Summary

Overview. Congress authorizes, appropriates, and oversees U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa ("Africa"), which received over a quarter of U.S. aid obligated in FY2018. Annual State Department- and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)-administered assistance to Africa increased more than five-fold over the past two decades, primarily due to sizable increases in global health spending and more incremental growth in economic and security assistance. State Department and USAID-administered assistance allocated to African countries from FY2019 appropriations totaled roughly $7.1 billion. This does not include considerable U.S. assistance provided to Africa via global accounts, such as emergency humanitarian aid and certain kinds of development, security, and health aid. The United States channels additional funds to Africa through multilateral bodies, such as the United Nations and World Bank.

Objectives and Delivery. Over the past decade, roughly 70-75% of annual U.S. aid to Africa has sought to address health challenges, notably relating to HIV/AIDS, malaria, maternal and child health, and nutrition. Much of this assistance has been delivered via disease-specific initiatives, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI). Other U.S. aid programs seek to foster agricultural development and economic growth; strengthen peace and security; improve education access and social service delivery; bolster democracy, human rights, and good governance; support sustainable natural resource management; and address humanitarian needs. What impacts the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have for the scale and orientation of U.S. assistance to Africa remains to be seen.

Aid to Africa during the Trump Administration. The Trump Administration has maintained many of its predecessors' aid initiatives that focus wholly or largely on Africa, and has launched its own Africa-focused trade and investment initiative, known as Prosper Africa. At the same time, the Administration has proposed sharp reductions in U.S. assistance to Africa, in line with proposed cuts to foreign aid globally. It also has proposed funding account eliminations and consolidations that, if enacted, could have implications for U.S. aid to Africa. Congressional consideration of the Administration's FY2021 budget request is underway; the Administration has requested $5.1 billion in aid for Africa, a 28% drop from FY2019 allocations. Congress has not enacted similar proposed cuts in past appropriations measures.

Selected Considerations for Congress. Policymakers, analysts, and advocates continue to debate the value and effectiveness of U.S. assistance programs in Africa. Some Members of Congress have questioned whether sectoral allocations are adequately balanced given the broad scope of Africa's needs and U.S. priorities in the region. Concern also exists as to whether funding levels are commensurate with U.S. interests. Comprehensive regional- or country-level breakouts of U.S. assistance are not routinely made publicly available in budget documents, complicating estimates of U.S. aid to the region and congressional oversight of assistance programs.

In addition to authorizing and appropriating U.S. foreign assistance, Congress has shaped U.S. aid to Africa through legislation denying or placing conditions on certain kinds of assistance to countries whose governments fail to meet standards in, for instance, human rights, debt repayment, or trafficking in persons. Congress also has restricted certain kinds of security assistance to foreign security forces implicated in human rights abuses. Some African countries periodically have been subject to other restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, including country-specific provisions in annual aid appropriations measures restricting certain kinds of assistance. Congress may continue to debate the merits and effectiveness of such restrictions while overseeing their implementation.

Introduction

This report is intended to serve as a primer on U.S. foreign assistance to sub-Saharan Africa ("Africa") to help inform Congress' authorization, appropriation, and oversight of U.S. foreign aid for the region. It focuses primarily on assistance administered by the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which administer the majority of U.S. aid to the region. It covers recent funding trends and major focus areas of such assistance, select programs managed by other U.S. agencies and federal entities, and the Trump Administration's FY2021 aid budget request for Africa. In addition to discussing aid appropriations, this report notes a range of legislative measures that have authorized specific assistance programs or placed conditions or restrictions on certain types of aid, or on aid to certain countries. Select challenges for congressional oversight are discussed throughout this report. For more on U.S. engagement in Africa, see also CRS Report R45428, Sub-Saharan Africa: Key Issues and U.S. Engagement.

Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, this report discusses State Department- and USAID-administered assistance allocated for African countries or for regional programs managed by the State Department's Bureau of African Affairs (AF), USAID's Bureau for Africa (AFR), and USAID regional missions and offices in sub-Saharan Africa. It does not comprehensively discuss funding allocated to African countries via global accounts or programs, which publicly available budget materials do not disaggregate by country or region.¹ Except as noted, figures refer to actual allocations of funding appropriated in the referenced fiscal year (hereafter, "allocations"). ²

Over the past decade, roughly 70% of U.S. assistance to African countries has supported health programs, notably focused on HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and maternal and child health. U.S. assistance also seeks to encourage economic growth and development, bolster food security, enhance governance, and improve security.

As discussed below, African countries also receive assistance administered by other federal agencies. The United States channels additional funding to Africa through multilateral bodies, such as U.N. agencies and international financial institutions like the World Bank.

Policymakers, analysts, and advocates continue to debate the value and design of assistance programs in Africa. Proponents of such assistance often contend that foreign aid advances U.S. national interests in the region, or that U.S. assistance (e.g., to respond to humanitarian need) reflects U.S. values of charity and global leadership.⁹ Critics often allege that aid has done little to improve socioeconomic outcomes in Africa overall, that aid flows may have negative unintended consequences (such as empowering undemocratic regimes), or that other countries should bear more responsibility for providing aid to the region.¹⁰ Assessing the effectiveness of foreign aid is complex—particularly in areas afflicted by conflict or humanitarian crisis—further complicating such debates.¹¹ Selected considerations concerning U.S. aid to Africa and issues for Congress are discussed in further detail below (see "Select Issues for Congress").

U.S. assistance seeks to address a range of development, governance, and security challenges in Africa, reflecting the continent's size and diversity as well as the broad scope of U.S. policy interests in the region. State Department- and USAID-administered assistance for Africa totaled roughly $7.1 billion in FY2019, not including funding allocated to Africa via global accounts and programs (see "Select Assistance Provided through Global Accounts and Programs," below).

Beyond disease-specific initiatives, U.S. assistance has supported health system strengthening, nutrition, family planning and reproductive health, and maternal and child health programs. The United States also has supported global health security efforts, including pandemic preparedness and response activities, notably through the U.S.-supported Global Health Security Agenda.¹⁵ In recent years, USAID and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) led robust U.S. responses to two Ebola outbreaks on the continent, in West Africa (2014-2016) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC, 2018-present).¹⁶

Agriculture and Economic Growth. U.S. support for economic growth in Africa centers on agricultural development assistance. USAID agriculture programs seek to improve productivity by strengthening agricultural value chains, enhancing land tenure systems and market access road infrastructure, promoting climate-resilient farming practices, and funding agricultural research. Nearly 60% of U.S. agricultural assistance to Africa in FY2019 benefitted the eight African focus countries¹⁷ under Feed the Future (FTF)—a USAID-led, interagency initiative launched by the Obama Administration that supports agricultural development to reduce food insecurity and enhance market-based economic growth.¹⁸ (There are 12 FTF focus countries worldwide; the initiative supports additional countries under "aligned" and regional programs.) The Global Food Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-195, reauthorized through 2023 in P.L. 115-266) endorsed an approach to U.S. agricultural and food assistance similar to FTF.

Other U.S. economic assistance programs support trade capacity-building efforts, economic policy reforms and analysis, microenterprise and other private sector strengthening, and infrastructure development. Since the early 2000s, USAID has maintained three sub-regional trade and investment hubs focused on expanding intra-regional and U.S.-Africa trade, including by supporting African exports to the United States under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA, Title I, P.L. 106-200, as amended) trade preference program.¹⁹ USAID also coordinates Prosper Africa, an emerging Trump Administration trade and investment initiative (see Text Box).

Electrification is another focus of U.S. economic assistance in Africa. Power Africa, a USAID-led initiative that the Obama Administration launched in 2013, seeks to enhance electricity access through technical assistance, grants, financial risk mitigation tools, loans, and other resources—accompanied by trade promotion and diplomatic and advisory efforts. Facilitating private sector contracts is a key focus of the initiative, which aims to build power generation facilities capable of producing 30,000 megawatts of new power and establish 60 million new power connections by 2030.²³ A sub-initiative, Beyond the Grid, supports off-grid electricity access. Power Africa involves a range of U.S. federal entities in addition to USAID, including the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), DFC, Ex-Im Bank, TDA, and Departments of State, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture. The Electrify Africa Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-121) made it U.S. policy to aid electrification in Africa through an approach similar to that of Power Africa.

