In a move that has ignited international controversy, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday to freeze U.S. assistance to South Africa, citing the country’s land reform laws as discriminatory against its white minority.
The order, which accuses South Africa’s government of seizing property from white landowners, also calls for resettling these landowners as “refugees” in the U.S.
This decision aligns closely with the rhetoric of Trump’s close ally, Elon Musk, who has repeatedly criticized South Africa’s policies and amplified claims of racial discrimination against white farmers.
The land reform law in question, the Expropriation Act, was signed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa last month. It allows the government to expropriate land in specific instances where it is unused or deemed in the public interest, aiming to address the stark racial disparities in land ownership rooted in South Africa’s apartheid era.
During apartheid, Black South Africans were forcibly removed from their land, which was then concentrated in the hands of the white minority. Today, white South Africans, who make up just over 7% of the population, own more than 70% of privately owned farmland.
Trump’s executive order claims that the law “blatantly discriminates against ethnic minority Afrikaners,” referring to the white South African population of Dutch, French, and German descent. The order also references South Africa’s recent role in bringing accusations of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice, suggesting that the aid freeze is part of a broader “America First” foreign policy.
Elon Musk, the South Africa-born billionaire and a key Trump ally, has been vocal in his criticism of the land reform law, calling it “openly racist” in a recent social media post. Musk’s comments echo the narrative pushed by AfriForum, a right-wing lobby group representing Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans, which has long claimed that white farmers are being unfairly targeted. AfriForum has actively lobbied U.S. politicians, including Trump, to intervene in South Africa’s domestic policies.
The Afrikaners, who trace their ancestry to 17th-century European colonists, have developed a distinct cultural identity, including their own language, Afrikaans. Many Afrikaners view themselves as integral to South Africa’s history, but their dominance in land ownership is a legacy of colonial and apartheid-era policies that systematically dispossessed Black South Africans. Trump’s plan to grant refugee status to white South African farmers has been widely criticized as a misguided and inflammatory response to a complex historical issue.
President Ramaphosa swiftly denied allegations of government-sanctioned land seizures, stating on X (formerly Twitter): “The South African government has not confiscated any land.” He emphasized that the Expropriation Act is a constitutionally mandated process aimed at facilitating public access to land, not a tool for arbitrary confiscation. Ramaphosa also highlighted that South Africa, like many countries, has long had expropriation laws to balance public needs with property rights.
South African officials and experts have dismissed claims of a “white genocide” or widespread attacks on white farmers as misinformation. Criminologists and researchers have repeatedly debunked these claims, noting that violent crime in South Africa affects all communities and is not racially motivated. Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, a South African lawyer and land expert, called the hysteria around the Expropriation Act “mischievous,” stressing that the law does not permit arbitrary land grabs.
The roots of South Africa’s land inequality lie in centuries of colonialism and apartheid. The Natives Land Act of 1913 restricted Black South Africans from owning or renting land in most of the country, forcing them into overcrowded reserves. Decades of apartheid further entrenched racial disparities, with Black South Africans systematically excluded from land ownership. The Expropriation Act seeks to address these historical injustices by enabling land redistribution in the public interest.
Despite progress since the end of apartheid in 1994, land ownership remains highly unequal. The African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s ruling party, has faced criticism for the slow pace of land reform. However, experts argue that the Expropriation Act is a necessary step toward rectifying these imbalances.
Trump’s decision to cut aid to South Africa is part of a broader pattern of punitive foreign policy measures. His administration has previously targeted countries like Canada and Mexico with tariffs and sanctions, while slashing funding for international aid programs. The aid freeze to South Africa also comes amid heightened tensions over the country’s criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, which Trump has framed as anti-American.
Elon Musk’s influence on Trump’s stance is evident. Musk, who has long criticized South Africa’s government, has used his platform to amplify claims of racial discrimination against white South Africans. His comments have fueled a narrative that aligns with Trump’s “America First” ideology, which often prioritizes the interests of wealthy elites over global equity and justice.
Trump’s executive order has been met with widespread condemnation, both in South Africa and internationally. Critics argue that it undermines South Africa’s sovereignty and perpetuates harmful stereotypes about racial conflict in the country. The plan to resettle white South African farmers as refugees has been particularly controversial, with many viewing it as a cynical ploy to appeal to Trump’s base rather than a genuine humanitarian effort.
South African Mineral Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe suggested that the country could retaliate by withholding mineral exports to the U.S., a significant threat given South Africa’s role as a major supplier of platinum, iron, and manganese. Meanwhile, Ramaphosa has expressed a willingness to engage diplomatically with the U.S., emphasizing South Africa’s commitment to constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
Trump’s decision to punish South Africa over its land reform laws reflects a broader disregard for historical context and global justice. By aligning himself with Elon Musk and AfriForum, Trump has embraced a narrative that prioritizes the interests of a privileged minority over the needs of the majority. This approach stands in stark contrast to the values of fairness, equity, and reconciliation that South Africa’s land reform efforts seek to uphold.
As the world watches this unfolding drama, it is clear that Trump’s actions are not just about South Africa—they are about reinforcing a divisive, exclusionary vision of the world. In doing so, he risks further alienating allies, undermining international cooperation, and perpetuating the very inequalities that South Africa’s land reform laws aim to address. The question now is whether the U.S. will continue down this path of isolation and injustice or embrace a more equitable and inclusive approach to global leadership.