By Ade Adesokan
The announcement that President Donald Trump will host leaders from five African nations—Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal—for a trade summit from July 9-11 has sent ripples across diplomatic circles. While the White House frames this as an opportunity to explore “commercial opportunities,” the glaring absence of Nigeria from this select gathering reveals a troubling myopia in American foreign policy that could have far-reaching consequences for U.S.-Africa relations.
Nigeria’s exclusion from this summit represents more than a diplomatic oversight—it constitutes a fundamental misreading of Africa’s economic landscape and strategic importance. As the continent’s largest economy with a GDP exceeding $440 billion and a population of over 220 million people, Nigeria commands the lion’s share of West African commerce. The country accounts for approximately 85% of the U.S. trade deficit with African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) countries, alongside South Africa and Ghana, making it a cornerstone of American-African economic engagement.
The selection criteria for the five invited nations appears to prioritize historical ties and perceived political alignment over economic substance. While Liberia’s historical connection to the United States through its founding by freed American slaves is undeniable, and Senegal’s democratic credentials are commendable, the combined economic weight of all five invited nations pales in comparison to Nigeria’s market dominance. This creates an uncomfortable reality: Trump is hosting a trade summit about Africa without including the continent’s economic powerhouse.
The timing of this summit coincides with broader shifts in Trump’s Africa policy that have already created significant tension. The administration’s sweeping tariff policies have affected African countries benefiting from AGOA, while looming travel bans threaten to further complicate diplomatic relations. Against this backdrop, the exclusion of Nigeria appears less like strategic oversight and more like calculated marginalization.
From an economic perspective, Nigeria’s absence undermines the summit’s stated objectives. The country serves as a gateway to West Africa’s 400 million consumers and hosts the headquarters of numerous multinational corporations operating across the region. Its oil and gas sector, despite recent reforms toward diversification, remains crucial to global energy markets. More importantly, Nigeria’s growing technology sector, particularly in fintech and telecommunications, represents exactly the kind of “commercial opportunities” the summit purports to explore.
The geopolitical implications are equally concerning. Nigeria plays a pivotal role in regional security, leading peacekeeping efforts through ECOWAS and serving as a bulwark against terrorism in the Sahel region. By excluding Nigeria from discussions about economic cooperation, the Trump administration risks appearing to prioritize smaller, more compliant nations over regional leaders who might challenge American positions or demand more equitable partnerships.
This approach reflects a broader shift in American foreign policy under Trump’s second term, where transactional relationships take precedence over strategic partnerships. The administration’s stated preference for countries that demonstrate “both the ability and willingness to help themselves” suggests a narrow interpretation of African agency that overlooks the complex challenges facing larger, more influential nations.
The exclusion also raises questions about the administration’s understanding of African economic integration. Nigeria is a founding member of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the world’s largest free trade area by country participation since the World Trade Organization. Any serious discussion about trade with Africa must acknowledge this reality and engage with the continent’s most significant economic actors.
Furthermore, the timing of this summit amid Trump’s domestic political challenges—including resistance to his “Big Beautiful Bill” in Congress and ongoing immigration crackdowns—suggests that Africa policy may be serving broader political narratives rather than genuine economic interests. The selection of smaller, less economically significant nations may reflect a desire for diplomatic victories that generate positive headlines without the complexity of engaging with more demanding partners.
The consequences of this exclusion extend beyond bilateral relations. Nigeria’s absence from the summit signals to other African nations that American engagement remains selective and potentially unreliable. This perception could drive African countries toward alternative partnerships with China, Russia, or European nations that demonstrate more consistent and inclusive engagement strategies.
For Nigeria itself, the exclusion represents both a challenge and an opportunity. While the immediate diplomatic slight cannot be ignored, it may accelerate the country’s pivot toward other global partners and strengthen its leadership role in South-South cooperation. Nigeria’s recent initiatives in non-dollar payment systems, driven partly by Trump’s threats to maintain dollar dominance, exemplify this strategic reorientation.
The Trump administration’s approach also ignores the demographic reality of Africa’s future. Nigeria’s population is projected to reach 400 million by 2050, making it the world’s third-most populous country. Excluding such a significant future market from current trade discussions represents a failure of strategic foresight that could cost American businesses billions in lost opportunities.