Peace and Security. The State Department administers a range of programs to build the capacity of African militaries and law enforcement agencies to counter security threats, participate in international peacekeeping and stabilization operations, and combat transnational crime (e.g., human and drug trafficking). State Department security assistance authorities are codified in Title 22 of the U.S. Code. Congress appropriates funds for Title 22 programs in annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) appropriations, though the Department of Defense (DOD) implements several of these programs. (For information on DOD security cooperation, see "Assistance Administered by Other U.S. Federal Departments and Agencies.")

The Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account funds counterterrorism training and other capacity-building programs for internal security forces, as well as other activities such as landmine removal. International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funds support efforts to combat transnational crime and strengthen the rule of law, including through judicial reform and law enforcement capacity-building. The International Military Education and Training (IMET) program offers training for foreign military personnel at facilities in the United States and abroad, and seeks to build military-to-military relationships, introduce participants to the U.S. judicial system, promote respect for human rights, and strengthen civilian control of the military. The United States provides grants to help countries purchase defense articles and services through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account.

USAID also implements programs focused on conflict prevention, mitigation, and resolution. Such assistance seeks to prevent mass atrocities, support post-conflict transitions and peace building, and counter violent extremism, among other objectives. Congress appropriates funding for such programs as economic assistance, as opposed to security assistance.

Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG). State Department- and USAID-administered DRG programs seek to enhance democratic institutions, improve government accountability and responsiveness, and strengthen the rule of law. Activities include supporting African electoral institutions and political processes; training political parties, civil society organizations, parliaments, and journalists; promoting effective and accountable governance; bolstering anti-corruption efforts; and strengthening justice sectors. U.S. assistance also provides legal aid to human rights defenders abroad and funds programs to address particular human rights issues and enable human rights monitoring and reporting.

Education and Social Services. U.S. basic, secondary, and higher education programs seek to boost access to quality education, improve learning outcomes, and support youth transitions into the workforce. Some programs specifically target marginalized students, such as girls and students in rural areas or communities affected by conflict or displacement. Youth development activities also include the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI), which supports young African business, science, and civic leaders through training and mentorship, networking, and exchange-based fellowships.²⁵ USAID supports four YALI Regional Leadership Centers on the continent—in Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, and South Africa—which offer training and professional development programs. Additional U.S. assistance programs enhance access to, and delivery of, other social services, such as improved water and sanitation facilities.

As noted, the discussion above does not account for U.S. development, security, or health assistance allocated to African countries via global accounts and programs—funds that are not broken out by region or country in public budget documents. This includes situation-responsive assistance, such as emergency humanitarian aid and certain kinds of governance support, which is appropriated on a global basis and allocated in response to emerging needs or opportunities. Notably, it also includes certain security assistance programs through which some African countries have received considerable funding in recent years. Gaps in region- and country-level aid data may raise challenges for congressional oversight (see "Select Issues for Congress").

Emergency Assistance. As of early 2020, there were U.S.- or U.N.-designated humanitarian crises in Burkina Faso, CAR, DRC, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and the Lake Chad Basin (including parts of Cameroon, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria). The United States administers humanitarian aid to Africa under various authorities. Key accounts and programs include:

• USAID-administered Food for Peace (FFP) assistance authorized under Title II of the Food for Peace Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-480, commonly known as "P.L. 480"), which primarily provides for the purchase and distribution of U.S. in-kind food commodities.²⁸ African countries consistently have received a majority of annual FFP Title II emergency assistance in recent years.

USAID-administered International Disaster Assistance (IDA), which funds food and nonfood humanitarian assistance—including the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP), which funds market-based food assistance, including cash transfers, food vouchers, and food procured locally and regionally.²⁹

State Department-administered Migration and Refugees Assistance (MRA) assistance for refugees and vulnerable migrants.

