The State Department’s $150 million grant to Zipline represents everything wrong with current “America First” aid policy. This deal positions African governments as paying customers for a proprietary American technology system they’ll never own, control, or truly understand.
Zipline Drone Delivery Impact is Real
With 1.7 million autonomous deliveries and zero reported safety incidents since 2016, the technology clearly works. In addition, the evidence for Zipline’s health impact is compelling and peer-reviewed.
Ghana Health Service documented a 56% reduction in maternal deaths at Zipline-served facilities, driven by faster emergency supply delivery and increased facility-based births. Vaccine delivery costs just $0.27 per dose compared to $0.47 for traditional methods, making it one of the most cost-effective immunization interventions ever measured.
Zipline delivers real health benefits, but at what cost?
6 Reasons African Countries Should Decline Zipline
Health impact alone doesn’t justify a deal structure that creates expensive long-term dependencies without building African capacity. Here are 6 reasons why African governments should demand fundamental changes before signing contracts worth $400 million of their own resources.
1. Vendor Lock-In by Design, Not Accident
The most troubling aspect of this deal isn’t what’s included – it’s what’s excluded. Once Zipline’s proprietary infrastructure becomes embedded in national health systems – drones, charging stations, software platforms, airspace protocols – switching to alternative providers becomes prohibitively expensive.
Ghana’s parliamentary investigation revealed the government pays Zipline a fixed monthly fee regardless of utilization, with 20% interest penalties for late payments. This shifts the risk of under utilization entirely to governments while guaranteeing Zipline predictable revenue.
- No competitive procurement process was involved.
- No technology transfer provisions exist.
- All core intellectual property, R&D, and manufacturing remain in California.
As Mophat Okinyi warned in his analysis of African digital colonialism, technology companies actively lobby local officials for favorable treatment, perpetuating traditional power dynamics that prioritize corporate interests over community needs. The Zipline deal exemplifies this pattern perfectly.
2. Fiscal Sustainability Remains Unproven
The real prize isn’t the $150 million grant – it’s the $400 million in guaranteed utilization fees from African governments over multiple years. What happens when U.S. support ends? Can governments afford these ongoing costs without external subsidy?
Ghana’s parliament has already raised concerns about the fiscal burden. Kenya’s court recently suspended part of its bilateral health agreement with the State Department over health data safety concerns. These early warning signs suggest governments are realizing the hidden costs of seemingly beneficial partnerships.
With contracts priced in U.S. dollars, African health budgets face currency volatility risk that could make these systems unaffordable during economic downturns. No sustainability planning or transition financing appears in the grant structure – a glaring oversight for any responsible development program.
3. Transparency Gaps Violate Accountability Standards
The absence of public documentation for this $150 million taxpayer investment is unacceptable. Searches of SAM, Grants, and USASpending websites returned zero relevant results. No published award numbers, performance metrics, payment milestones, or monitoring frameworks exist.
This stands in stark contrast to the USAID Global Health Supply Chain program that Zipline effectively replaces, which published detailed quarterly reports, task orders by disease area, and congressional oversight mechanisms. The current deal operates in what can only be described as a transparency vacuum.
When analyzing the digital health landscape in sub-Saharan Africa, researchers found that one in five digital health interventions do not have a link to any health service outcomes, largely due to lack of proper evaluation frameworks. The Zipline deal risks becoming another well-funded program with great marketing but insufficient accountability.
4. Unaddressed Data Sovereignty and Privacy Concerns
No public documentation exists regarding who owns the health logistics data Zipline collects, what cybersecurity standards apply, or whether data can be used for commercial purposes beyond public health applications.
Rwanda’s Ministry of Health feeds Zipline data into its national dashboard, creating dependencies on American-controlled systems for critical health surveillance.
As our recent analysis of digital sovereignty noted, we need to ask difficult questions about the long-term implications of our work. Who really benefits from the systems we’re building? African governments deserve clear answers about data governance before committing hundreds of millions to this platform.
5. Opportunity Cost Analysis Reveals Better Alternatives
The $400 million in African government resources required for this grant could fund numerous interventions that build local capacity rather than creating dependencies:
- Strengthening existing government supply chains and cold chain infrastructure
- Supporting African drone manufacturers and logistics companies
- Investing in community health worker programs with proven cost-effectiveness
- Building local technical capacity through university partnerships and training programs
- Establishing regional logistics networks owned and operated by African institutions
The absence of any comparative cost-effectiveness analysis raises serious questions about whether this represents the highest-value use of scarce health resources.
6. “America First” Industrial Policy Dressed as Aid
Jeremy Lewin, Undersecretary of State for Foreign Assistance, explicitly called the grant an example of the innovative, results-driven partnership at the core of the America First foreign assistance agenda. This isn’t development assistance. This is subsidized export promotion for American technology companies.
The grant advances U.S. industrial policy by using aid dollars to de-risk Zipline’s expansion without requiring private capital or equity dilution. African governments become paying customers for American technology, while the U.S. secures diplomatic influence and counters Chinese infrastructure investments.
As our previous analysis of digital colonialism emphasized, humanitarian organizations should focus on programs that transfer skills and knowledge to local populations rather than creating technological dependencies that benefit primarily external actors.
A Better Path Forward: 4 Essential Demands
African governments considering Zipline contracts should demand fundamental restructuring that prioritizes genuine partnership over vendor lock-in:
- Technology Transfer Requirements: Any multi-year contract must include provisions for local manufacturing capacity, training programs for African engineers, and pathways to indigenous ownership of the logistics infrastructure.
- Open Standards and Interoperability: Require open APIs, standardized data formats, and technical specifications that enable integration with alternative providers and prevent proprietary lock-in.
- Data Sovereignty Protections: Publish comprehensive data governance agreements with clear ownership terms, privacy safeguards, cybersecurity audits, and restrictions on commercial use.
- Sunset Clauses and Competition: Include mandatory competitive re-bidding after 5 years, with preference for African providers who meet performance standards, plus clear exit strategies if fiscal sustainability becomes impossible.
Health Impact Doesn’t Excuse Poor Deals
How many technology partnerships promise transformative benefits while creating expensive dependencies that outlast the initial enthusiasm?
The evidence shows Zipline’s drones save lives and reduce costs – genuine achievements that deserve recognition. But innovation doesn’t excuse opacity, and health impact doesn’t justify vendor lock-in.
The current deal structure subsidizes American corporate expansion while positioning African governments as customers rather than partners in building their own technological capacity.
For $400 million, African governments deserve true partnership that:
- Builds local technology and health capabilities,
- Transfers essential technology and methodology practices,
- Creates pathways to digital sovereignty and national ownership.
The health benefits are real, but they could be achieved through better-designed partnerships that prioritize African interests over American export promotion.
