South Africa faces an uphill climb after Trump cuts aid
President Trump’s suspension of U.S. aid to South Africa has sparked diplomatic tensions, drawing an unflattering spotlight to Pretoria.
In a nutshell
- Trump administration halts aid citing concerns over land expropriation policy
- South African leaders emphasize constitutional safeguards and call for calm
- U.S.-South Africa relations strained amid geopolitical shifts involving Russia and China
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
Just days after returning to the Oval Office as the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump made good on his promise to place South Africa’s relationship with America under the spotlight. President Trump signed an executive order to immediately suspend the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding to South Africa as part of his reconfiguration of U.S. foreign relations and halts to foreign aid.
The Trump administration also took issue with South Africa’s adoption of a controversial land reform law that allows the government to expropriate land if it deems it in the public interest. The government says it is targeting unused land, but critics, including Mr. Trump, say the law tramples on private property rights and unfairly targets “a certain class of people,” referring to white communities in South Africa.
This is not the first time President Trump or his South African-born sponsor and advisor, Elon Musk, have described South African laws and the country’s political direction as representing a gross violation of human rights. This time, however, Mr. Trump is highlighting what he perceives as a deviation from democratic ideals as a rationale to suspend aid to South Africa. Media reactions have questioned the undiplomatic way President Trump is addressing South Africa’s domestic politics. Meanwhile, in Pretoria, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s aides, ministers and civil society leaders are urging the Trump administration to reconsider this sudden move, which also leaves critical health intervention projects in limbo.
Despite political differences in South Africa regarding the wisdom of President Ramaphosa’s decision to sign the controversial expropriation law, voices are coalescing in the call for a sober reflection by the Trump administration regarding the decision to summarily suspend PEPFAR funding to the country. South Africans are not united in support of the expropriation law; instead, they are attempting to put more perspective into a complex law that does not lend itself to the simplistic interpretation that Mr. Trump has taken.
Constitutional safeguards in South Africa and democratic debate
South Africa is a constitutional democracy where all laws can be tested for their constitutionality by the courts. This has been the standard since the inauguration of the democratic system following the end of apartheid in 1994. Regardless of the fanfare or criticism toward the expropriation law, it will not endure if found to violate South Africa’s constitution.
While the passing of the law may generate negative sentiments about the country’s commitment to justice and fairness, the system has safeguards that can eliminate problematic aspects of the law, or the entire law, if anything is deemed unjust and unconstitutional. Such decisions rest with South Africa’s courts, who have been called upon to adjudicate the matter.
While Pretoria may have sent a negative signal by adopting the land expropriation law in the first place, it is not a fait accompli that the law will be enacted in a manner that breaches the constitution. The constitutional safeguards are akin to those found in the American constitutional system. President Trump’s comments on this issue and the cuts to health aid for South Africa depict the country as lacking the constitutionally enshrined checks and balances necessary to safeguard against unjust or unfair actions by the government or any party, for that matter.
South Africans are not united in support of the expropriation law.
Judging by how President Trump took up these matters, relying mainly on a general characterization of the controversial expropriation law and not looking at specifics, his administration seems uninterested in the workings of South Africa’s constitutional order. For him, the initiative to adopt such a law is an act of democratic disingenuousness that needs to be nipped in the bud and deserves no further deliberation.
There are lobbying groups in South Africa that share sentiments similar to those of Mr. Trump, viewing the law in question as a slippery slope toward dictatorship in the country. AfriForum – the South African-based civil rights non-governmental organization that advocates for the interests of the Afrikaner community – has previously alerted U.S. lawmakers about questionable South African laws, including the current expropriation act. The group seeks support against the policies of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), which AfriForum believes unfairly violates the rights of white Afrikaners as minorities in the country.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), the second-largest party in the coalition government, and opposition parties implored President Trump to reconsider his decision.
Ironically, President Trump’s intervention to cut aid to South Africa after the expropriation law was adopted draws him into discussions of the law’s minutiae and South Africa’s constitutional order. The Democratic Alliance (DA), the second-largest party in the coalition government with the ANC, and opposition parties implored President Trump to reconsider his decision, even with their own misgivings regarding the expropriation law. Specifically, in early February the DA reiterated their interest in fostering constructive relations with the U.S. and they insist that the expropriation law does not allow land to be seized by the state arbitrarily, while it does require fair compensation for legitimate expropriations.
