“Kenya is not an American colony!”
That was the chant echoing through Nairobi and other Kenyan cities last week as furious protesters vented their anger at plans for a US-funded isolation ward for Americans exposed to Ebola abroad.
The controversial proposal has sparked fears of Ebola entering a country that has never recorded a single case of the often-fatal disease. The nearest outbreaks are unfolding more than 1,500 miles away in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where Ebola was first detected, and neighboring Uganda.
Critics argue the facility would expose Kenya to risks the United States would not accept on its own soil. Despite a court order halting construction of the ward pending a legal challenge, Kenya’s government — which recently signed a $1.6 billion health deal with the US — has continued to back the project, fueling a public backlash.
President William Ruto defended the decision , saying it would be “very inhuman” for Kenya to reject a US-funded facility after years of receiving American aid.
However, Ruto’s former deputy, Rigathi Gachagua, who was impeached in 2024, told CNN the plan revealed double standards on the part of the US and should be resisted.
“We find it unpalatable that if Americans are not willing to take care of their own patients in their own country because it’s risky to the rest of the population, the Americans will decide that that can be done in Kenya,” said Gachagua. “We find it unfair, we find it a double standard, and we are totally opposed to it.”
Kenya pushes ahead with Ebola quarantine facility in partnership with US despite court order
He added that the deal was “totally insensitive” and put US interests above Kenyan concerns.
The controversy reflects a wider trend across Africa, where countries are increasingly pushing back against what critics describe as Washington’s transactional approach under President Donald Trump and deals seen as favoring US interests.
Much of that pushback stems from changes in Washington’s approach to Africa.
On his return to office last year, Trump paused almost all foreign aid and scrapped thousands of aid contracts. The move marked the beginning of the dismantlement of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting vital health and humanitarian funding worldwide — including in Africa, one of the largest recipients of US assistance.
For decades, US funding supported the fight against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis across the continent. Now, those programs are being replaced by Trump’s “America First Global Health Strategy,” which prioritizes direct deals with individual countries. Washington says the goal is to reduce aid dependence while advancing US interests.
But as aid gives way to dealmaking, questions are growing about what African countries are expected to offer in return.
The US has signed new health agreements with at least 16 African countries , but some have stalled due to disagreements over their terms.
Last month, Zambia’s foreign minister, Mulambo Haimbe, said the country was reluctant to accept a proposed $2 billion health package because it required “preferential treatment of US companies over Zambia’s critical minerals” as well as “sharing of data in violation of our citizens’ right to privacy.”
Zambia is a leading copper producer , a key material used in renewable energy, electric vehicles, and power grids.
Haimbe’s comments followed criticism from outgoing US ambassador Michael Gonzales, who accused Zambian leaders of relying on US-funded health care while not investing enough themselves.
Gonzales denied that Washington was linking healthcare support to access to critical minerals. However, he also said that “going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual.”
The US has released an ‘America First Global Health Strategy.’ Health experts warn it is risky
Zambia is not alone. Similar concerns have emerged elsewhere on the continent.
Zimbabwe and Ghana have also objected to proposed multimillion-dollar agreements that include health data-sharing requirements.
“We need partnerships without strings attached,” Ghanaian Health Minister Kwabena Mintah Akandoh told reporters last month.
In Zimbabwe, government spokesperson Nick Mangwana said the country “was being asked to share biological resources and data long-term, with no guarantee of access to resulting vaccines or treatments” or reciprocity from Washington.
“Development aid should empower nations, not create dependencies or serve as a vehicle for strategic extraction,” Mangwana wrote in a blogpost in February.
Those concerns extend beyond health partnerships and into the mining and critical minerals sector.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), critics question whether Washington’s diplomatic efforts to end decades of conflict in the mineral-rich east are driven by genuine security concerns. The region is home to some of the world’s largest coltan deposits , used in smartphones and other electronics.
Fighting in Africa’s mineral-rich DRC killed over 3,000 in less than 2 weeks. Here’s how your phone plays a part
Victor Tesongo, a social rights activist and senior executive in the AFC rebel coalition battling Congolese forces , told CNN that the US cannot be seen as neutral while also seeking access to the DRC’s strategic resources.
Such concerns grew after Trump hosted DRC President Félix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame in Washington in December to sign a peace deal aimed at ending the conflict.
Tesongo dismissed the pact as a resource grab.
“The Trump plan has nothing to do with security or the restoration of peace; rather, it is about plundering Congolese resources,” he alleged. “The proof is that after the signing in the US, the situation has not changed; the fighting continues.”
The US maintains its involvement is aimed at promoting regional security.
Taken together, the disputes in Kenya, Zambia, Ghana, Zimbabwe, and the DRC suggest a broader shift in how African countries engage external partners.
According to Solomon Dersso, founding director of the pan-African policy think tank Amani Africa, the US pursuit of its own strategic interests is nothing new. The difference, he said, is that it is now happening “more overtly and without pretence.”
For Chitimbwa Chifunda, Zambia director for Oxfam in Southern Africa, the shift underscores the need for African countries to become less dependent on foreign aid.
“The era of waiting for aid is fast slipping away,” she said, adding that recent negotiations show African governments are increasingly willing to push back and defend their interests.
Simon Mulongo, a former African Union special envoy to Somalia and the Sahel, sees the same trend and argues the debate is no longer about whether Africa should partner with global powers but on what terms.
“African states are no longer willing to sign away strategic assets quietly under the language of aid, partnership or emergency support,” he told CNN, adding that “health cooperation should not become a back door to citizen data extraction,” and security partnerships “should not become a route to mineral capture.”
“This is not isolationism. It is a demand for fair exchange.”
