Jude Kearney on Washington’s evolving Africa strategy, the race for critical minerals, investment opportunities and the partnerships reshaping U.S.–Africa energy relations and the continent’s energy future.
By Ajong Mbapndah L
The relationship between the United States and Africa is entering a consequential phase, with energy security, critical minerals and commercial interests increasingly defining Washington’s engagement with the continent. For Jude Kearney, a veteran international lawyer and senior figure at ASAFO & CO., the stakes go well beyond securing access to Africa’s natural resources. The bigger question is whether this renewed strategic interest can produce lasting investments, stronger infrastructure, industrial development and partnerships that serve the interests of both sides.
With more than four decades of experience advising governments, investors and corporations on international investment and African commercial development, Kearney has witnessed the evolution of U.S.–Africa economic relations firsthand. He sees substantial opportunities in oil and gas, LNG, electricity, critical minerals and infrastructure, but argues that Africa must do more to turn its resource wealth into bankable projects and greater domestic value. Washington, too, has work to do. As China, Gulf states and other international players deepen their engagement with Africa, he believes American investors and financing institutions must move faster, better understand individual African markets and pay closer attention to the continent’s development priorities.
A familiar voice at African Energy Week and a longstanding associate of the African Energy Chamber, Kearney has also watched AEW grow from a gathering of hundreds into a major meeting point for governments, energy companies, financiers and investors. As the event enters its sixth edition in Cape Town, he reflects on how the Chamber and AEW have helped reshape the conversation around African energy, giving the continent a stronger voice in debates over its resources, investment priorities and development future.
In this exclusive conversation with Pan African Visions for its African Energy Week 2026 Special Edition, Kearney offers a Washington perspective on the Trump administration’s Africa policy, the intensifying competition for critical minerals, the investment opportunities attracting global capital and the reforms African governments need to bring major projects to financial close. He also examines what the United States must do to remain competitive and why Africa should use its growing strategic importance to secure more than another round of resource extraction.
For Kearney, the foundation of a lasting U.S.–Africa energy partnership is straightforward: “The most successful partnerships are those in which everyone can identify a legitimate interest of their own in the success of the transaction.”
It has been a year since we last spoke at African Energy Week. From your vantage point in Washington and across African markets, what have been the most consequential changes in U.S.-Africa energy relations since then?
The most consequential change has been the acceleration of a shift that had already begun when you and spoke last year: the United States increasingly views its relationship with Africa through the combined lenses of energy security, critical-mineral security and, from the perspective of investors, infrastructure and other commercial opportunity.
Energy policy and national-security policy are becoming much more closely connected. Critical minerals are the clearest example. Copper, cobalt, lithium, manganese, graphite, rare earths and other strategic minerals are no longer treated simply as commodities. They are increasingly viewed as indispensable inputs into defense, energy infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, transportation and technology.
That appears to have elevated Africa’s importance in Washington (and the rest of the globe).
We are also seeing considerably more interest in the infrastructure required to make African resources commercially accessible. The Lobito Corridor is an obvious example. It is not simply a railway project; it represents a recognition that mineral production, transportation infrastructure, investment, processing and access to global markets have to be considered together.
Another important development is that African governments themselves have become more assertive. They increasingly say, quite properly, that they do not want the next generation of resource partnerships to reproduce an old model under which raw materials simply leave Africa while most of the processing, industrialization and value creation occurs elsewhere.
So I think the relationship is becoming more transactional, but also potentially more sophisticated. The central question is whether the United States and African countries can convert this new strategic interest into durable investment structures that produce benefits on both sides of the Atlantic.
Last year, the second Trump administration was still taking shape. With more time to assess its direction, how would you characterize President Trump’s Africa policy today, particularly on energy, trade and investment?
I would characterize it as fundamentally commercial, transactional and strategic.
The administration appears to ask a fairly direct set of questions: Where are America’s economic and strategic interests? Where can American companies compete? Where are the resources and supply chains important to U.S. industry and national security? And where can private investment accomplish objectives that historically might have been pursued primarily through development assistance?
