Johannesburg, South Africa — United States President Donald Trump this week threatened to cut all funding to South Africa over what he claims are illegal land grabs by authorities in Pretoria.
Trump’s assertion is grounded in the myth that white South Africans are the targets of unlawful land confiscations, something South Africa’s government has vehemently denied.
“South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday. “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 this situation has been completed!”
In response, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa swiftly denied any government-sanctioned land seizures, saying on X: “The South African government has not confiscated any land.”
Last month South Africa adopted the Expropriation Act, a law helping the state take back land that’s in the public interest, with agreement, to address disparities in ownership that were caused by decades of racist apartheid rule.
Ramaphosa defended the law, explaining that it serves to facilitate public access to land rather than act as a “confiscation instrument”.
“South Africa, like the United States of America and other countries, has always had expropriation laws that balance the need for public usage of land and the protection of the rights of property owners,” Ramaphosa elaborated in a statement following Trump’s comments.
South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is deeply rooted in the rule of law, justice and equality. The South African government has not confiscated any land.
The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal…
— Cyril Ramaphosa 🇿🇦 (@CyrilRamaphosa) February 3, 2025
Amid the debate, South Africa-born billionaire and Trump’s close adviser Elon Musk also weighed in, accusing Ramaphosa’s government of “openly racist ownership laws” while South Africa’s mineral resources minister said if Trump cuts off funding, South Africa should consider withholding mineral exports to the US.
So, what’s behind South Africa’s land policy, are certain groups really being targeted in the country, and why has Trump made these comments now? Here’s what to know:
What is land expropriation, and why is it happening?
The Expropriation Act was signed into law by Ramaphosa in January. It would make it easier for the state to expropriate some land with the aim of addressing racial disparities in ownership after apartheid in 1994.
South Africa’s government says the law does not allow it to expropriate property arbitrarily, and that the landowner must reach an agreement.
The government asserts that the law enables a “constitutionally mandated legal process” and that it allows for expropriation without compensation in circumstances deemed “just and equitable and in the public interest”.
Commenting on the implementation of the Expropriation Act, land expert and South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said it is a legislative process designed to streamline government access to land for public interest.
“The hysteria about the Expropriation Act is mischievous,” he said, emphasising that the law does not allow for the land grabs as alleged.
Ngcukaitobi explained that the Act permits “nil compensation” for land deemed necessary for the public good, which may include property that is unused or poses risks to the public.
“The mischief has been the misrepresentation, as if [to say] expropriation has never happened and what the ANC wants to do is Zimbabwe-style land grabs, which is plainly not the case,” he said, referring to Ramaphosa’s party, the African National Congress.
Does the government unfairly target white South Africans?
Trump’s comments on Sunday that South Africa was “treating certain classes of people” very badly were made without providing any evidence. His words harked back to his first administration when he restated unproven claims that there were “large-scale killings” of white South African farmers taking place; at the time Pretoria said Trump was misinformed.
AfriForum, a right-wing lobby group representing the interests of Afrikaans-speaking white South Africans, has lobbied Trump and the US Congress, alleging that property rights are under threat following the passage of the Expropriation Act.
For years before that, the group persistently sought right-leaning support in the US, promoting the narrative that white landowners face unfair racial laws that could lead to property confiscation and that there is a widespread, politically motivated campaign against white farmers.
This also fed into myths appearing on social media in recent years that there is a “white genocide” taking place in South Africa – claims that have repeatedly been refuted.
Researchers and academics have debunked claims that farm attacks and robberies are politically motivated, arguing instead that they are part of a broader violent crime issue in South Africa, which is one of the most dangerous countries in the world.
Criminologist Professor Rudolph Zinn emphasised, “South Africa clearly has a problem with violent crime,” noting that violent incidents are not confined to white-owned farms.
In light of Trump’s statements this week, AfriForum announced plans to lobby the US government for sanctions against ANC politicians, asserting that South African residents should not have to bear the consequences of Trump’s remarks. However, many argue that AfriForum’s spreading of misinformation on this issue is in part responsible for framing the narrative that Trump now believes.
What is the history of land dispossession in South Africa?
