Johannesburg, South Africa — United States President Donald Trump this week threatened to chop all funding to South Africa over what he claims are unlawful land grabs by authorities in Pretoria.
Trump’s assertion is grounded within the fable that white South Africans are the targets of illegal land confiscations, one thing South Africa’s authorities has vehemently denied.
“South Africa is confiscating land, and treating sure courses of individuals VERY BADLY,” Trump wrote in a Reality Social put up on Sunday. “The US received’t stand for it, we are going to act. Additionally, I will probably be reducing off all future funding to South Africa till a full investigation of this example has been accomplished!”
In response, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa swiftly denied any government-sanctioned land seizures, saying on X: “The South African authorities has not confiscated any land.”
Final month South Africa adopted the Expropriation Act, a regulation serving to the state take again land that’s within the public curiosity, with settlement, to deal with disparities in possession that have been attributable to many years of racist apartheid rule.
Ramaphosa defended the regulation, explaining that it serves to facilitate public entry to land slightly than act as a “confiscation instrument”.
“South Africa, like the USA of America and different nations, has all the time had expropriation legal guidelines that steadiness the necessity for public utilization of land and the safety of the rights of property homeowners,” Ramaphosa elaborated in an announcement following Trump’s feedback.
South Africa is a constitutional democracy that’s deeply rooted within the rule of regulation, justice and equality. The South African authorities has not confiscated any land.
The lately adopted Expropriation Act is just not a confiscation instrument, however a constitutionally mandated authorized…
— Cyril Ramaphosa 🇿🇦 (@CyrilRamaphosa) February 3, 2025
Amid the controversy, South Africa-born billionaire and Trump’s shut adviser Elon Musk additionally weighed in, accusing Ramaphosa’s authorities of “brazenly racist possession legal guidelines” whereas South Africa’s mineral sources minister stated if Trump cuts off funding, South Africa ought to take into account withholding mineral exports to the US.
So, what’s behind South Africa’s land coverage, are sure teams actually being focused within the nation, and why has Trump made these feedback now? Right here’s what to know:
What’s land expropriation, and why is it taking place?
The Expropriation Act was signed into regulation by Ramaphosa in January. It will make it simpler for the state to expropriate some land with the goal of addressing racial disparities in possession after apartheid in 1994.
South Africa’s authorities says the regulation doesn’t enable it to expropriate property arbitrarily, and that the landowner should attain an settlement.
The federal government asserts that the regulation permits a “constitutionally mandated authorized course of” and that it permits for expropriation with out compensation in circumstances deemed “simply and equitable and within the public curiosity”.
Commenting on the implementation of the Expropriation Act, land skilled and South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi stated it’s a legislative course of designed to streamline authorities entry to land for public curiosity.
“The hysteria concerning the Expropriation Act is mischievous,” he stated, emphasising that the regulation doesn’t enable for the land grabs as alleged.
Ngcukaitobi defined that the Act permits “nil compensation” for land deemed vital for the general public good, which can embrace property that’s unused or poses dangers to the general public.
“The mischief has been the misrepresentation, as if [to say] expropriation has by no means occurred and what the ANC desires to do is Zimbabwe-style land grabs, which is plainly not the case,” he stated, referring to Ramaphosa’s social gathering, the African Nationwide Congress.
Does the federal government unfairly goal white South Africans?
Trump’s feedback on Sunday that South Africa was “treating sure courses of individuals” very badly have been made with out offering any proof. His phrases harked again to his first administration when he restated unproven claims that there have been “large-scale killings” of white South African farmers going down; on the time Pretoria stated Trump was misinformed.
AfriForum, a right-wing foyer group representing the pursuits of Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans, has lobbied Trump and the US Congress, alleging that property rights are below risk following the passage of the Expropriation Act.
For years earlier than that, the group persistently sought right-leaning assist within the US, selling the narrative that white landowners face unfair racial legal guidelines that might result in property confiscation and that there’s a widespread, politically motivated marketing campaign in opposition to white farmers.
This additionally fed into myths showing on social media lately that there’s a “white genocide” going down in South Africa – claims which have repeatedly been refuted.
Researchers and lecturers have debunked claims that farm assaults and robberies are politically motivated, arguing as an alternative that they’re a part of a broader violent crime concern in South Africa, which is likely one of the most harmful nations on the planet.
Criminologist Professor Rudolph Zinn emphasised, “South Africa clearly has an issue with violent crime,” noting that violent incidents aren’t confined to white-owned farms.
In mild of Trump’s statements this week, AfriForum introduced plans to foyer the US authorities for sanctions in opposition to ANC politicians, asserting that South African residents shouldn’t should bear the implications of Trump’s remarks. Nonetheless, many argue that AfriForum’s spreading of misinformation on this concern is partly liable for framing the narrative that Trump now believes.
