at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy—Darfur: Why the West Failed to Help—analyzed global conflicts over the past century. I traced how competition for natural resources, dating back to the Rockefeller and Rothschild families’ dominance in the oil industry, fueled international crises. One of the most devastating consequences was the 1915 Armenian genocide, reportedly carried out under the influence of these powerful industrialists.

In this nearly 20-year-old thesis, which I am now developing into a book titled Darfur-Sudan: Why the Superpowers Failed to Help – Global Power Dynamics and Humanitarian Crises, I argue that conflicts over resource control often stem from unfair trade practices. The failure to establish equitable trade relations has led to deep resentment, culminating in acts of terrorism, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks, where extremists from regions long exploited by global powers targeted the U.S. in what they perceived as a response to economic and political oppression.

Unfortunately, little has changed. The same economic disparities that have plagued Africa for decades remain unresolved. Trump’s “America First” agenda, which seeks to balance U.S. trade by imposing tariffs on countries like Mexico ($172 billion deficit), Canada ($63.3 billion deficit), and China ($295 billion deficit), is disrupting both domestic and global economic systems.

As I have previously argued, Africa should not be treated as a charity case but as a legitimate trade partner. The continent is home to approximately 30% of the world’s mineral resources, including:
• 78% of global diamond reserves
• 89% of platinum
• 81% of chrome
• 80% of coltan
• 70% of tantalum
• 40% of gold, copper, and platinum
• 60% of cobalt
• 20% of uranium and lithium
• 10% of the world’s oil reserves

These minerals are crucial for both traditional industries and emerging green technologies. Yet Africa continues to be viewed primarily as a source of raw materials rather than a participant in value-added production and global trade.

A recent report by the African Policy Research Institute (APRI), Mapping Africa’s Green Mineral Partnerships, highlights existing agreements that allow industrialized nations—including the U.S., China, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, India, South Korea, and Japan—to extract Africa’s resources. However, these relationships often resemble exploitative colonial-era practices rather than equitable trade partnerships.

This situation echoes the 1884–85 Berlin Conference, where European powers divided Africa for resource extraction with little regard for the continent’s long-term development. Such an approach must end. As Nigeria’s former Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed, stated in his landmark 1976 speech at the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit in Addis Ababa, Africa deserves fair trade, not continued exploitation. Nearly 50 years later, his words remain relevant.

Trump’s new world order—ending USAID’s unchecked influence and promoting self-reliance among nations—aligns with this perspective. His stance that “every nation should fend for itself” may seem harsh, but it is ultimately a fair proposition. However, African nations cannot achieve true self-sufficiency if they remain trapped in a cycle of raw material exports without the ability to develop industries that process these resources into finished goods.

This dependency on aid rather than trade has kept Africa in a state of economic stagnation, plagued by poverty and disease. In contrast, after World War II, the U.S. helped Europe rebuild through the Marshall Plan, proving that strategic investment—not just aid—can create lasting economic stability. Africa deserves a similar approach, where trade and industrialization replace reliance on foreign assistance.

Africa deserves support from the West, considering that both Europe and the U.S. built their wealth by exploiting the continent during the transatlantic slave trade. Natural resources—including crops, gold, and other valuable minerals—were extracted, and millions of Africans were forcibly taken to provide labor that contributed to the economic rise of the Western world.

Despite ongoing calls for reparations, Africa has yet to receive meaningful compensation. This is in stark contrast to Germany, which provided reparations to Israel for the Holocaust, and the U.S., which implemented the Marshall Plan to help rebuild Europe after World War II, even though it was not directly responsible for the devastation. Given that America benefited significantly from African slaves who played a key role in its development, it would not be unreasonable to expect Trump to address this historical injustice. One way to do so would be through strategic investment in infrastructure projects that could help lift Africa out of its current economic challenges.

At a recent reception held at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) to honor Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s return as chairman of the council, he playfully questioned my strong support for Trump. The distinguished diplomat—renowned for his signature bow tie, which he still wears well into his eighties—seemed curious about my stance.