The dispossession of people from their lands – particularly Black and Indigenous people – was a core feature of South Africa’s history, deeply intertwined with the country’s brutal apartheid regime and preceding years of colonialism.
A pivotal law, the Natives Land Act of 1913, restricted Black South Africans from purchasing or renting land in designated “white South Africa”, resulting in the forced removal of Indigenous populations.
According to the Freedom Charter, a cornerstone document drafted during the anti-apartheid struggle and a foundation for the current constitution, land should “belong to all who live in it”. But 30 years after apartheid ended, land inequality remains stark, with the majority Black population still the worst off.
South Africa’s government has grappled with land ownership issues since the advent of democracy in 1994, with land reform discussions becoming increasingly relevant in political discourse.
White South Africans make up a little over 7 percent of the population, according to the latest census. But they own more than 70 percent of all privately owned farmland in the country, according to government data from 2017.
The ongoing disparities in land ownership, which remain skewed largely in favour of a minority, have brought a need for reform and expropriation, experts say.
This longstanding context complicates the narrative presented by Trump and his supporters, as it reflects an ongoing struggle for a more equitable distribution of land among South Africa’s diverse populations.
Why is South Africa’s land policy an issue for Trump now?
Political analyst Ongama Mtimka said that Trump’s comments could have been motivated by misinformation, but were also part of a broader coercive foreign policy agenda.
“Trump is either ill-informed, but he is well aware of what it means but he is manipulating sentiments to get the ANC to fall into line as far as its foreign policy choices. It is part of Trump’s coercive foreign policy strategy,” he said.
Trump’s threat to cut aid to South Africa comes as he has imposed punitive sanctions on countries like Canada and Mexico and suspended funding to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) for the next three months.
Mtimka said South Africa’s stance in censuring Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its genocide in Gaza may also have motivated Trump’s stance. “It definitely has something to do with it,” he said.
This is not the first time Trump has raised the issue of purported attacks on white South Africans. When he was president in 2018, he said on Twitter that he had directed his secretary of state at the time, Mike Pompeo, to look into “land and farm seizures” and “the large-scale killing of farmers” in South Africa.
Mtimka said he would not be surprised if Trump’s comments were influenced by his close adviser, Musk, who has long criticised South Africa’s government’s transformation policies.
In 2023, Musk accused Ramaphosa’s government of allowing a “genocide” to happen against white farmers.
Following Trump’s new comments, Musk added to the matter on Monday by replying to a post by Ramaphosa’s official account on X with the question: “Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?”
Since then, Ramaphosa’s office announced that the pair had a conversation “on issues of misinformation and distortions” about South Africa.
“In the process, the president reiterated South Africa’s constitutionality embedded values of the respect of the rule of law, justice, fairness and equality,” the South African Presidency said.
What do Trump’s statements mean for South Africa-US relations?
The South African government said it was keen to engage diplomatically with the US over the country’s land reform policy and that the country was committed to its constitutional democracy.
Ramaphosa further noted that he would engage Trump.
“We are certain that out of those engagements, we will share a better and common understanding over these matters,” he said.
While Ramaphosa took a measured approach to Trump’s threat, South African Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe’s response was more pointed.
Speaking at a mining conference on Monday, he suggested that South Africa should consider withholding its mineral exports to the US if the funding cutoff takes place. This is significant, as South Africa exports a variety of minerals to the US, including platinum, iron and manganese.
According to a Reuters report, South Africa received approximately $440m in aid from the US in 2023. However, South Africa downplayed the consequences of Trump’s bid to cut aid, saying that the US provides no other significant funding besides the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which Ramaphosa said constitutes only 17 percent of South Africa’s programmes to combat HIV/AIDS.
Mtimka said while South Africa should not tolerate disrespect, it cannot believe it does not need the US as it is South Africa’s second-largest export partner. “Foolish radicalism is not going to do us much,” he said.
South Africa benefits from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which allows duty-free access to the US market for a significant portion of South African goods. AGOA is set to expire in September 2025.
On Monday, in the wake of Trump’s threat, South Africa’s rand, stocks and government bonds all slumped, as the comments caused investor unease regarding the two countries’ diplomatic and economic ties.
