Zambian AIDS Patients Pay the Price of Dispute Over America’s Demand for Preferential Access to Minerals

April 30 came and went but Zambia had not signed. The Trump administration had set that date as the deadline for the country to agree to a new deal that would tie continued American funding for its HIV program to preferential access to Zambia’s copper, cobalt, and lithium. No deal meant no funding. And no funding, for a country where the United States bankrolls more than 80 percent of the entire HIV response, means people die.They were already dying. Weeks before the deadline, Zambia’s health ministry estimated that 100,000 people had stopped taking their antiretroviral medication since Washington began pulling back PEPFAR funding earlier in the year, with 40,000 still not back in treatment. Hospitals were filling with patients whose drug supplies had run out. A 37-year-old security guard named Saulo Kasekela died of AIDS on March 7 at a mission hospital in Mpongwe, his lungs consumed by tuberculosis — what advanced, untreated HIV looks like at the end.The program he depended on had kept Zambia’s public health system from collapsing for more than two decades. What Washington wanted in exchange for continuing it was not accountability, or reform. It wanted minerals.The United States, in a pattern it has been following across the continent, proposed a new deal in late 2025, demanding preferential access to Zambia’s copper, cobalt, and lithium, as well as to its national health data. Zambia — Africa’s second-largest copper producer, whose reserves have become central to the global race for electric vehicle and solar panel supply chains — refused to accept the terms as written. The standoff that followed has laid bare a fundamental shift in how Washington now views foreign aid: not as diplomacy or a moral obligation, but as leverage.“Traditionally, the United States has largely kept aid separate from specific national interests,” a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Joshua Meservey, tells The New York Sun. “The Trump administration’s approach is premised on the philosophy that taxpayer-funded initiatives should as much as possible benefit the taxpayers, meaning United States citizens in this case.”The question hanging over the negotiations is whether the world’s most successful global health program has quietly become a bargaining chip, and what it means for the millions of people whose lives depend on the answer.From lifeline to bargaining chipThe President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, is a broadly bipartisan program created in 2003 under President George W. Bush and is credited by the State Department with saving 26 million lives, primarily in low-income African countries. For Zambia, around 11 percent of the adult population is affected by the virus, and Lusaka relies on PEPFAR for more than 80 percent of its HIV funding. The abrupt withdrawal of American financial backing threatens to collapse a health infrastructure that has relied on international support for decades.The terms being demanded go well beyond typical aid conditionality. A leaked State Department draft memo prepared for Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the United States “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to take support away from Zambia on a massive scale publicly.” Veterans of America’s global health foreign aid have described the naked, public bartering of mining concessions for humanitarian aid as “uncharted” and a “first of its kind in the world for the Department of State.”“As far as I am aware, it is a departure,” a senior vice president and director of global and public health policy at KFF, Jennifer Kates, tells the Sun. “This is not usual practice and reflects the current administration’s transactional approach.”Others go further.“Requiring plunder as a condition of aid for people dying of hunger and desperate for medicines is an abomination and has no real precedent in United States foreign assistance or foreign policy,” a professor emeritus at Northeastern University School of Law, Brook Baker, tells the Sun. Mr. Baker also serves as a senior policy analyst at Health GAP.The sentiment captures a broader fury spreading through global health circles, where a program long held up as one of America’s most consequential acts of international goodwill is now being wielded as a negotiating weapon.But not everyone sees it that way.“For decades, the United States has given massive aid with very little reciprocity,” the political strategist and managing director of Nestpoint Associates, John Thomas, tells the Sun. “This sets a healthy precedent that United States taxpayer-funded aid must deliver tangible benefits to American interests, whether minerals, security cooperation, or fair trade.”For Mr. Thomas, the Zambia standoff is less a humanitarian crisis than a long-overdue reckoning with what he views as decades of one-sided generosity with American taxpayer dollars.The numbers tell their own story.Even before the standoff over minerals, the United States was offering $320 million in total health funding for all programs in Zambia in 2026, down from $367 million provided last year for dedicated HIV programs alone. The proposed budget was structured to decline in each subsequent year.Without a signed agreement, Washington has warned that all remaining U.S. support will end entirely — not merely be further reduced.Zambia pushes backZambia’s foreign minister, Mulambo Haimbe, publicly said negotiations stalled over “unacceptable” data-sharing demands “in violation of our citizens’ right to privacy” and the insistence on preferential treatment for American companies over the country’s critical minerals.Zambia “takes the view, first and foremost, that Zambians must have a say on how her critical minerals are used, and second that no one strategic partner is to be treated preferentially to others,” he said.In plain terms, Lusaka is telling Washington it will not hand one country exclusive rights to resources that belong to all Zambians.That position, however, is complicated by the reality of who already controls the ground. Canadian company First Quantum Minerals alone accounts for more than half of Zambia’s total copper production through its Kansanshi and Sentinel mines, while fellow Canadian giant Barrick Mining is investing $2 billion to expand its own Lumwana operation. Chinese and Middle Eastern firms are also major players across the sector.The acrimony spilled into the open when the outgoing American ambassador, Michael Gonzales, used his farewell speech in late April to accuse Zambian officials of having “abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets.”Mr. Haimbe fired back, describing the accusations as “mischievous,” “deeply regrettable, undiplomatic and inconsistent with the spirit of mutual respect.”The consequences of a full funding collapse are not hypothetical — they are already playing out elsewhere on the continent.“In Tanzania and Uganda, the impacts were swift,” the public health director at Physicians for Human Rights, Thomas McHale, tells the Sun.“Community health programs that connected people to treatment and health services were cut off, access to medications for prevention and treatment was halted, programs for key populations affected by HIV were shuttered, and people living with HIV began skipping doses of and rationing antiretrovirals to extend their supplies.”Ms. Kates at KFF echoes that concern, warning that the damage could come faster than most people expect and that Zambia’s government, whatever its intentions, does not have the fiscal capacity to absorb an abrupt American exit.“While Zambia, as well as other governments, can fill some of the gaps, a rapid loss of United States support would mark a significant blow and present real challenges to continuing HIV treatment and other services,” she continues.The minerals prizeThe geopolitical stakes, some analysts underscore, explain why Washington is pressing so hard. With China controlling more than 75 percent of global cobalt refining capacity, Washington is actively seeking alternative secure supplies through diplomatic, commercial, and development channels. Zambia sits squarely in the middle of that race.The timing of one development was hard to miss. On April 29 — one day before Zambia’s deadline to sign or lose American health funding — KoBold Metals, the Silicon Valley exploration company backed by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Sam Altman, officially broke ground on the Mingomba copper mine.The project will be Zambia’s largest ever, costing more than $2.3 billion to build and eventually producing over 300,000 tons of copper a year. That a company tied to some of America’s most powerful billionaires was planting its flag in Zambia’s Copperbelt at the precise moment Washington was threatening to pull HIV funding made the overlap between commercial ambition and diplomatic pressure plain to see.Critics say the sequence speaks for itself: health funding as the stick, mineral access as the prize.“Where USAID was created to support economic development in other countries, this new approach is about extracting value for the United States and diminishes safety, security and prosperity in the United States and in other countries,” the executive director of the anti-AIDS coalition AVAC, Mitchell Warren, tells the Sun.Zambia is not alone in pushing back.Zimbabwe walked away from similar negotiations in February, with its government citing Washington’s refusal to guarantee access to any medical innovations — such as vaccines, diagnostics, or treatments — that might result from shared health data. Ghana similarly rejected a proposed deal, citing provisions granting broad access to sensitive health data without adequate safeguards. Washington, however, has signed agreements with approximately 30 countries since late last year, making Zambia’s refusal, and the public standoff it has produced, an outlier that others are watching closely. Making an informed assessment of just how much damage these deals could cause is itself difficult, because the agreements have been negotiated behind closed doors with no public disclosure of their full terms, leaving outside experts, advocates, and affected communities unable to scrutinize exactly what is being agreed to.“President Trump’s ultimate ambition is to eliminate PEPFAR and many other examples of United States foreign assistance for health and humanitarian aid in the very near future,” Mr. Baker charges. “President Trump is intent on trashing the most successful United States global health effort in history, putting the lives of 40 million people living with HIV at risk and further risking an explosion in new infections.”For the 1.3 million Zambians on antiretroviral treatment, the diplomatic standoff is not an abstraction; it is a question of whether their next prescription will be their last. Mr. Meservey notes the administration has indicated some assistance would continue even without a deal, yet how much, and for how long, nobody can say with certainty.What people living with HIV in Zambia know is simpler: they were sick, the drugs worked, and now they are waiting to find out whether geopolitics will take those drugs away.“The greatest fear is that we do not want to see ourselves getting back to where we started from,” one Zambian woman living with HIV told reporters. “For me, my fear is, will I be able to continue with my treatment?”