In response, I explained that, given the difficult path Trump took to reclaim the White House, he appears to be a leader determined to challenge the status quo and, in many ways, “save the world from itself.” I ended on a lighthearted note, telling him not to be surprised if a Trump Tower soon becomes part of the skylines of Lagos or Abuja.

The remark briefly stunned Professor Akinyemi, a statesman known for his contributions to Nigeria’s global diplomatic influence. As the architect of the Concert of Medium Powers, the Technical Aids Corps (Nigeria’s version of USAID), and the mind behind the controversial Black Bomb project, he was once at the center of Nigeria’s foreign policy strategy. Yet, while the idea of Trump making a direct mark on Africa may seem far-fetched, it is not entirely impossible.

Some may allege that Trump does not like Africans and cite a fake news that he reffered to Africa as ‘Shit hole country’ which is a phantom because it remains unproven with irrefutable evidence. The truth is that Trump does not dislike Africa or its people . That is evidenced by the fact that when the legendary and iconic Nelson Mandela of South Africa visited the US when he was released from South African jail, it was Trump’s private jet that was made available to him to travel around the US. So, Trump has a heritage of doing good to Africans and the continent to which he has currently established fillial relationship.

Magnus Onyibe, a public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, (2003-2007) sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.

To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

Opinion

AKPoti-AKPabio Saga: Standing Justice on Its Head

Published

6 days ago

March 11, 2025

Eric

By Ayo Oyoze Baje

“There are several court rulings, including that of the Court of Appeal, each of which deems it illegal to suspend an elected member of the legislature. The recent suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti – Uduaghan is therefore, the height of legislative recklessness” – Femi Falana SAN

When and where might – is – right, as amply demonstrated by the recent outrageous and illegal suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central Senatorial District at the Red Chamber – without salary or allowances – it does not only question the authority on which the lawmakers stand to carry out their statutory functions but ridicules the manner of democracy we practise here in Nigeria. And if the wrong done is not righted within the shortest possible time, it goes further to de-brand our so called democratic structure that places overt power of the jungle mantra of might – is – right on the elected representatives of the people above the wishes of the led majority. That indeed, is both an aberration and a legislative anomaly, triggered by the senator’s suspension, hence the outrage it has so far evolved. But let us first take an objective analysis of the drama that led to the development.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan ‘s suspension took place after she submitted a petition alleging being sexually harassed by the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio. After dismissing her petition on procedural ground the Ethics Committee, as led by Neda Imasuen ( Labour Party, Edo South) recommended her suspension for six months claiming that she brought ”

public opprobrium” to the Upper Chamber of the National Assembly. Though some members wanted the suspension reduced to three months, 14 members of the Committee stood by their decision, insisting that Natasha did not attend the investigative hearing to defend herself. In fact, they went further to ask her to tender an apology to the same Senate President Akpabio she has accused of sexual harassment, for her outburst during the plenary session!

Expectedly, the steamy situation has sparked off some flaming questions with regards to the rule of law under such circumstances. For instance, is it not her inalienable right to reject the sitting arrangement, which was surreptitiously meant to relegate her to the legislative shadows? Good enough, the answer is not far -fetched. According to Natasha’s legal counsel, Victor Giwa the Nigerian constitution of 1999, (as amended) supersedes the Senate’s Standing Orders. Specifically, Section 6, Sub-Section (6) of that constitution grants every citizen the right to seek redress in court when their civil rights are violated. Incidentally, she has done so, with her knowledge of the law.

The next question has to do with the best of ways to handle a delicate matter such as this. Should the matter not have been made open by placing it before an independent panel, to investigate and make recommendations in the interest of justice? That is, instead of slamming Natasha for having the gut, the temerity and audacity to express her complaints at the Senate chamber? According to Giwa the suspension of his client is definitely a brazen attempt to silence her. But unfortunately, for those behind it all it has only emboldened her to seek for justice going through the right process. In Giwa’s words: “The Committee disobeyed a valid court order that was served on them, making a mockery of the chamber that is supposed to uphold the law”. That should serve as food-for-thought for the masterminds behind the illegal suspension of the senator.