While the State Department and USAID administer the majority of U.S. foreign assistance to Africa, other federal departments and agencies also manage or support aid programs in the region. For example, the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Justice, Commerce, Homeland Security, and the Treasury conduct technical assistance programs and other activities in Africa, and may help implement some State Department- and USAID-administered programs on the continent.

Other U.S. federal entities involved in administering assistance to Africa notably include:

The Department of Defense (DOD). In addition to implementing some State Department-administered security assistance programs, DOD is authorized to engage in security cooperation with foreign partner militaries and internal security entities for a range of purposes.³⁰ The majority of this assistance has been provided under DOD's "global train and equip" authority, first established by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of FY2006 (P.L. 109-163). In the FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328), Congress codified and expanded the "global train and equip" authority under 10 U.S.C. 333 ("Section 333"), consolidating various capacity-building authorities that it had granted DOD on a temporary or otherwise limited basis. Section 333 authorizes DOD to provide training and equipment to foreign military and internal security forces to build their capacity to counter terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, and transnational crime, and to bolster maritime and border security and military intelligence.

Comprehensive regional- or country-level funding data for DOD security cooperation programs are not publicly available, complicating approximations of funding for African countries. A CRS calculation based on available congressional notification data suggests that Kenya, Uganda, Niger, Chad, Somalia, and Cameroon have been the top African recipients of cumulative DOD global train and equip assistance over the past decade.³¹ Congress has authorized additional DOD security cooperation programs in Africa under global or Africa-specific authorities (e.g., to help combat the Lord's Resistance Army rebel group in Central Africa between FY2012 and FY2017).

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).³² Authorized by Congress in 2004, the MCC supports five-year development "compacts" in developing countries that meet various governance and development benchmarks. MCC recipient governments lead the development and implementation of their programs, which are tailored to address key "constraints to growth" identified during the compact design phase. The MCC also funds smaller, shorter-term "threshold programs" that assist promising candidate countries to become compact-eligible.

The Peace Corps.³⁵ The Peace Corps supports American volunteers to live in local communities abroad and conduct grassroots-level assistance programs focused on agriculture, economic development, youth engagement, health, and education. As of September 2019, 45% of Peace Corps Volunteers were serving in sub-Saharan Africa—by far the largest share by region.³⁶ Conflict and other crises in Africa have episodically led the Peace Corps to suspend programming over concern for volunteer safety, with recent conflict-related suspensions in Mali (in 2015) and Burkina Faso (2017) and temporary suspensions in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone during the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak. In 2019, the Peace Corps announced that it would resume operations in Kenya after suspending activities in 2014 due to security concerns. The Peace Corps ceased all activities and recalled all volunteers worldwide in March 2020 due to COVID-19.

African Development Foundation (USADF). A federally funded, independent nonprofit corporation created by Congress in the African Development Foundation Act of 1980 (Title V of P.L. 96-533), the USADF seeks to reduce poverty by providing targeted grants worth up to $250,000 that typically serve as seed capital for small-scale economic growth projects. The USADF maintains a core focus on agriculture, micro-enterprise development, and community resilience. It prioritizes support for marginalized, poor, and often remote communities as well as selected social groups, such as women and youth—often in fragile or post-conflict countries. USADF also plays a role in selected multi-agency initiatives, such as Power Africa and YALI.

In 2018, the Trump Administration identified three core goals of its policy approach toward Africa: expanding U.S. trade and commercial ties, countering armed Islamist violence and other forms of conflict, and imposing more stringent conditions on U.S. assistance and U.N. peacekeeping missions in the region.³⁷ The Administration also has emphasized efforts to counter "great power competitors" in Africa, namely China and Russia, which it has accused of challenging U.S. influence in the region through "predatory" economic practices and other means.³⁸ Other stated policy objectives include promoting youth development and strengthening investment climates on the continent.³⁹ Budget requests and other official documents, such as USAID country strategies, have asserted other priorities broadly similar to those pursued by past Administrations, such as boosting economic growth, investment, and trade, enhancing democracy and good governance, promoting socioeconomic development, and improving health outcomes.⁴⁰

