Donald Gainsborough is a heavyweight in the policy world, currently at the helm of Government Curated, where he navigates the intersection of global energy security and legislative strategy. With decades spent dissecting the political shifts of the Sahel, he has become a go-to authority for understanding how strategic minerals dictate the foreign policy of the world’s superpowers. Today, we discuss the high-stakes pivot the United States is making back into Niger through a massive investment in the Dasa uranium project. This move comes at a critical juncture as Western powers attempt to counter Russian expansion and repair strained diplomatic ties in West Africa following recent military upheavals.
The U.S. Development Finance Corporation’s decision to back the Dasa project with $414 million signals a major shift in strategy after the withdrawal of American troops. How does this transition from military presence to economic statecraft redefine the U.S. role in the Sahel?
This is a calculated gamble to maintain a footprint in a region that was rapidly slipping into the orbit of rival powers. When the United States agreed to withdraw about 1,000 troops two years ago—after the military government labeled the U.S. presence “illegal”—many thought Washington’s influence in Niamey was dead. However, by committing as much as $414 million in debt financing to Global Atomic’s Dasa project, the U.S. is signaling that its interests are now tied to the soil rather than just the barracks. This project is the highest-grade uranium deposit in Africa, and controlling its flow is a strategic necessity that transcends traditional military cooperation. It represents a pivot toward deal-making that prioritize energy security, especially since uranium was added to the U.S. critical minerals list just last year.
With Niger being the seventh-largest uranium producer, the Dasa project sits at the center of a geopolitical tug-of-war. What are the implications of the U.S. backing a Canadian firm while France’s Orano faces increasing hostility from the local government?
The landscape is shifting beneath the feet of the old guard, and the friction is palpable. For decades, the French state-backed miner Orano dominated the sector, but that relationship has essentially disintegrated following the 2023 coup and the subsequent expulsion of French forces. By backing Global Atomic, a Canadian miner, the U.S. is providing a Western alternative that doesn’t carry the same historical baggage as France while still securing vital energy resources. This investment also acts as a much-needed bridge in U.S.-Canada relations, which have been somewhat frayed by recent trade disputes. It is a pragmatic maneuver: if the U.S. doesn’t back these projects, the vacuum will be filled by Russia, which has already been providing security support to the military government.
Given the security risks and Niger’s landlocked status, there have been discussions about moving uranium north through Algeria. How do you assess the feasibility and risks of such an ambitious Saharan export route?
The logistics are nothing short of a nightmare, but the necessity of the situation is driving this unconventional thinking. Moving high-value uranium across the Sahara Desert toward the Mediterranean requires not just physical security but a high level of diplomatic alignment with Algiers. We saw Algeria send aircraft to Niger last month to assist the government following an attempted mutiny, which suggests a strengthening of ties between these neighbors. Investing in a northern route could bypass the traditional, often volatile, southern corridors that are prone to interference. However, the sheer vastness of the Sahara means Global Atomic and its backers are looking at a supply chain that is vulnerable to both the elements and insurgent activity, requiring a level of protection that goes beyond simple private security.
The recent attempted mutiny in Niamey and the subsequent accusations against foreign powers highlight the volatility of the region. How can a project of this scale survive the internal political tremors currently shaking Niger?
The project has to be built to withstand political shocks as much as physical ones, which is why the involvement of U.S. Ambassador Kathleen FitzGibbon was so pivotal in rebuilding these ties. When soldiers launched attacks on the presidential palace and the military airbase just last month, it served as a stark reminder of how fragile the current administration’s grip can be. The fact that Niger later accused France of orchestrating that offensive shows just how deep the suspicion of foreign meddling runs. For Dasa to survive, it must be perceived not as a foreign extraction tool but as a cornerstone of Niger’s own economic survival. The $414 million isn’t just a loan; it’s a diplomatic shield that provides the military government with a reason to keep the U.S. at the table even as they lean on Russia for security.
What is your forecast for the power balance in West Africa as these strategic mineral investments collide with local military governance?
We are entering an era of “resource realism” where the U.S. will likely tolerate significant political volatility to secure the 20% of uranium global markets need. I expect that Niger will continue to leverage its position as the seventh-largest producer to play Washington, Moscow, and Beijing against each other, ensuring it never becomes too dependent on a single partner. While the security risks—illustrated by the armored military vehicles now standard on the streets of Niamey—remain high, the sheer grade of the Dasa deposit makes it too valuable for any party to let fail. Ultimately, the success of this project will determine if Western economic diplomacy can truly compete with the boots-on-the-ground influence of rival powers in the Sahel. Over the next few years, the ability to export safely through Algeria or other routes will be the ultimate litmus test for this $414 million bet.