That orientation is very visible in critical minerals and energy. The administration has explicitly treated critical-mineral supply as a national-security issue and has placed greater emphasis upon securing reliable sources from the United States and allied or partner countries. Africa therefore occupies an increasingly important position in that strategy.
At the same time, I would not describe the policy simply as disengagement from Africa or withdrawal from development concerns. Rather, the mechanism is changing. The emphasis is increasingly upon commercial diplomacy, investment, infrastructure, trade, energy security and transactions.
There are opportunities in that approach, but African governments need to understand its vocabulary. A proposal framed solely as development assistance may receive a different reception from one framed as a commercially sustainable investment that simultaneously advances African development and a legitimate U.S. strategic interest. That is a significant change.
The Trump administration has emphasized commercial diplomacy, critical minerals, energy security and transactions over traditional aid. Does this create a genuine opportunity for African countries to redefine their relationship with the United States around trade and investment?
Absolutely, provided both sides approach it intelligently. For decades, many African leaders have said that they want the U.S.–Africa relationship to evolve from one dominated by aid toward one built increasingly upon trade, investment and genuine commercial partnership.
The present environment provides an opportunity to do exactly that.
Africa possesses things the global economy increasingly needs: energy resources, critical minerals, agricultural capacity, a young population, enormous infrastructure requirements and rapidly expanding consumer markets. The United States possesses capital, technology, financial institutions, sophisticated project developers and one of the world’s deepest private-sector ecosystems.
Those are complementary assets.
But African countries should not interpret this simply as an opportunity to sell more raw materials. The more ambitious objective should be to use access to minerals and energy resources to attract processing, manufacturing, infrastructure, technology and long-term capital.
Similarly, American policymakers should not view Africa simply as an alternative source of commodities when supply chains elsewhere become difficult. The most durable relationship will emerge where an American strategic need and an African development objective can be satisfied by the same transaction.
That is where the relationship becomes genuinely reciprocal.
Where do you see the biggest opportunities for American companies in Africa today—oil and gas, LNG, power, critical minerals, renewables or infrastructure—and what continues to hold back stronger U.S. investment?
The answer is really all of the above, but some opportunities are trending more than others.
As my friend NJ Ayuk—and the rest of us at the African Energy Chamber know–oil and gas remain enormously important. Africa still possesses substantial undeveloped hydrocarbon resources, and many African countries quite reasonably view natural gas as both an export commodity and a foundation for domestic industrialization, electricity production and fertilizer manufacturing.
LNG will remain particularly important because global buyers continue to value supply diversification.
Power may actually be the broadest opportunity of all. Reliable and affordable electricity is a prerequisite for virtually every other form of development—mining, manufacturing, data centers, hospitals, transportation, agriculture and consumer growth.
Critical minerals are perhaps the area receiving the greatest geopolitical attention today because they sit at the intersection of energy transition, technology, defense and industrial policy.
And infrastructure connects everything. A mineral deposit without roads, rail, electricity, water or port access may be geologically valuable but commercially stranded.
One of the main constraints on American investment is the difficulty of converting apparent opportunities into investable transactions due to infrastructure deficiencies, regulatory or logistic problems.
Investors need predictable regulation, enforceable contracts, bankable project structures, credible counterparties, transparent procurement, appropriate risk allocation and a realistic path to repatriating capital and returns.
There is also still a perception problem in the United States. I mentioned this last year and it remains true. Africa is sometimes evaluated as though it were a single risk category rather than 54 very different countries with very different legal regimes, economies and investment environments.
American companies that spend time on the ground in African countries usually develop a much more sophisticated understanding of these things.
With continuing geopolitical and security challenges in the Middle East, could Africa become more strategically important to the United States and other major consumers seeking diversified and reliable sources of energy and critical resources? What opportunities and risks does this present for the continent ?
Yes, and I think that process is already underway. One of the central lessons of the last several years is that excessive dependence upon a limited number of supply sources creates strategic vulnerability.
That applies to oil and gas, but it applies just as strongly to copper, cobalt, lithium, graphite, manganese, rare earths and many other materials.
Africa therefore becomes increasingly important as companies and governments seek greater diversification.
The opportunity for Africa is considerable. Strategic importance can translate into investment in mines, pipelines, LNG, railways, ports, power plants, processing facilities and industrial corridors.