The Administration has expressed skepticism of U.S. foreign aid globally, and to certain African countries in particular. For instance, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton pledged in 2018 to curtail aid to African countries whose governments are corrupt and to direct assistance toward states that govern democratically, pursue transparent business practices, and "act as responsible regional stakeholders [...and] where state failure or weakness would pose a direct threat to the United States and our citizens."⁴¹ These objectives do not appear to have been revoked since Bolton's departure from the White House in September 2019. Whether the Administration's budget proposals for aid to Africa have reflected such pledges is debatable, however, as discussed below ("The FY2021 Assistance Request for Africa: Overview and Analysis").

Changes to humanitarian assistance. As part of a consolidation of humanitarian aid accounts, the Administration has repeatedly proposed to eliminate FFP Title II aid, through which African countries received $1.2 billion in emergency food assistance in FY2019.⁴² The FY2021 budget request would merge the four humanitarian accounts—FFP Title II, International Disaster Assistance (IDA), Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA)—into a single International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account. Budget documents assert that the consolidation would enhance the flexibility and efficiency of humanitarian assistance.⁴³

Changes to bilateral economic assistance. The Administration has repeatedly proposed to merge a number of bilateral economic assistance accounts—including Development Assistance (DA) and Economic Support Fund (ESF) aid, through which African countries received a cumulative $1.5 billion in FY2019—into a new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF) account. The Administration has consistently requested far less in ESDF than prior-year combined allocations for the subsumed accounts. Budget documents contend the consolidation would improve efficiency.⁴⁴

Cutting Foreign Military Financing for Africa. Unlike previous Administrations, the Trump Administration has not requested FMF for African countries, with the exception of Djibouti, which hosts the only enduring U.S. military installation in Africa.⁴⁵

Eliminating the USADF. The Administration annually has proposed to eliminate the USADF and create a grants office within USAID that would assume responsibility for the agency's work. In successive budget requests, the Administration has included one-time closeout funding for the agency (e.g., $4.7 million for FY2021).

To date, Congress has maintained the existing account structures for the delivery of humanitarian aid and economic assistance and continued to appropriate operating funds to the USADF—most recently under P.L. 116-94 at a level of $33 million for FY2020. Consideration of the President's FY2021 budget request, released in February 2020, is underway.

Overview. The Administration's FY2021 budget request includes $5.2 billion in aid for Africa, an increase from its FY2020 request ($5.0 billion) but 28% below FY2019 allocations ($7.1 billion).⁴⁶ These totals do not include emergency humanitarian aid or funding allocated to African countries from global accounts and programs. Funding for Africa would fall sharply from FY2019 levels across most major funding accounts, including Global Health Programs (which would see a 22% drop), PKO (23%), INCLE (46%), and IMET (16%).⁴⁷ Non-health development assistance would see the largest decline from FY2019 levels: the request would provide $797 million in ESDF for Africa, down 48% from $1.5 billion in allocated ESF and DA in FY2019. The request includes $75 million in ESDF for Prosper Africa, up from $50 million requested in FY2020. Separate proposed decreases in U.S. funding for U.N. peacekeeping missions, most of which are in Africa, could have implications for stability and humanitarian operations.⁴⁸

Analysis. Overwhelmingly weighted toward health assistance, with the balance largely dedicated to traditional development and security activities, the FY2021 request aligns with long-standing U.S. priorities in the region—while at the same time proposing significant cuts to U.S. assistance across all major sectors. Congress has not enacted similar proposed reductions in previous appropriations measures; several Members specifically have raised concerns over the potential ramifications of such cuts for U.S. influence and partnerships abroad.⁴⁹ In this regard, it may be debated whether the FY2021 budget, if enacted, would be likely to advance the Administration's stated priority of countering the influence of geostrategic competitors in Africa. For instance, officials have described Prosper Africa as partly intended to counter China's growing influence in the region, yet $75 million in proposed funding for the initiative is arguably incommensurate with the Administration's goal of "vastly accelerat[ing]" two way U.S-Africa trade and investment.⁵⁰

Despite the Administration's pledge to curtail aid to countries that fail to govern democratically and transparently, top proposed recipients in FY2021 include several countries with poor or deteriorating governance records (e.g., Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, and Tanzania). Sharp proposed cuts to bilateral economic assistance, through which the United States funds most DRG activities, could have implications for U.S. democracy and governance programming in the region.

