TACO Diplomacy?

For the moment, at least, it appears that the U.S. is not willing to let people die because we did not get the trade deal we wanted.

May 1, 2026

The United States is playing Eddie Haskell when it comes to healthcare in Zambia.

Early this morning my time, the Lusaka Times reported that the departing U.S. Ambassador refuted claims that his country was holding lifesaving medicine as leverage for a mineral rights deal:

Speaking at a farewell reception, Mr Gonzales charged that the allegations leveled against the U.S. government were being peddled by alarmists.

He said the false claims attributed to the U.S. government, alleging threats to withdraw healthcare support for millions of Zambians, are disgusting.

Mr Gonzales clarified that allegations suggesting his government has threatened to withhold critical, lifesaving healthcare support for Zambians who depend on it are baseless.

“Now, I know there have been alarmist allegations recently. But let me be clear, any suggestion that the United States would withhold critical life-saving healthcare support from those Zambians whose lives and health depend on it unless we get critical minerals is disgusting and patently false!” he stated.

Reuters has a follow-up entitled “US criticises Zambia for lack of engagement as $1 billion health deal stalls.” Apparently, my government is baffled and dismayed at the irresponsible way that their counterparts in Lusaka failed to come to the table to discuss the deal that we offered, “saying ​repeated outreach from Washington had been ignored as an April 30 deadline ‌passed without a deal.”

The good news appear to be that funding has not been immediately cut off; The article goes on to say:

Outgoing U.S. ambassador Michael Gonzales said the failure to finalise the memorandum of understanding (MOU) had left funding continuing on an ad hoc basis, without a coherent implementation plan ​for programmes covering HIV, malaria, maternal and child health and disease preparedness.

“Instead ​of continuing to languish without engagement, the actual funding under our Health ⁠MOU should have started this month,” Gonzales said in remarks delivered on Thursday ​evening as he prepared to leave the post.

It seems that the White House is trying to get out in front of the story, framing it as Zambian irresponsibility rather than active resistance and refusal to be extorted.

One thing that seems clear is that Zambia is going to join Ghana and the handful of other countries that refuse to be extorted by the Administration’s extractive approach to humanitarian assistance. The article indicates that the Zambian government has simply not come to the bargaining table to discuss the $1 billion deal that Trump’s State Department has put forward.

On Wednesday, Ghana rejected the aid deal the U.S. offered, which like earlier aid packages to other African countries would provide medicine and other assistance in exchange for long-term agreements on sharing patient data. Zimbabwe likewise walked away from a third of a billion dollars in aid over concerns about the concessions the U.S. sought. Eighteen other African countries, from Angola to Uganda, have accepted deals, though Kenya has seen a court halt the deal it made over privacy concerns.

It can’t be overemphasized how coercive these deals appear to be. Across the Global South, U.S. funding provides often the lion’s share of humanitarian aid, and makes up a significant part of the healthcare budget in many cash-strapped countries. It is also true that many poorer autocratic nations do not provide for the health and welfare of their citizens as well as they should – and arguably could. Just a few weeks ago, the African Union reiterated its call for a dramatic increase in domestic healthcare spending across the continent. But in a country like Zambia, where fully six percent of the population is infected with HIV, the challenges are urgent, and overwhelming. Saying no to a U.S. aid package, regardless of the terms, is a wrenching choice.

Ghana, Zimbabwe and Zambia are standing up and saying no to the extortionate deals that the Trump Administration has offered. All decent people, governments and philanthropies most especially, should stand with them.

“America First” humanitarian aid is as conceptually incoherent as it is morally corrupt. The Administration’s approach to aid – eliminate development agencies, incorporate aid into the regular course of diplomacy, and treat life-saving medication as a commodity for trade – seeks to capitalize on the deep inequalities of global wealth and the fact that decades of American support have left many countries dependent on the cash, food and medicine we provide.

But to the extent that this support has always been partly self-interested, it is largely so by accrual of “soft power” (and yes, the fact that much of our aid money goes into the pocket of American farmers, pharmaceutical companies and logistics contractors). This soft power is nothing more than the goodwill we gain when our interventions stave off starvation and disease, and build infrastructure to ensure that people not only survive, but thrive. This is America-and-the-world First policy.

To send Marco Rubio out to cut sordid deals with governments that have little choice is, simply and frankly, to shit all over the humanitarian intentions that U.S. aid actually embodies, and the soft power that accrues not only for the nation, but for the ideals of democracy that we at least half-truthfully proclaim.

As of today, the lesson to take away from our government’s disingenuous bafflement that Zambia is walking away from the table is that hopefully we will not follow through with de-funding that would put millions of lives at risk. If you pray, say a prayer for me that this holds true. Either way, Zambia’s stance is one that we should support, for its courage and also for the fact that rejecting this execrable transactionalism around foreign aid may help America find its way again.