Zambia has publicly opposed a US attempt to link health funding to access to critical minerals, giving the clearest account yet of why two proposed bilateral agreements have stalled. The Zambia-US Health Funding Deal has become a key point of contention in discussions between the two countries.
Foreign Minister Mulambo Haimbe issued a detailed statement rejecting the terms of both deals. He also rejected the conditions tying them together.
The Zambia-US Health Funding Deal: What Washington Is Offering
The US proposed up to $2 billion in health support over five years. On the surface, it is a significant offer for a country with substantial public health needs.
But Haimbe said some of the terms around data sharing would violate Zambian citizens' right to privacy. He did not specify what health data the US was seeking. However, he said those provisions were incompatible with Zambia's legal framework.
Health advocates had previously warned that the proposed agreement brought meaningful data-sharing risks. Until now, Zambia’s government has acknowledged that parts of the deal did not align with national interests. Yesterday's statement was the most direct rejection to date.
The Critical Minerals Dimension
Separately, Haimbe confirmed that Zambia also has objections to a proposed critical minerals agreement. Specifically, he cited its insistence on preferential treatment for US companies.
Zambia is one of the world's leading copper producers. Therefore, its mineral resources are strategically significant to Washington's broader supply chain ambitions. But it is the linking of the two agreements that Lusaka finds most objectionable.
Haimbe said that a further concern was the coupling of the proposed agreements and frameworks. He explained that the government made the critical minerals agreement conditional on the conclusion of the health memorandum of understanding. Zambia’s position is unambiguous: authorities must assess the two deals separately, on their own merits.
A Pattern Emerging Across Africa
Zambia is not alone. The Trump administration has pursued a new model of foreign aid across the continent. This model packages health funding with data-sharing requirements and economic concessions.
Ghana and Zimbabwe have already rejected similar memoranda of understanding over data-sharing demands. Zambia now appears to be taking the same position. However, it is acting through formal diplomatic channels rather than an outright refusal to negotiate.
Several other African nations have signed such memorandums. This suggests the approach is gaining traction in some capitals even as it meets resistance in others.
A Public Dispute With The US Ambassador
Haimbe's statement was issued in direct response to criticism from outgoing US Ambassador Michael Gonzales. Gonzales accused Zambia of failing to engage meaningfully with the health funding offer.
Haimbe denied that characterisation, signalling that the diplomatic relationship over these negotiations has become strained.
The US State Department declined to comment on the specifics, saying it does not disclose details of bilateral negotiations.
What This Means For African Health Financing
For health policy professionals and funders operating across sub-Saharan Africa, this dispute highlights how the current US administration has significantly shifted the structure of foreign health aid.
Conditionality is not new in development finance. But the explicit linking of health funding to mineral access and data-sharing agreements represents a more transactional model. Several African governments are now openly resisting this model.
The outcome of Zambia's negotiations with Washington could set an important precedent for how other nations respond to similar terms. It also raises broader questions about the future of US health investment on the continent. This comes at a time when public health funding is already under pressure globally.