Moreover, the exclusion contradicts the administration’s stated goal of countering Chinese influence in Africa. Nigeria represents one of the most important battlegrounds for great power competition on the continent, given its economic size and regional influence. By sidelining Nigeria, the Trump administration effectively cedes this crucial relationship to competitors who have demonstrated more sustained engagement.
The summit’s focus on commercial opportunities rings hollow when the continent’s largest commercial market is absent from discussions. This disconnect between rhetoric and reality undermines American credibility and suggests that the administration’s Africa policy lacks the strategic depth necessary for meaningful long-term engagement.
As African nations prepare for this summit, they must grapple with the reality that American engagement under Trump appears increasingly transactional and unpredictable. The exclusion of Nigeria serves as a stark reminder that traditional assumptions about partnership and mutual respect cannot be taken for granted in the current diplomatic environment.
The July 9-11 summit may yield some bilateral agreements and photo opportunities, but its ultimate legacy may be the message it sends about American priorities in Africa. By excluding Nigeria, the Trump administration has chosen symbolism over substance, political expediency over strategic wisdom, and short-term gains over long-term partnership.
This strategic miscalculation not only diminishes the summit’s potential impact but also signals a concerning retreat from serious engagement with Africa’s most important economies. As the continent continues its economic transformation and integration, such exclusions risk positioning the United States as a secondary player in one of the world’s most dynamic regions.
The exclusion of Nigeria from Trump’s Africa trade summit represents more than a diplomatic misstep—it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Africa’s economic realities and America’s strategic interests on the continent. This miscalculation becomes even more glaring when viewed against Nigeria’s deepening engagement with alternative multilateral frameworks, particularly its growing relationship with BRICS.
Even as Trump excludes Nigeria from his selective Africa trade summit, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is demonstrating Nigeria’s expanding diplomatic horizons through his current state visit to Saint Lucia, followed by his participation in the BRICS Summit in Brazil. This timing is particularly significant, as it highlights the stark contrast between America’s exclusionary approach and Nigeria’s inclusive engagement with emerging global partnerships.
Tinubu’s visit to Saint Lucia, which the Nigerian presidency has carefully defended against domestic criticism, represents a strategic pivot toward South-South cooperation that the Trump administration seems to have overlooked. According to the federal government’s press release, the visit serves multiple diplomatic objectives that extend far beyond bilateral relations with the small Caribbean nation. The presidency, through Special Adviser Bayo Onanuga, emphasized that the visit is “deeply rooted in cultural, historical, and diplomatic imperatives that seek to reconnect Nigeria with its diaspora and expand South-South cooperation.”
The strategic significance of this visit becomes clear when examining its broader context. Saint Lucia serves as the headquarters of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) and acts as a gateway to the 15 CARICOM member states, which collectively boast a GDP exceeding $130 billion. The presidency’s justification highlights that “in an era of global uncertainty, deepening cooperation between the Global South, particularly between continental Africa and the Caribbean, has become imperative.” This represents precisely the kind of multilateral engagement that Nigeria is pursuing while being excluded from Trump’s narrowly focused trade summit.
The cultural and historical dimensions of the Saint Lucia visit also underscore Nigeria’s commitment to diaspora engagement. The presidency noted that “like many Caribbean nations, Saint Lucia has a significant population of African ancestry,” with mid-19th century immigrants from present-day Nigeria bringing cultural and religious practices that persist today. This historical connection provides a foundation for deeper economic and diplomatic ties that transcend the transactional approach favored by the Trump administration.
More significantly, Tinubu’s subsequent participation in the BRICS Summit in Brazil represents Nigeria’s growing integration into alternative global economic frameworks. Nigeria’s recognition as a BRICS ‘partner country’ and Tinubu’s attendance at the invitation of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva demonstrates the country’s expanding options for international cooperation. This BRICS engagement occurs precisely as Trump’s selective Africa summit excludes Nigeria, highlighting the administration’s failure to recognize shifting global dynamics.