But there is also a risk. African countries should avoid being cast as just another centerpiece of a new contest over extraction.
The objective should not be to replace dependence upon one external partner with dependence upon another. African governments should use this period of competition to negotiate better and more durable arrangements: infrastructure, local processing, workforce development, technology transfer, domestic participation and access to capital.
The countries that understand their negotiating leverage without overplaying it will benefit enormously.
Africa is increasingly central to global competition for critical minerals. How can African governments leverage this moment to secure more processing, value addition, technology transfer and jobs rather than remaining primarily exporters of raw materials ?
The first requirement is strategy. Governments need to know which minerals they possess—and in what quantity, where the jurisdiction sits within global supply chains, what processing is economically realistic domestically and what infrastructure is required to support it.
The second requirement is selective use of government leverage.
We are already seeing export restrictions, local-processing requirements and state participation rules across the continent. Those policies can create value, but they must be carefully calibrated. A beneficiation requirement that makes a project uneconomic does not create industrialization; it simply prevents the investment.
The better approach is often to combine incentives and obligations.
For example, a government might offer tax or infrastructure incentives for a processor while requiring progressively higher levels of local value addition, workforce development and supplier participation.
Third, African governments should negotiate across the entire value chain rather than mine-by-mine.
If a country possesses lithium, for example, the strategic question is not simply who will mine it. The question is whether the producing country can also develop, on a commercial basis, refining, chemical conversion, battery-material production, transportation infrastructure, power supply and technical skills around that mineral.
You have spent decades advising governments, investors and companies on African transactions. What separates countries that successfully attract and retain major energy investment from those that struggle to move projects from announcements to financial close ?
Predictability. Investors can deal with difficult conditions. What is much harder to deal with is uncertainty.
Countries that consistently attract investment generally provide investors with reasonable confidence concerning four things: the rules of the game, the durability of contracts, the integrity of institutions and the ability to execute decisions.
That does not mean investors expect governments never to change policy. Governments obviously have the right to regulate in the public interest. But investors need policy changes to occur through transparent and reasonably predictable processes.
The second factor is governmental coordination.
A project can have the full support of a president or minister and still fail because permits, land rights, tax issues, customs approvals, environmental authorizations and utility connections are trapped among different agencies.
Successful investment jurisdictions create mechanisms for resolving those problems.
Third is project preparation.
There is an enormous difference between an announcement and a bankable project. Feasibility studies, environmental work, legal structuring, financing plans, contractual frameworks and credible sponsors are what turn political ambition into financial close.
The countries that understand that distinction consistently outperform those that do not.
If you were advising an African president or energy minister today, what three reforms would you prioritize to make the country more competitive for American and international energy investment ?
First, I would urge my client (as I have advised prior sovereign clients) to establish a credible and predictable investment framework.
That means transparent licensing and procurement, reliable contracts, reasonable fiscal terms, efficient permitting and credible dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Second, I would create a high-level project execution mechanism.
Major energy and infrastructure projects cut across ministries. Someone in government must have the authority to bring finance, energy, mining, environment, land, customs and other agencies to the same table and resolve bottlenecks.
Third, I would invest heavily in project preparation.
Governments frequently spend tremendous effort attracting investors to opportunities that are not actually ready for investment. A relatively modest amount spent on feasibility studies, legal structuring, environmental work, financial modeling and bankable documentation can unlock hundreds of millions—or billions—of dollars of capital.
I might add a fourth: communicate clearly that investors are welcome, while making equally clear the country’s expectations regarding local participation, employment, skills development and value addition.
Certainty benefits both sides.
The United States is competing with China, Gulf states, Europe and other players for economic influence in Africa. What must Washington do differently if it wants American companies to remain competitive in Africa’s rapidly changing energy landscape ?
Speed matters. This is probably the most frequent criticism I hear from African public- and private-sector counterparts.
American financing institutions and companies frequently have rigorous compliance, environmental and underwriting requirements. Those requirements can be legitimate and valuable. But the process can become so lengthy that another investor has financed the project before the American side completes its evaluation.
China has historically been very effective at linking infrastructure, financing and commercial relationships.