Read more on South Africa
- South Africa’s Russian ties come under scrutiny
- Populism’s role in South Africa’s governance crisis
- South Africa takes G20 presidency amid rising global tensions
The Democratic Alliance is not a pushover when it comes to the political choices advocated by the ANC in South Africa. It sees opportunities to engage with its coalition partner, the ANC, and seeks compromise on contentious policy decisions. This exemplifies the diverse and nuanced perspectives of South Africa’s political leaders regarding the passing of legislation.
South Africa’s international relations
More broadly, a pertinent question is whether Pretoria has been wise to take policy steps that will certainly provoke the U.S. as a trade and development partner. The prevailing view in South Africa is that President Trump overreacted by cutting aid to the country and that the U.S. could have first pursued diplomatic engagement with Pretoria before making radical decisions with far-reaching implications for the relationship between the two nations. Pretoria recognized it was already walking on eggshells regarding how U.S.-South Africa relations would develop with the Trump administration.
Ahead of Mr. Trump’s inauguration, Pretoria expected relations with Washington to get frosty, prompting President Ramaphosa’s decision in December 2024 to reappoint an experienced ambassador, Ibrahim Rasool. Mr. Ramaphosa had sent him back to Washington just in time to extinguish any fires. Mr. Rasool previously served as South Africa’s ambassador to the U.S. from 2010 to 2015, during which time he had a relatively smooth experience. Now, Ambassador Rasool must hit the ground running with the Trump administration, allowing him no honeymoon period to adjust to a position he first held during the more stable years of the Obama administration.
Is it wise to rely on the U.S. for aid while siding with BRICS members Russia and China on trade and foreign policy matters?
Another perspective Pretoria will have to consider is whether it is wise to rely on the U.S. for humanitarian and foreign aid while otherwise siding with fellow BRICS members Russia and China on economic, trade and foreign policy matters. This begs the question of whether South Africa should instead turn to Moscow or Beijing for humanitarian funding in addition to their trading practices. President Trump has said countries worldwide are taking advantage of the U.S. and its largesse, and South Africa may need to square this circle.
Scenarios
Likely: ANC’s moves draw more foreign attention to South Africa’s policies
The Trump administration’s unilateral resetting of U.S.-South Africa relations occurs as the ANC’s grip on power has weakened following the 2024 elections, which resulted in a coalition government. Additionally, the ANC is now more openly aligning itself with Russia and China on foreign policy matters, much to the dismay of the U.S., Europe and their allies.
By passing the expropriation law without considering significant reservations from domestic actors, including the DA, the coalition government has inadvertently brought unwelcome players into South Africa’s domestic politics. President Trump’s intervention in this matter will shape how South Africans engage with contentious legislation like the expropriation law.
With the still-dominant ANC failing to recognize that no single political party in South Africa governs on its own any longer, the party’s leaders will inevitably lose control of the debate on a matter that should have been handled differently from the outset.
Pretoria has set itself a difficult task in managing the international uproar regarding the country’s political direction: Should it seek handouts from Washington while engaging in questionable deals with Russian state-owned companies? South African policy will now be increasingly muddled by international voices, creating an even more uncertain policy environment for the country.
Unlikely: South Africa holds firm and does not yield to external pressure
If Mr. Ramaphosa’s administration suddenly relents on the expropriation law, the ANC will be seen as having yielded to international pressure from a non-BRICS country. This risk could have been avoided had the party initially treaded with caution on contentious policies that bear international implications.
As things stand, Pretoria is being forced to realize that South African leaders no longer enjoy a tight grip on control as political power spreads among different parties and stakeholders in the country. The ANC-led government’s appeals to the idea that contentious policies reflect the popular mandate are a defense that no longer holds, at least not as a basis for engaging with global powers.
As rash and undiplomatic as it may be, President Trump’s invasion of South Africa’s domestic policy space may only be the beginning.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