That perhaps, aptly explains why the Nigeria Bar Association ( NBA) has slammed the Senate by not giving her, the complainant to present her sexual harassment claim against Akpabio. That reminds us of the odious ” off the mic ” scenario that has played out each time an issue of public interest is being denied an objective investigation. The lawmakers, especially those who are bent on attempting to paper over cracks, or give a person a bad name to hang him or her must be reminded that there is a court order restraining the Senate from taking an action on the matter, pending the determination of of s motion on notice. The mishandling of the matter at hand by the senators is what has emboldened Natasha’s lawyer, Giwa to declare her suspension as ” null and void”. Yet, he is not the only person to outrightly condemn the illegality that has evolved so far.

The world acclaimed Women Rights activist, Hadiza Ado described Natasha’s suspension as amounting to a “,sad day for Nigerian women”. On its part the Socio–Economic Rights and Accountability Project ( SERAP ) has described it as “patently unlawful”and a clear violation of her right to freedom of speech. The organization has therefore, called on the Senate President Akpabio to reinstate her without further delay or face their legal action against such oddity. Similarly, the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP to which Natasha belongs has described as her suspension as am attempt by the Senate ” to cover up an issue”. That is according to the National Publicity Secretary, Debbo Ologunagba.So, what really could it be?

It would be recalled that on February 28, 2025 right on ARISE television, Natasha made a bold allegation of sexual harassment against the Senate President Akpabio.While some concerned Nigerians wondered why she went as far as that point of publicity, others knowing fully well about her background as an Ihima- born lady brought up with high moral standards would not kowtow to, be cowed by anyone, or acquiesce to the weird and wild emotional inclinations of a man for whatever reasons.

So, as the AKPoti -AKPabio saga rolls out, the lesson to learn is for people to always strike the delicate balance between the Motive and the Method of our utterances and actions. And of course, the brand we want to be recognized and stand for in our chequered journeys on Planet Earth. Of great significance also is the piece of admonition by Natasha’s legal counsel, Giwa, that: ” The Senate must abide by international best practices” all because the world is watching us.

Opinion

The Trump-Vance Approach to Zelensky and the Emergence of a New World Order

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Magnus Onyibe

During his visit to the White House on Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky faced a tough reception from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Their handling of him demonstrated their firm approach to diplomacy, signaling a shift in global power dynamics.

As the saying goes, a beggar has no choice—their hand is always beneath that of the giver, not above it. This principle was clearly reinforced when President Trump made it explicit that Ukraine had little say in negotiations regarding the resolution of the ongoing three-year war with Russia. Initial discussions had already taken place in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine or European nations at the table. Instead, the negotiations involved Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Russia.

In response, Zelensky expressed his frustration:

“It feels like the U.S. is now discussing the ultimatum that Putin set at the start of the full-scale war. Once again, decisions about Ukraine are being made without Ukraine. I wonder why they believe Ukraine would accept all these ultimatums now if we refused them at the most difficult moment.”

Similarly, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer voiced concerns over Trump and Vance’s strategy of excluding Europe from the discussions:

“Nobody wants the bloodshed to continue, least of all the Ukrainians. But after everything that they have suffered, after everything they have fought for, there can be no discussion about Ukraine without Ukraine, and the people of Ukraine must have a long-term, secure future.”

However, the reality is that Zelensky is in no position to dictate terms. This was emphasized when Vice President Vance rebuked him during the Oval Office meeting:

“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.”

Trump had long accused Zelensky of being a shrewd negotiator who, during Biden’s presidency, would visit Washington and leave with massive financial aid. Determined to change this dynamic, Trump made it clear that such a practice would not continue under his administration. Summarizing the meeting, he stated:

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It’s amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelensky is not ready for peace if America is involved because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don’t want advantage, I want PEACE.”

Trump went further, saying:

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for peace.”

By securing a deal that would grant the U.S. control over some of Ukraine’s rare earth resources as repayment for previous military aid, Trump demonstrated his negotiation skills. This approach mirrors historical precedents, such as Kuwait compensating the U.S. with oil after being liberated from Iraq in 1990 and Europe repaying America for the post-World War II Marshall Plan by allowing the formation of NATO under U.S. leadership.