Gulf investors are increasingly formidable because they often combine substantial capital with rapid decision-making.
The United States has enormous advantages: world-class companies, deep capital markets, extraordinary technology, transparent institutions and strong financial expertise.
But those strengths have to be converted into executable transactions.
Washington also needs to become more comfortable supporting projects that reflect African development priorities rather than assuming that American policy objectives alone will determine what should be built.
The strongest partnership occurs where those interests overlap.
African Energy Week enters its sixth year in 2026, and you have been closely associated with the event since its inception. What has AEW achieved that was missing from Africa’s energy conversation before its creation, and where do you see tangible evidence of its impact on investment and partnerships ?
African Energy Week has accomplished something extraordinarily important: it created an African-centered forum in which the continent speaks about its energy future largely in its own voice.
When AEW began, there were already important global conferences discussing African energy. But the African Energy Chamber and AEW created something different—a meeting place where African governments, national oil companies, international investors, financiers, service companies and policymakers could debate development priorities directly with one another.
The growth has been remarkable.
The first gatherings involved hundreds of participants. Last year’s conference attracted more than 8,500 delegates, an extraordinary milestone and evidence of how important AEW has become to both the public and private sectors.
But I think the quality of participation matters even more than the number.
Heads of state, ministers, national oil-company executives, global energy companies, financiers and investors increasingly regard AEW as a place where serious policy and commercial conversations occur.
I have said before that AEW and the African Energy Chamber changed not only the dialogue within Africa about how African resources should be developed; they also helped change the global conversation about Africa’s energy transition and development priorities.
Today I would go further.
AEW has emerged as one of the continent’s premier thought-leadership forums on energy policy and as a genuine bridge between African governments and the private-sector institutions capable of financing and developing projects.
That is tangible impact.
ASAFO & CO. operates at the intersection of law, project finance, investment and major African transactions. What trends are you currently seeing that offer clues about where the next wave of African energy investment will come from ?
We are seeing several important trends.
First, energy, mining and infrastructure are becoming increasingly integrated.
A mining project today may simultaneously require a power plant, transmission infrastructure, roads or railways, port facilities and long-term offtake arrangements. Investors therefore increasingly evaluate entire economic ecosystems rather than isolated assets.
Second, critical minerals are attracting new categories of capital. Investors who historically might never have considered African mining are examining transactions because supply-chain security has become strategically important.
Third, Gulf capital is becoming increasingly influential across African energy, mining and infrastructure.
Fourth, development finance institutions and governments are increasingly using blended structures—combining public and private capital, political-risk insurance, guarantees, debt and equity—to make difficult projects financeable.
And fifth, African governments increasingly want investment tied to industrialization.
The next generation of projects will increasingly involve gas-to-power, gas-to-industry, mineral processing, industrial parks, transportation corridors and other structures in which energy becomes the foundation for broader economic development.
At ASAFO, that intersection among law, capital, governments and major commercial projects is precisely where we spend much of our time.
Looking toward 2027 and beyond, what must African leaders and American policymakers get right to turn today’s geopolitical and commercial opportunities into lasting investment and mutually beneficial partnerships ?
Both sides need to think beyond individual transactions.
African governments should recognize that this period of intense competition for energy and strategic resources gives them significant leverage, but the greatest benefit will come from converting that leverage into long-term productive capacity.
That means infrastructure, processing, industrial development, skills and strong institutions.
American policymakers, meanwhile, should recognize that Africa does not want simply to become an alternative supplier whenever another region becomes strategically difficult.
African countries increasingly want genuine economic partnership.
The United States should therefore approach Africa with a proposition that says: we want access to reliable energy and strategic resources, but we also want to help create the infrastructure, financing and productive capacity that allow African economies to capture more value from those resources.
If both sides approach the relationship that way, there is an extraordinary opportunity ahead.
After more than four decades working around international investment and African commercial development, I remain convinced that the most successful partnerships are those in which everyone can identify a legitimate interest of their own in the success of the transaction.
That principle sounds simple, but it is the foundation of durable investment.
And I think that is the opportunity before the United States and Africa today.
*Culled from October Issue of PAV Magazine