The BRICS connection is particularly noteworthy given the organization’s explicit focus on creating alternative economic structures that challenge Western-dominated financial systems. Nigeria’s participation in BRICS discussions about payment systems, trade mechanisms, and South-South cooperation provides the country with platforms for economic engagement that do not depend on American approval or inclusion. This represents a strategic hedge against exactly the kind of exclusionary policies that Trump’s selective summit exemplifies.
The timing of these diplomatic initiatives also reveals Nigeria’s sophisticated approach to international relations. By combining cultural diplomacy through the Saint Lucia visit with strategic economic engagement through BRICS participation, Nigeria is demonstrating the kind of multidimensional foreign policy that major powers typically pursue. This stands in stark contrast to the binary thinking that appears to characterize Trump’s approach to Africa relations.
The presidency’s emphasis on the historic nature of Tinubu’s Caribbean visit—noting that the last visit by an African Head of State was by President Nelson Mandela in 1998—underscores Nigeria’s commitment to revitalizing African diaspora relations. This 27-year gap represents an opportunity for renewed engagement that Nigeria is seizing while the United States focuses on selective bilateral relationships with smaller African nations.
Furthermore, the federal government’s detailed justification for the Saint Lucia visit reveals a strategic vision for African engagement with the Caribbean that could serve as a model for broader South-South cooperation. The emphasis on rekindling “ancestral bonds” and creating “diplomatic, cultural, and economic possibilities” reflects a long-term approach to international relations that extends beyond immediate commercial interests.
This broader diplomatic strategy becomes even more relevant when considering Nigeria’s BRICS engagement. The organization’s focus on “strengthening multilateralism for fair global development and security” aligns closely with Nigeria’s stated objectives for South-South cooperation. Nigeria’s participation in BRICS payment systems discussions and multilateral trade mechanisms provides alternatives to Western-dominated financial structures that have historically marginalized African economies.
The contrast between Nigeria’s inclusive, multilateral approach and Trump’s selective engagement strategy could not be more stark. While the United States excludes Nigeria from discussions about African trade, Nigeria is actively building relationships with emerging economic powers and strengthening ties with its diaspora communities. This represents a fundamental shift in global economic diplomacy that the Trump administration appears to have missed.
As African nations seek reliable partners for their development aspirations, the United States risks finding itself increasingly marginalized by its own selective engagement strategies. Nigeria’s simultaneous engagement with the Caribbean through Saint Lucia and with emerging powers through BRICS demonstrates the kind of diversified diplomacy that may become the norm for major African economies excluded from American initiatives.
*Charting Nigeria’s Path Forward*
Nigeria’s exclusion from Trump’s Africa trade summit, while diplomatically insulting, may paradoxically accelerate the country’s transition toward a more balanced and strategically advantageous international positioning. The pathway forward requires Nigeria to leverage this diplomatic slight as a catalyst for deeper engagement with alternative partnerships while maintaining pragmatic relations with the United States where mutual interests align.
The immediate priority should be maximizing Nigeria’s BRICS partnership trajectory. With the organization’s focus on creating parallel financial systems and trade mechanisms, Nigeria can position itself as a gateway for BRICS engagement with West Africa. This involves accelerating adoption of non-dollar payment systems, expanding trade in local currencies with BRICS partners, and leveraging Nigeria’s position as Africa’s largest economy to negotiate favorable terms within the BRICS framework. The country’s participation in BRICS payment systems discussions offers practical alternatives to Western-dominated financial structures that have historically constrained African economic sovereignty.
Simultaneously, Nigeria must capitalize on its Caribbean diplomatic initiative as a foundation for broader South-South cooperation. The Saint Lucia visit should serve as a launching pad for comprehensive engagement with CARICOM nations, exploring opportunities in services trade, digital economy partnerships, and joint approaches to global climate finance. Given CARICOM’s combined GDP of over $130 billion, this represents a significant market for Nigerian goods and services while providing access to international markets through Caribbean trade agreements.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) presents another critical pathway for Nigeria’s strategic repositioning. As a founding member and key economic driver, Nigeria should leverage its exclusion from selective American initiatives to strengthen leadership within AfCFTA frameworks. This involves championing intra-African trade mechanisms, supporting the development of the African Development Bank’s financial instruments, and positioning Lagos as a continental financial hub that can rival traditional Western centers.