What’s the historical past of land dispossession in South Africa?
The dispossession of individuals from their lands – significantly Black and Indigenous folks – was a core characteristic of South Africa’s historical past, deeply intertwined with the nation’s brutal apartheid regime and previous years of colonialism.
A pivotal regulation, the Natives Land Act of 1913, restricted Black South Africans from buying or renting land in designated “white South Africa”, ensuing within the compelled removing of Indigenous populations.
In line with the Freedom Constitution, a cornerstone doc drafted in the course of the anti-apartheid battle and a basis for the present structure, land ought to “belong to all who dwell in it”. However 30 years after apartheid ended, land inequality stays stark, with the bulk Black inhabitants nonetheless the worst off.
South Africa’s authorities has grappled with land possession points because the introduction of democracy in 1994, with land reform discussions turning into more and more related in political discourse.
White South Africans make up a bit over 7 % of the inhabitants, in accordance with the newest census. However they personal greater than 70 % of all privately owned farmland within the nation, in accordance with authorities information from 2017.
The continuing disparities in land possession, which stay skewed largely in favour of a minority, have introduced a necessity for reform and expropriation, specialists say.
This longstanding context complicates the narrative introduced by Trump and his supporters, because it displays an ongoing battle for a extra equitable distribution of land amongst South Africa’s numerous populations.
Why is South Africa’s land coverage a problem for Trump now?
Political analyst Ongama Mtimka stated that Trump’s feedback might have been motivated by misinformation, however have been additionally a part of a broader coercive international coverage agenda.
“Trump is both ill-informed, however he’s effectively conscious of what it means however he’s manipulating sentiments to get the ANC to fall into line so far as its international coverage selections. It’s a part of Trump’s coercive international coverage technique,” he stated.
Trump’s risk to chop assist to South Africa comes as he has imposed punitive sanctions on nations like Canada and Mexico and suspended funding to the US Company for Worldwide Growth (USAID) for the subsequent three months.
Mtimka stated South Africa’s stance in censuring Israel on the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (ICJ) over its genocide in Gaza may have motivated Trump’s stance. “It undoubtedly has one thing to do with it,” he stated.
This isn’t the primary time Trump has raised the problem of purported assaults on white South Africans. When he was president in 2018, he stated on Twitter that he had directed his secretary of state on the time, Mike Pompeo, to look into “land and farm seizures” and “the large-scale killing of farmers” in South Africa.
Mtimka stated he wouldn’t be shocked if Trump’s feedback have been influenced by his shut adviser, Musk, who has lengthy criticised South Africa’s authorities’s transformation insurance policies.
In 2023, Musk accused Ramaphosa’s authorities of permitting a “genocide” to occur in opposition to white farmers.
Following Trump’s new feedback, Musk added to the matter on Monday by replying to a put up by Ramaphosa’s official account on X with the query: “Why do you’ve got brazenly racist possession legal guidelines?”
Since then, Ramaphosa’s workplace introduced that the pair had a conversation “on problems with misinformation and distortions” about South Africa.
“Within the course of, the president reiterated South Africa’s constitutionality embedded values of the respect of the rule of regulation, justice, equity and equality,” the South African Presidency stated.
What do Trump’s statements imply for South Africa-US relations?
The South African authorities stated it was eager to have interaction diplomatically with the US over the nation’s land reform coverage and that the nation was dedicated to its constitutional democracy.
Ramaphosa additional famous that he would have interaction Trump.
“We’re sure that out of these engagements, we are going to share a greater and customary understanding over these issues,” he stated.
Whereas Ramaphosa took a measured method to Trump’s risk, South African Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Assets Gwede Mantashe’s response was extra pointed.
Talking at a mining convention on Monday, he steered that South Africa ought to take into account withholding its mineral exports to the US if the funding cutoff takes place. That is vital, as South Africa exports quite a lot of minerals to the US, together with platinum, iron and manganese.
In line with a Reuters report, South Africa obtained roughly $440m in assist from the US in 2023. Nonetheless, South Africa downplayed the implications of Trump’s bid to chop assist, saying that the US offers no different vital funding apart from the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Reduction (PEPFAR), which Ramaphosa stated constitutes solely 17 % of South Africa’s programmes to fight HIV/AIDS.
Mtimka stated whereas South Africa shouldn’t tolerate disrespect, it can not imagine it doesn’t want the US as it’s South Africa’s second-largest export associate. “Silly radicalism is just not going to do us a lot,” he stated.
South Africa advantages from the African Development and Alternative Act (AGOA), which permits duty-free entry to the US marketplace for a good portion of South African items. AGOA is about to run out in September 2025.
On Monday, within the wake of Trump’s risk, South Africa’s rand, shares and authorities bonds all slumped, because the feedback induced investor unease concerning the 2 nations’ diplomatic and financial ties.