Zambian AIDS Patients Pay the Price of Dispute Over America’s Demand for Preferential Access to Minerals

Zambian AIDS Patients Pay the Price of Dispute Over America’s Demand for Preferential Access to Minerals

More from the New York Sun

The Unlikely Afterlife of ‘Come On Eileen’

Sotomayor v. Plain Language

The Day After the Fed Rate Hike, Financial Markets Applaud Kevin Warsh, Who Keeps Trump’s Confidence

Could Trump Bring a Surprise Guest to His Parley at the UN?

El-Sayed Tries To Sidestep Furor Over Hasan Piker’s Al Qaeda Comments — Says He’s More Concerned About Trump’s ‘Dangerous Policies’

GOP Congresswoman in Deep-Red District Faces Backlash Over New Ad Bashing Trump’s Immigration Policies

President Xi, a Week Before White House Summit, May Be Showing the Strain of Diplomacy

An Acquittal for the Vandal of Churchill’s Statue

More from the New York Sun

The Unlikely Afterlife of ‘Come On Eileen’

Sotomayor v. Plain Language

The Day After the Fed Rate Hike, Financial Markets Applaud Kevin Warsh, Who Keeps Trump’s Confidence

Could Trump Bring a Surprise Guest to His Parley at the UN?

El-Sayed Tries To Sidestep Furor Over Hasan Piker’s Al Qaeda Comments — Says He’s More Concerned About Trump’s ‘Dangerous Policies’

GOP Congresswoman in Deep-Red District Faces Backlash Over New Ad Bashing Trump’s Immigration Policies

President Xi, a Week Before White House Summit, May Be Showing the Strain of Diplomacy

An Acquittal for the Vandal of Churchill’s Statue