The approval of a three-year extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) by the United States House of Representatives has been widely interpreted as a signal of continued US engagement with Africa. However, analysts caution that the move is driven more by geopolitical considerations than by a renewed commitment to Africa’s development or trade priorities.
The bill, which would extend AGOA until December 2028, secured overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, with more than 84% of lawmakers voting in favour. It now proceeds to the United States Senate for consideration. Despite the positive vote, uncertainty persists around South Africa’s continued eligibility, amid increasingly strained diplomatic relations with Washington.
Speaking to Channel Africa, Dr Sizo Nkala, a research fellow at the Centre for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg, said the House vote reflects sustained US interest in Africa—but largely through a strategic lens.
“The scale of bipartisan support shows that the US is taking Africa seriously,” Nkala said. “But this must be understood within the current geopolitical context, where AGOA is increasingly positioned as a tool to counter the influence of China and Russia on the continent.”
Nkala argued that the language accompanying the bill underscores Washington’s strategic motivations, particularly around competition for Africa’s critical mineral resources. Africa is estimated to hold around 30% of the world’s critical minerals—resources that have become central to global competition as the US seeks to reduce its dependence on China.
“In that sense, AGOA primarily serves US national interests,” he said. “It is less about advancing Africa’s development agenda and more about geopolitical positioning.”
He added that the potential benefits of AGOA are further diluted by universal tariffs imposed by the Donald Trump administration in 2025, which remain in force. According to Nkala, the AGOA extension explicitly states that it does not override these tariffs, meaning African exports entering the US under AGOA preferences would still face additional levies.
“As long as those unilateral tariffs remain in place, they significantly undermine AGOA’s effectiveness,” he said.
On whether AGOA remains worthwhile under these conditions, Nkala said the decision ultimately rests with individual African governments. Some may opt to remain within the framework, while others could seek bilateral trade agreements with Washington.
“From my perspective, there is limited value in AGOA if the tariffs imposed last year are not removed,” he added.
Turning specifically to South Africa, Nkala painted a pessimistic outlook for the country’s continued inclusion in the programme. He pointed to growing political tensions and recent legislative developments in the US that directly challenge South Africa’s eligibility.
“Two bills were introduced last year—one in the Senate and one in the House—calling for a review of US–South Africa relations,” he said. “The Senate bill explicitly called for South Africa’s removal from AGOA, citing what the Trump administration described as an anti-US foreign policy stance, particularly Pretoria’s relations with China and Russia.”
Nkala also highlighted concerns raised during the 2026 AGOA eligibility review, including questions around South Africa’s compliance with international intellectual property and copyright treaties—key requirements under the scheme.
“These issues materially weaken South Africa’s prospects,” he said, noting that stalled negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement point to limited constructive engagement between the two governments.
Should South Africa lose AGOA access, Nkala warned of severe consequences for major export industries. In 2024, the country exported more than $2 billion worth of automotive vehicles and components to the US, along with approximately $500 million in agricultural products.
“The automotive and agricultural sectors have been the biggest beneficiaries of AGOA,” he said. “Exclusion would place thousands of jobs at risk.”
Despite these risks, Nkala argued that South Africa has little choice but to continue pursuing a bilateral trade agreement with the US to mitigate the impact of punitive trade measures, including a 30% tariff currently applied to South African goods.
Looking ahead to the Senate process, Nkala said the strong bipartisan backing in the House suggests the extension is likely to be approved, although amendments remain possible.
“The Senate may push for a longer extension,” he said, referencing a bipartisan Senate proposal from April 2024 that called for a 16-year renewal. “Overall, however, the probability of the bill passing is high.”