- US President Donald Trump has accused South Africa of confiscating land, ‘treating certain classes of people very badly’ and of violating their rights. His words to the South African government describe the fundamentals of apartheid.
Thirty-one years after South Africa became a democracy, US President Donald Trump has accused the country of stamping on the rights of certain residents and treating them badly.
While Trump’s claims refer to present-day South Africa, his words happen to detail what transpired decades ago pre-1994 under apartheid.
The impacts of that regime are still apparent in this country, especially among those it targeted.
The US Department of State refers to apartheid as “a system of governance that formalized the political subjugation of the majority non-white population”, while another US government site describes it as the “harsh, institutionalized system of racial segregation”.
Like he is doing now, Trump, in his previous capacity as US president in 2018, lashed out at the South African government.
And that had also involved the issue of land.
In that previous incident, he referenced claims about South Africa seizing land from white farmers and the killing of farmers.
While farmer killings, like all other murders, are a problem in South Africa, Trump’s stance fed into the “white genocide” narrative.
In that 2018 saga, the South African government had rebutted, saying Trump’s comments were “unfortunate”.
Now he is at it again.
‘Cutting future funding’
On Monday, 3 February 2025, Trump stated on the Truth Social platform: “South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY.
“It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to so much as mention. A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. 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!”
Trump’s future funding cuts to this country are, in a sense, amplifying the age-old “divide and conquer” strategy, which was the basis of apartheid.
He made the accusations about land confiscations and a human rights violation presumably in response to President Cyril Ramaphosa recently signing the Expropriation Bill into law.
Confiscation claims vs the Constitution
The most contentious part of the Bill appears to be that it is: “To provide for certain instances where expropriation with nil compensation may be appropriate in the public interest.”
In other words, the government may, in certain instances, seize land without compensation.
Circumstances for this include: “Where the land is not being used and the owner’s main purpose is not to develop the land or use it to generate income, but to benefit from appreciation of its market value.”
On Monday, in response to Trump’s accusations, President Ramaphosa emphasised that South Africa’s democracy was rooted in law, justice and equality.
“The South African government has not confiscated any land,” he countered.
“The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the Constitution.”
South African-born Trump ally Elon Musk then weighed in.
In reaction to Ramaphosa, Musk posted on X: “Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?”
While Trump, in his accusations, did not specify which “certain classes of people” were being treated “very badly” in and by South Africa, it appears he was referencing people who own land, in other words, people who have not been historically disadvantaged.
In other words, white people.
If so, there is irony to this because Trump’s accusations and assertions are applicable to apartheid, and he is, in a sense, creating the impression of reverse apartheid in South Africa.
Much like Musk’s response to Ramaphosa on X does.
This is a breakdown of Trump’s accusations and his assertion, and how these fit into what happened during apartheid.
‘South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY’ = apartheid’s Natives Land Act and Group Areas Act
The South African government labelled the 1913 Natives Land Act as “apartheid’s original sin”.
A section on land reform on the government’s official website explains: “The 1913 Natives Land Act saw thousands of black families forcibly removed from their land by the apartheid government.
“The Act became law on 19 June 1913 limiting African land ownership to 7 percent and later 13 percent…
“The Act restricted black people from buying or occupying land. The apartheid government began the mass relocation of black people to poor homelands and to poorly planned and serviced townships.”
Under apartheid, the Group Areas Act of 1950 was also enforced, and this resulted in residents being segregated according to skin colour.
This led to forced removals, with “non-white” residents being made to relocate to areas further away from business hubs and with fewer resources.
Land was therefore seized – confiscated – to maintain apartheid’s racist status quo.
Using Trump’s words, and to put it mildly, under apartheid “certain classes of people” were indeed treated “very badly”.
‘It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to so much as mention’ = claim reminiscent of apartheid media censorship or media complicity with that regime
If Trump is indeed referencing South Africa’s Expropriation Bill now being law, as it appears he is, then it is important to point out that the media has reported on the issue extensively in South Africa, and further afield.
Under apartheid, there were censorship laws, and the government tried to control the media. (Those censorship laws are no longer in effect.)
In various cases, the media was complicit in upholding apartheid, so, what Trump is now saying about certain media not wanting to mention “a bad situation” in a way reflects what happened under apartheid.
To be clear though, South Africa’s land expropriation matter has been widely reported on, locally and internationally.
If Trump is suggesting it has not been reported on via his lens of viewing the issue, then that may be indicative of a healthy media not reporting from, or sheerly on, a specific political stance.
‘A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act’ = apartheid violated human rights and was a crime against humanity
Trump’s words here again emphasise what apartheid was – a mass of human rights violations.
Apartheid was a crime against humanity.
The US initially did “stand for it”, but later acted against it.
According to the US Department of State’s Office of the Historian website: “US policy toward the [apartheid] regime underwent a gradual but complete transformation that played an important conflicting role in apartheid’s initial survival and eventual downfall.”
It explained that former US president Harry Truman “chose not to protest the anti-communist South African government’s system of apartheid in an effort to maintain an ally against the Soviet Union in southern Africa”.
The website added: “This set the stage for successive administrations to quietly support the apartheid regime as a stalwart ally against the spread of communism.”
Due to developments, the US later took a stand against apartheid.
Trump has now said “the US won’t stand for” a “massive human rights violation” – that, in effect, became the US’s stance on apartheid.
‘Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!’ = reminiscent of sanctions against apartheid South Africa
Trump’s cutting off of future funding to South Africa is almost a reverse throwback to when the US imposed sanctions on this country to take on the apartheid regime.
The US’s 1986 Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act saw to it that sanctions were imposed against South Africa.
That, to an extent, cut off South Africa economically.
What Trump is doing now, though, in cutting funds to South Africa, will impact the democratic state.
‘False information’
Trump has before pitted himself against the South African government.
In 2018, during his first stint as US president, he posted on X: “I have asked Secretary of State [Mike Pompeo] to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. ‘South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.’”
Trump tagged US conservative media personality Tucker Carlson and Fox News in that post, in which he was presumably referring to what was being reported on there.
South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation had reacted by issuing a statement saying Trump’s post was “based on false information and lobbying by certain South African lobby groups that seek to derail and frustrate the land redistribution programme.”
Another section of the department’s statement said: “The Government of South Africa wishes to caution against alarmist, false, inaccurate and misinformed, as well as – in some cases – politically-motivated statements that do not reflect the policies and intentions of the South African Government.”
Strong then strained relations
Relations between Trump and South Africa have obviously seen better days.
On 27 April 2020, which is Freedom Day in South Africa and commemorates the country’s first democratic elections, Trump had warm words for the country.
He had said: “The United States and South Africa share strong social, economic and educational ties, and I am pleased that our bilateral relationship continues to grow.
“I know that you share my desire to deepen these links in pursuit of mutual prosperity, strengthen our health and security cooperation, and reinforce our people-to-people connections.”
Fast-forward nearly five years and the US-South Africa relationship is clearly taking serious strain.
Things can still be smoothed over, though.
Ramaphosa said on Monday that he looks “forward to engaging with the Trump administration over our land reform policy and issues of bilateral interest”.
As for Trump, last year he stated that if he was jailed for speaking the truth he would “gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela”.
Trump’s actions going forward in relation to land legislation in South Africa now have the potential to either mend his ties with Ramaphosa, or do the opposite, and also make those words about the country’s first democratic president seem even more outlandish.
@Daily Maverick