The war itself stems from Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, which Russia perceived as a threat, prompting the invasion. Biden’s administration rallied U.S. allies to support Ukraine, possibly influenced by Biden’s personal connections—especially considering that Zelensky previously shielded Biden’s son, Hunter, from scrutiny over alleged financial misconduct in Ukraine. This decision may have played a role in Biden’s election victory in 2020, sparing him political damage from Trump’s opposition research.

However, Zelensky’s alignment with one side of U.S. politics carried risks. Hunter Biden’s business dealings eventually came under investigation, leading to his conviction, though his father pardoned him before leaving office. Some speculate that Biden’s support for Ukraine was a way of repaying Zelensky, providing him with financial and military backing against Russia.

This led Ukraine into a protracted war, with devastating consequences. Europe, drawn into the conflict through NATO, has suffered economic strain due to sanctions on Russian energy, with Germany experiencing economic downturns and the UK entering a recession. Africa has also been affected, as food shortages have worsened due to disruptions in wheat exports from Ukraine and Russia.

Had former President Barack Obama acted in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, this war might have been avoided. However, Obama, who prioritized ending wars rather than starting them, resisted calls for military action, despite pressure from figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Biden, who was Obama’s vice president at the time, later led Ukraine into a war that his former boss had deliberately avoided.

With around 400,000 Ukrainians killed or wounded and much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins, the war has proven catastrophic. As Trump attempts to broker peace, it remains uncertain whether Zelensky will adapt to the new realities of U.S. foreign policy. Unlike the previous administration, Trump and Vance do not view Ukraine as a victim but as a country that must make concessions to secure peace.

Trump has already played a key role in de-escalating the Gaza conflict, and a similar approach could be applied to Ukraine. However, for this to happen, Zelensky must recognize that the geopolitical landscape has shifted and that the U.S. will no longer provide unconditional support. If Ukraine truly seeks peace, its leadership must engage with the new administration on its own terms.

The cold reception President Trump gave to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was evident when he labeled him a dictator and accused him of starting the war—though he later jokingly retracted the statement, expressing disbelief that he had said it. This exchange took place in response to reporters’ questions on the matter.

Trump’s firm stance signaled a shift from past U.S. support, and Zelensky might have adjusted his approach accordingly, handling the new White House administration with more caution. However, he chose a more assertive approach and was met with strong pushback from Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. The two leaders discarded diplomatic formalities and sternly reprimanded Zelensky for what they perceived as arrogance regarding global security and an attempt to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities—something they were unwilling to tolerate.

Through their bold policies, which are reshaping international relations, Trump and Vance are clearly dismantling the old world order and crafting a new one. This is evident in Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on U.S. trading partners, a move that is redefining alliances worldwide. Simultaneously, he is pushing for a swift resolution to conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine—wars he insists would never have started under his leadership. Despite domestic political challenges, Trump has vowed to bring these conflicts to an end.

For the sake of a more comprehensive global peace effort, it would be worthwhile for Trump to extend his focus to ending conflicts in Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan. These regions hold vast reserves of critical resources—Congo with its cobalt and Sudan with its oil—both vital for sustaining global energy production and technological advancement.

Even before formally taking office, Trump’s aggressive rhetoric influenced global events. His warning that chaos would erupt if Hamas refused to negotiate a ceasefire prompted a temporary truce between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). A pattern of strategic pressure appears to be emerging. After Trump excluded Europe from negotiations on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, French President Emmanuel Macron, a longtime acquaintance of Trump, was among the first European leaders to visit him in Washington, seeking clarity on France’s position in the shifting geopolitical landscape. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer soon followed, with Zelensky arriving thereafter.

