US President Donald Trump froze assistance to South Africa in climbing an increasing diplomatic fracture between his administration and Pretoria on a controversial law on the expropriation of land aimed at combating inequalities resulting from the ‘apartheid.
In an executive decree signed on Friday, Trump condemned the law, describing it as a “shocking contempt” for the rights of citizens and claiming that it would allow the government to seize the land of the Afrikaners ethnic minority without compensation. Its administration argues that the Expropriation Act, signed last month by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, follows “countless” policies designed to dismantle equal opportunities, as well as “hateful rhetoric” and The actions of the government which led to violence against the land owners “racily disadvantaged”.
Trump also linked his decision to broader foreign policy, accusing South Africa to take “aggressive positions” against the United States and its allies. He quoted the accusation of Pretoria of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and his strengthening of relations with Iran as examples of politicians which undermine the interests of Washington.
Register For TEKEDIA Mini-MBA Edition 16 (February 10 – May 3, 2025)) Today for early reductions.
Tekedia Ai in Masterclass Business open registration.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-INivest in large world startups.
Register become a better CEO or director with CEO program and director of Tekedia.
“The United States cannot support the Commission for Rights of Rights from the Government of South Africa in its country or its satriage [of] The United States’s foreign policy, which constitutes national security threats to our nation, our allies, our African partners and our interests, “said Trump.
His decision follows an increasingly hostile series of exchanges between the two nations. Since Sunday, Trump has accused the administration of Ramaphosa of “confiscation of land” and mistreated “certain classes of people”. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio increased tensions on Wednesday by announcing that he would boycott the next group of 20 talks (G20) in Johannesburg, citing the land policies of South Africa and other “very bad things” in the country.
Ramaphosa Defiant, minimizes American aid on the HIV program
In response to Trump’s threats, Ramaphosa has remained provocative, insisting that South Africa will not bow to external pressure. Earlier this week, he responded to concerns about the potential impact of withdrawal of aid, in particular with regard to health financing. The United States is a major contributor to the South African HIV response program, but Ramaphosa has rejected the importance of support, noting that it represents only 17% of the country’s total HIV budget.
Her comments have indicated that Pretoria does not consider American financial assistance as essential, suggesting that the country is ready to continue its fight against HIV / AIDS with the support of Washington.
“We will not be dissuaded. We are a resilient people. We will not be intimidated, “said Ramaphosa in an address in Parliament on Thursday.
Under the Expropriation Act, the South African government can seize land without compensation where it is deemed “fair and fair and in the public interest”, as in cases where the land is not used, and After the efforts to reach an agreement with the owner failed. Ramaphosa and the African National Congress (ANC) argue that legislation is necessary to approach the vast disparities in land ownership resulting from colonial domination and apartheid. However, no land has been expropriated under the law so far.
Pretoria thinks Musk is behind Trump’s reprisals
While Trump has drawn up his decision to respond to human rights violations and the positions of South African foreign policy, Pretoria officials think there is another factor at stake: Elon Musk. The South African authorities suspect that the billionaire, a vocal supporter of Trump and a fierce critic of the ONY government, played a role in the influence of Washington’s hard position against Pretoria.
Speculations arise from the confusion of Musk with South Africa on its refusal to grant a license to its satellite internet service, Starlink. The country was held firm on its requirements according to which Starlink must be associated with a local service provider to operate legally, a Musk movement has openly criticized as unnecessary regulatory administrative formalities designed to stifle competition. With its satellite network developing quickly around the world, Musk has become more and more frustrated by the resistance of South Africa, and Pretoria thinks that its influence in the inner circle of Trump may have contributed to the decision American to freeze help.
Musk, who was born in South Africa but who has long broken links with the country, frequently used its platform to attack the ONY government. His criticisms intensified after the government rejected the Starlink application, Musk accusing the South African authorities of preventing citizens from accessing free market solutions to Internet connectivity. His comments resonated with Trump, who has a story of alignment with Musk on various political questions, in particular in opposition to regulatory surveillance.
The decision to freeze aid has revived the debates on land ownership and racial inequalities in South Africa. Land distribution remains one of the most controversial questions in the country, given the lasting inheritance of apartheid. While black South Africans constitute more than 80% of the population, they hold only 4% of private agricultural land, according to an audit of the 2017 government. On the other hand, the white South Africans-which represent about 7% of The population – control approximately three -quarters of the field.
Critics of the Expropriation Act, including opposition parties such as Democratic Alliance (DA), warn that policy could dissuade foreign investments and lead to economic instability. The DA, which attracts most of its support from white, Indian and multiracial South Africans, has also expressed its concerns about Trump’s reprisals, but rejects that the law authorizes arbitrary crises.
Trump’s broader repression against foreign assistance adds to controversies. Its administration has aggressively reduced foreign aid, in particular the dismantling of the American Agency for International Development (USAID). According to the most recent data, Washington allocated around $ 440 million in South African aid in 2023.
Despite potential economic ramifications, the Ramaphosa government seems determined to move forward with its policies. With the tensions that are put between the two nations and the suspicions that develop on the role of Musk in the dispute, the confrontation between South Africa and the United States is unlikely to be resolved as soon as.