Nigeria’s technological sector offers perhaps the most promising avenue for transcending traditional diplomatic limitations. The country’s fintech innovations, particularly in mobile banking and digital payments, align perfectly with BRICS objectives of creating alternative financial systems. By deepening technological partnerships with China, India, and Brazil, Nigeria can accelerate its digital transformation while reducing dependence on American technological infrastructure. This includes expanding partnerships in 5G deployment, artificial intelligence development, and digital currency initiatives.
Energy diplomacy represents another crucial pathway forward. Nigeria’s transition toward renewable energy sources creates opportunities for partnerships with BRICS nations, particularly China and India, in solar and wind power development. Simultaneously, the country can leverage its oil and gas reserves as bargaining chips in negotiations with emerging powers while gradually reducing dependence on Western energy markets. The recent agreements with Russian energy companies demonstrate the potential for diversified energy partnerships that bypass traditional Western intermediaries.
Educational and cultural exchanges with BRICS nations and the Caribbean diaspora can strengthen Nigeria’s soft power projection. Expanding scholarship programs, academic partnerships, and cultural festivals creates lasting ties that transcend immediate political considerations. The success of Nigerian entertainment industry in penetrating global markets provides a foundation for broader cultural diplomacy that can support economic and political objectives.
Regional leadership within ECOWAS becomes more critical as Nigeria seeks to counterbalance American exclusion. By championing regional integration initiatives, common currency projects, and collective bargaining positions with global partners, Nigeria can demonstrate that American marginalization strengthens rather than weakens African solidarity. This includes supporting smaller West African nations in their own engagement with BRICS and other alternative partnerships.
The private sector must play a central role in Nigeria’s strategic repositioning. Government policies should incentivize Nigerian businesses to explore markets in BRICS nations, Caribbean states, and other emerging economies. This includes providing export financing, trade mission support, and diplomatic backing for Nigerian companies seeking to establish footholds in these markets. The goal is creating economic relationships that are resilient to political fluctuations in traditional Western partnerships.
Nigeria’s approach to international organizations requires strategic recalibration. While maintaining membership in Western-dominated institutions like the World Bank and IMF, the country should simultaneously strengthen engagement with alternative multilateral frameworks. This includes deeper participation in the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and emerging South-South cooperation mechanisms that offer more equitable partnership terms.
The demographic dividend that Nigeria will experience over the next three decades provides enormous leverage in international negotiations. With a projected population of 400 million by 2050, Nigeria represents one of the world’s largest future consumer markets. This demographic reality should be leveraged to negotiate favorable terms with any partner, whether traditional Western allies or emerging powers. The country’s young, increasingly educated population represents both a market and a workforce that global partners cannot afford to ignore.
Climate change adaptation and mitigation present opportunities for Nigeria to engage with multiple partners simultaneously. While maintaining cooperation with Western climate finance initiatives, the country can also pursue partnerships with BRICS nations in renewable energy development, green technology transfer, and climate adaptation projects. This diversified approach reduces dependence on any single partner while maximizing access to climate finance and technology.
Perhaps most importantly, Nigeria must maintain strategic patience and avoid reactive policies that could undermine long-term interests. The Trump administration’s exclusionary approach may not represent permanent American policy, and Nigeria should keep channels open for future engagement while building alternative relationships. This requires sophisticated diplomatic management that avoids burning bridges while clearly signaling that Nigeria has viable alternatives to American partnership.
The pathway forward for Nigeria involves transforming diplomatic exclusion into strategic opportunity. By deepening engagement with BRICS, strengthening South-South cooperation, maximizing regional leadership, and leveraging demographic advantages, Nigeria can emerge from this period with a more balanced and advantageous international position. The country’s response to Trump’s selective engagement may ultimately demonstrate that excluding Nigeria from American initiatives diminishes American influence rather than Nigerian options.
The ultimate goal is positioning Nigeria as an indispensable partner for any global power serious about African engagement. This requires building relationships and capabilities that make Nigeria’s exclusion from any international initiative a strategic error for the excluding party. In this context, Trump’s selective Africa summit may have inadvertently accelerated Nigeria’s transition toward a more sophisticated and independent foreign policy that serves the country’s long-term interests more effectively than traditional dependency relationships.
Ade Adesokan is a public affairs commentator