Notably, Scholz maintained Germany’s trademark direct and pragmatic approach during his White House visit. Macron, having built a rapport with Trump during his previous presidency, engaged in lighthearted banter, reflecting the French leader’s personable style. Starmer, adhering to Britain’s tradition of diplomatic finesse, presented Trump with a letter from King Charles III, inviting him for a state visit—an overture that reportedly charmed the U.S. president. This diplomatic strategy was reminiscent of how North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had won Trump over with personal letters, following initial hostilities.

Unlike these European leaders, who carefully navigated discussions with Trump, Zelensky adopted a confrontational tone, attempting to lecture Trump on why defending Ukraine was also in America’s best interest. He argued that, despite the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from Europe, Russia still posed a threat. However, Trump and Vance found this stance presumptuous and swiftly dismissed his arguments, reminding him that he was in no position to dictate U.S. security policy.

Zelensky’s misstep revealed his lack of diplomatic finesse, likely stemming from his inexperience—having transitioned directly from a comedian satirizing politicians to a wartime president. His extensive international support, largely driven by Western sympathy for Ukraine as the underdog in its struggle against Russia, may have inflated his sense of importance, leading him to expect universal backing. But Trump was not swayed by this sentiment.

The flurry of European leaders visiting Washington underscores Trump’s influence as a dominant global figure. While critics often overlook it, Trump’s approach is rooted in pragmatism and his commitment to his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda. His numerous executive orders are designed to strengthen the U.S. economy and give it an edge over competitors.

A key aspect of Trump’s legacy-building efforts is tackling the U.S. budget deficit, which currently stands at approximately $36 trillion. He is also seeking to reverse trade imbalances with major partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. One of his unconventional strategies to generate revenue is the significant increase in the EB-5 visa investment threshold—from $1 million to $5 million—offering a direct pathway to U.S. residency for high-net-worth individuals willing to invest in the country.

Similarly, his tariff hikes are aimed at shifting trade dynamics in America’s favor. These strategies are already causing ripples globally, sending shockwaves across markets and international relations. While some argue that Trump’s ambitious goal of attracting 10 million investors through the $5 million EB-5 visa is unrealistic—citing the UK’s modest intake of 1,000 applicants for its similar program—others believe the U.S. will draw significant interest, particularly from wealthy individuals in China, Korea, the Middle East, Russia, and even Britain.

For many affluent foreigners, the opportunity to secure U.S. residency through the “Golden Green Card” is worth the steep price tag. With Trump’s administration pursuing aggressive economic and geopolitical strategies, the global landscape is rapidly evolving—whether the world is ready for it or not.

A provision in the U.S. Constitution, which the new administration attempted to nullify through an executive order, was subsequently suspended by a court ruling.

Many may be surprised to learn that people worldwide already pay amounts equivalent to or even exceeding $5 million to participate in the U.S. citizenship-by-investment program. This is similar to how, in Nigeria, bureaucratic hurdles and corruption sometimes force citizens to pay up to four times the official cost to obtain an international passport. Likewise, visa application fees for certain countries are often inflated by syndicates, as seen in recent allegations against South African High Commission officials accused of visa racketeering.

The current $5 million fee is significantly higher than the original cost when the EB-5 visa program was introduced in 1990. To put this into perspective, the U.S. Congress initially established the EB-5 Program to stimulate the economy through job creation and foreign investment. In 1992, lawmakers expanded the initiative by creating the Immigrant Investor Program, or Regional Center Program, allowing investors to fund projects tied to designated regional centers that promote economic growth. While the program initially required a $1 million investment, this amount increased to $1.8 million in 1992 and has now been raised to $5 million under President Trump in 2025.

Critics who accuse Trump of being overly transactional for increasing the cost of the EB-5 visa may be unaware—or deliberately ignoring—the fact that he is not the first president to revise its pricing.

Following his tense meeting at the White House, Zelensky has shifted his tone, seemingly acknowledging the need for a more conciliatory approach. On Saturday, he issued a statement of appreciation, saying, “America’s help has been vital in helping us survive, and I want to acknowledge that.” He also emphasized the need for open dialogue, stating, “Despite the tough discussions, we remain strategic partners. But we need to be honest and direct with each other to truly understand our shared goals.”

