Department of Research, Studies and International News 12-02-2025

Relations between the United States and South Africa have reached a new low following an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump, effectively freezing American aid to the African nation. The decision, which Trump justified by citing South Africa’s recently passed land expropriation law, marks a significant turning point in the diplomatic ties between the two countries. While the aid suspension is the latest flashpoint, it is merely the culmination of years of mounting tensions rooted in a complex mix of economic, political, and ideological disagreements.

From South Africa’s growing partnerships with China and Russia to its vocal criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, the friction between Washington and Pretoria has intensified on multiple fronts. If these tensions continue to escalate, both nations stand to suffer serious economic and strategic consequences.

Trump’s Justification for the Aid Freeze

On February 2, President Trump took to his Truth Social platform to criticize South Africa’s new land expropriation law, accusing the government of “confiscating land” and treating “certain classes of people VERY BADLY.” He pledged swift U.S. action, adding:

“The United States won’t stand for it, we will act. Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of the situation has been completed!”

Shortly after, on February 7, Trump signed an executive order formalizing the aid suspension. The document explicitly accused South African authorities of targeting white farmers, specifically the Afrikaner minority, by allowing the government to seize agricultural land without compensation. It further claimed that the law was part of a broader pattern of policies that restricted equal opportunities in employment, education, and business while fueling anti-white rhetoric.

In an unusual move, the executive order also included an offer to resettle Afrikaner South Africans in the U.S. However, several Afrikaner organizations, even those that have been vocal critics of the South African government, rejected the proposal outright.

A Broader Campaign Against South Africa?

The American president’s sharp criticism of South Africa did not remain an isolated statement. Several high-profile Trump allies quickly echoed his sentiments, amplifying the pressure on Pretoria.

Among them was U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who went beyond merely condemning the land expropriation law. On February 7, Rubio announced that he would boycott the upcoming G20 summit in Johannesburg, stating:

“I will NOT attend G20 summit in Johannesburg. South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property.”

Adding fuel to the fire, billionaire businessman and Trump advisor Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, also weighed in. Responding to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s defense of the land law, Musk bluntly questioned:

“Why do you have openly racist laws?”

This concerted attack by prominent American figures suggests that the land expropriation issue is being used as a focal point to justify broader U.S. discontent with South Africa’s policies.

Fact-Checking the Land Expropriation Law: Is Trump’s Claim Justified?

Despite the dramatic rhetoric coming from Trump and his allies, experts have urged caution in comparing South Africa’s land reform policies to the disastrous land seizures carried out in Zimbabwe in the early 2000s.

According to analysts, South Africa’s expropriation law does not permit arbitrary confiscation of land. Instead, it lays out a legal framework that requires authorities to first seek a negotiated settlement with landowners before resorting to expropriation. Compensation is still mandated in most cases, and land can only be taken for public purposes, such as infrastructure development, or in the interest of land reform.

The root of the issue lies in South Africa’s historical land ownership disparities. More than 30 years after the end of apartheid, white South Africans, who make up roughly 7% of the population, still own over 70% of the country’s land. The government has framed the land reform law as an effort to address this imbalance.

Nevertheless, Trump’s accusations against South Africa are not new. During his first term in office in 2018, he falsely claimed that South Africa was experiencing “large-scale killings” of white farmers, an assertion that lacked any credible evidence. At the time, the South African government dismissed Trump’s remarks as being based on misinformation.

The Israel Factor: Has South Africa’s Stance on Gaza Contributed to U.S. Hostility?

While the land expropriation law has been the primary justification for Trump’s latest move, another key factor behind the growing rift is South Africa’s strong opposition to Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

In December 2023, South Africa formally accused Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The case has garnered international attention, with the ICJ issuing interim measures against Israel, though a final ruling is still pending.

South Africa’s diplomatic offensive against Israel sparked outrage in Washington, where members of Congress introduced a bill in early 2024 seeking to punish Pretoria. The bill accused South Africa of aligning itself with “malign actors,” including Hamas and Iran.

During a visit to Washington, then-Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor attempted to explain South Africa’s position, highlighting the country’s own history of apartheid as a key reason for its solidarity with Palestinians. However, her efforts did little to sway U.S. lawmakers.

Trump’s executive order and Rubio’s comments also referenced South Africa’s position on Israel as part of their justification for punitive actions against Pretoria.

South Africa’s Strategic Shift Toward Russia and China

Another critical issue straining U.S.-South Africa relations is Pretoria’s growing alignment with Washington’s geopolitical rivals, particularly Russia and China.

In May 2023, the U.S. ambassador to South Africa accused the country of secretly supplying weapons to Russia for its war in Ukraine. Although a South African government investigation later concluded there was “no evidence” to support the allegation, the controversy dealt a significant blow to South Africa’s international standing.

Further complicating matters, South Africa conducted joint naval exercises with Russia and China in early 2023, a move that Washington viewed with suspicion.

Despite these tensions, South Africa has attempted to maintain a delicate balance between its relationships with the West and its ties with Russia and China. For instance, while it took Israel to the ICJ, South Africa also continued its trade relations with Tel Aviv. Additionally, it successfully convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin not to attend the 2023 BRICS summit in Johannesburg to avoid violating an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant.

What’s at Stake? The Economic and Diplomatic Fallout of U.S.-South Africa Tensions

The current trajectory of U.S.-South Africa relations poses risks for both countries. The United States is South Africa’s fourth-largest import source and its second-largest export destination after China. In 2022, South African exports to the U.S. were valued at nearly $11 billion.

South Africa also benefits significantly from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a U.S. law that grants African countries preferential trade access. However, with tensions rising, there is now a growing possibility that South Africa could lose its AGOA privileges under a second Trump administration.

On the other hand, Washington also has a lot to lose. South Africa is the U.S.’s largest trading partner in Africa, and approximately 600 American companies operate in the country. South Africa’s democratic institutions and strategic location also make it a valuable partner in a region where many nations have drifted toward authoritarianism.

Conclusion

With Trump’s latest decision to cut aid and the broader diplomatic fallout over land expropriation, Israel, and South Africa’s ties with Russia and China, the relationship between Washington and Pretoria appears to be at a crossroads. Whether these tensions will continue to escalate or whether diplomatic efforts will prevent a complete rupture remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear, both countries have a lot to lose if relations continue to deteriorate.