Below is a selected list of issues that Congress may consider as it weights budgetary proposals and authorizes, appropriates funding for, and oversees U.S. foreign aid programs in Africa. References to specific countries are provided solely as illustrative examples.

Scale and balance. Members may debate whether U.S. assistance to Africa is adequately balanced between sectors given the broad scope of Africa's needs and U.S. priorities on the continent, and whether overall funding levels are commensurate with U.S. interests in the region. Successive Administrations have articulated a diverse range of development, governance, and security objectives in Africa—yet U.S. assistance to the region has remained dominated by funding for health programs since the mid-2000s. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern over the relatively small share of U.S. aid dedicated to other stated U.S. priorities, such as promoting good governance, expanding U.S.-Africa commercial ties, and mitigating conflict.⁵¹

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration's repeated proposals to sharply reduce U.S. assistance to Africa have spurred pushback from some Members. Congressional objections have centered on the risks that aid cuts could potentially pose for U.S. national security, foreign policy goals, and U.S. influence and partnerships in Africa.⁵² Notably, the proposed cuts in U.S. assistance come at a time when China and other countries, including Russia, India, Turkey, and several Arab Gulf states, are seeking to expand their roles in the region.⁵³

Transparency and oversight. While this report provides approximate funding figures based largely on publicly available allocation data, comprehensive estimates of U.S. aid to Africa and amounts dedicated to specific focus areas are difficult to determine. Executive branch budget documents and congressional appropriations measures do not fully disaggregate aid allocations by country or region; meanwhile, databases such as USAID's Foreign Aid Explorer and the State Department's ForeignAssistance.gov provide data on obligations and disbursements but do not track committed funding against enacted levels, raising challenges for congressional oversight.

As noted above, gaps in region- and country-level assistance data may partly reflect efforts to maintain flexibility in U.S. assistance programs—for instance, by appropriating humanitarian aid to global accounts and allocating it according to need. At the same time, Congress has not imposed rigorous reporting requirements evenly across U.S. foreign aid programs. For instance, while DOD "global train and equip" assistance is subject to congressional notification and reporting requirements that require detailed information about country and security force unit recipients and assistance to be provided, there is no analogous reporting requirement governing State Department security assistance.⁵⁴ Public budget documents may thus include country- and program-level breakouts of some security assistance, while other funds—such as for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), a PKO-funded peacekeeping capacity-building program through which some African militaries have received substantial U.S. training and equipment—are not reflected in bilateral aid budgets. A lack of data on what U.S. assistance has been provided to African countries may obscure policy dilemmas or inhibit efforts to evaluate impact.⁵⁵

Country Ownership. Policymakers may debate the extent to which U.S. assistance supports partner African governments in taking the lead in addressing challenges related to socioeconomic development, security, and governance. The majority of U.S. aid to Africa is provided through nongovernment actors—such as U.N. agencies, humanitarian organizations, development practitioners, and civil society entities—rather than directly to governments. (Exceptions include U.S. security assistance for African security forces and some healthcare capacity-building programs.) Channeling aid through nongovernment actors may be preferable in countries where the state is unable or unwilling to meet the needs of its population, and may additionally grant the United States greater control and oversight over the use of aid funds. At the same time, experts debate whether this method of assistance adequately equips recipient governments to take primary responsibility for service delivery and other state duties—as well as whether this mode of delivery may limit donor influence and leverage with the recipient country government.⁵⁶

Conditions on U.S. assistance. Congress has enacted legislation denying or placing conditions on assistance to countries that fail to meet certain standards in, for instance, human rights, counterterrorism, debt repayment, religious freedom, child soldier use, or trafficking in persons. In general, statutes establishing such conditions accord the executive branch the discretion to designate countries for sanction or waive such restrictions. Congress may continue to debate the merits and effectiveness of such restrictions. In FY2020, several African governments are subject to aid restrictions due to failure to meet standards related to:

• Religious freedom, under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-292), with Eritrea currently listed as a "Country of Particular Concern."⁵⁷
• The use of child soldiers, under the Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA, P.L. 110-457, as amended) and related legislation, with DRC, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, and Sudan subject to potential security assistance restrictions in FY2020.⁵⁸ In October 2019, President Trump exercised his authority under CSPA to waive certain restrictions for DRC, Mali, Somalia, and South Sudan.⁵⁹
• Trafficking in persons (TIP), under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA, P.L. 106-386, as amended) and related legislation, with Burundi, Comoros, DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, The Gambia, Mauritania, and South Sudan subject to potential aid restrictions in FY2020. In October 2019, President Trump partially waived such restrictions with regard to DRC and South Sudan, and fully waived them for Comoros.⁶⁰

Some African countries periodically have been subject to other restrictions on U.S. foreign aid, such as those imposed on governments that rose to power through a coup d'état, support international terrorism, or are in external debt arrears. (In contrast to most legislative aid restrictions, a provision in annual appropriations legislation prohibiting most aid to governments that accede to power through a military coup does not grant the executive branch authority to waive the restrictions.⁶¹) Congress has also included provisions in annual aid appropriations measures restricting certain aid to specific African countries, notably Sudan and Zimbabwe.

In addition, the so-called "Leahy Laws" restrict most kinds of State Department- and DOD-administered security assistance to individual units or members of foreign security forces credibly implicated in a "gross violation of human rights," subject to certain exceptions.⁶² The executive branch does not publish information on which units or individual personnel have been prohibited from receiving U.S. assistance pursuant to these laws. Congress also has restricted certain kinds of security assistance deemed likely to be used for unintended purposes; for instance, language in annual foreign aid appropriations measures prohibits the use of funds for providing tear gas and other crowd control items to security forces that curtail freedoms of expression and assembly.

Unintended consequences. Some observers have raised concerns that the provision of U.S. foreign assistance may have unintended consequences, including in Africa. For instance, some analysts have questioned whether U.S. food assistance may inadvertently prolong civil conflict by enabling warring parties to sustain operations, though others have challenged that assertion.⁶³ Whether providing certain forms of U.S. aid, notably security assistance, may at times jeopardize U.S. policy goals in other areas is another potential consideration. For instance, some analysts have questioned whether security assistance to African governments with poor human rights records (e.g., Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, and Uganda) may strengthen abusive security forces or inhibit U.S. leverage on issues related to democracy and governance.⁶⁴ Proponents of U.S. security assistance programs in Africa may contend that aspects of such engagements—such as military professionalization and human rights training—enhance security sector governance and civil-military relations, and may thus improve human rights practices by partner militaries.

Congress commenced consideration of the President's FY2021 budget request in February 2020. To date, the 116^th Congress has not adopted many of the Administration's proposed changes regarding assistance to Africa, notably its repeated attempts to significantly reduce aid to the region. Allocated funding has instead hovered around $7 billion per year, excluding emergency humanitarian aid. As Congress debates the FY2021 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations measure, Members may consider issues such as:

• The economic, humanitarian, and health-related shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is expected to have a severe impact on Africa's development trajectory;

Unfolding political transitions in Sudan and Ethiopia, which may have significant implications for governance and conflict trends in the region;⁶⁵

Conflicts and humanitarian crises in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, and South Sudan;⁶⁶

Repressive governance in several countries that rank as top recipients of U.S. assistance in Africa, including Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia;⁶⁷

The effectiveness of existing conditions on U.S. foreign assistance to Africa, whether additional conditions and restrictions may be necessary, and the appropriate balance between ensuring congressional influence and providing executive branch flexibility;

U.S.-Africa trade and investment issues, including as they relate to funding and overseeing the Administration's Prosper Africa initiative; and

The involvement in Africa of foreign powers such as China and Russia, and the implications of such engagement for U.S. national security and policy interests.

Author Contact Information