At its core, Zelensky’s visit aimed to secure U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. His skepticism toward any agreement with Moscow is understandable, given that Russia previously invaded Ukraine in 2014, annexing Crimea during President Obama’s tenure. Zelensky does not trust Putin, especially since Russia violated the 2015 peace agreement with Ukraine.

However, his confrontational approach—marked by emotional appeals rather than pragmatic diplomacy—worked against him. As a result, he left the White House empty-handed, failing to secure his key objectives, including a potential deal to trade rare earth minerals in exchange for U.S. military protection.

Zelensky has since sought solace among European leaders, but this offers little real security. Even those comforting him recognize their own vulnerabilities, as they, too, rely on U.S. military support. Despite Europe’s show of solidarity with Ukraine during a recent meeting in London on March 2—where they agreed to form a coalition—it remains clear that Europe cannot effectively defend itself without the United States. This reality, which became evident after World War II and led to NATO’s formation under U.S. leadership, remains unchanged.

Recognizing this, European leaders—including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Italy—have prioritized maintaining strong ties with the U.S., frequently traveling across the Atlantic to engage with President Trump, despite the turbulent state of their current relationship.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to end both the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, possibly through unconventional means. In a phone conversation with Putin, he reportedly expressed no opposition to Europe deploying a peacekeeping force in Ukraine—a concept that closely resembles Ukraine’s original desire to join NATO, which sparked Russia’s invasion in the first place.

Strangely, this significant development has received little attention, with European leaders instead opting to continue funding Ukraine’s war efforts. The UK, for instance, approved a $2.8 billion loan to Ukraine just last Sunday, despite the reality that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive military victory, no matter how determined it remains.

Ultimately, the U.S. remains central to resolving these major conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion about achieving lasting peace in regions where wars have left millions dead or struggling with extreme hunger.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, and a former commissioner in the Delta State government, sent this piece from Lagos, Nigeria.
To continue with this conversation and more, please visit www.magnum.ng.

Opinion

On the Suspension of Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan: A Grave Injustice and a Desperate Smear Campaign

Published

1 week ago

March 9, 2025

Eric

By Senator Ojudu Babafemi

The decision of the Nigerian Senate to suspend Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan for raising allegations of sexual harassment against Senate President Godswill Akpabio is deeply troubling and unjustifiable. While I take no position on the veracity of her claim, the fundamental principle of fairness demands that Akpabio should not have presided over a case in which he was personally implicated. It was his duty to step aside and allow his deputy to handle the matter impartially. By failing to do so, he compromised the integrity of the Senate and reinforced the perception of institutional bias against women who dare to speak up.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is not one to be dismissed lightly. I had the opportunity to interact with her in an official capacity while serving in the presidency, and I can attest that she is a woman of immense strength, intelligence, and purpose. She is not frivolous, nor is she someone who can be easily intimidated. Her journey in Kogi State has been marked by monumental struggles and persecution, yet she has remained unwavering in her commitment to her people. Her grassroots connection is undeniable, and her dedication to uplifting her constituency is evident in her relentless advocacy.

Beyond the unjust suspension, what is even more disgraceful is the rash of hired protesters in both Abuja and Akwa Ibom, clearly orchestrated to malign her. These so-called protests are glaringly artificial, a poorly executed charade that insults the intelligence of Nigerians. It is evident to the world that these are not spontaneous expressions of public sentiment but paid theatrics aimed at discrediting a strong woman who refuses to be silenced. The fact that such desperate measures are being deployed only signals that someone has something to hide. This playbook is cheap, nauseating, and frankly, an embarrassment to any society that claims to uphold democratic values.

But history has shown that truth and justice always prevail. This suspension is nothing more than a temporary setback. Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan will emerge from this even stronger, her resilience further cementing her place as a formidable politician and conscientious public servant. Meanwhile, those orchestrating this smear campaign will find their names recorded in the book of infamy—a stark reminder of those who stood on the wrong side of history.

Nigeria deserves a legislative chamber where justice is not only done but seen to be done. The Senate must correct this grave injustice and ensure that no lawmaker, especially a woman, faces persecution for speaking out.