United States President Donald Trump has frozen aid to South Africa in an escalation of a growing diplomatic rift between his administration and Pretoria over a controversial land expropriation law aimed at tackling inequality stemming from apartheid.
In an executive order signed on Friday, Trump condemned the law, describing it as a “shocking disregard” for citizens’ rights and claiming it would allow the government to seize land from ethnic minority Afrikaners without compensation. His administration argues that the Expropriation Act, signed last month by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, follows “countless” policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity, as well as “hateful rhetoric” and government actions that have driven violence against “racially disfavored” landowners.
Trump further linked his decision to broader foreign policy grievances, accusing South Africa of taking “aggressive positions” against the US and its allies. He cited Pretoria’s accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its strengthening of relations with Iran as examples of policies that undermine Washington’s interests.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 16 (Feb 10 – May 3, 2025) today for early bird discounts.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
“The United States cannot support the government of South Africa’s commission of rights violations in its country or its undermining [of] United States foreign policy, which poses national security threats to our Nation, our allies, our African partners, and our interests,” Trump stated.
His decision follows a series of increasingly hostile exchanges between the two nations. Since Sunday, Trump has accused Ramaphosa’s administration of “confiscating land” and mistreating “certain classes of people.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio escalated tensions on Wednesday by announcing he would boycott the upcoming Group of 20 (G20) talks in Johannesburg, citing South Africa’s land policies and other “very bad things” happening in the country.
Ramaphosa Defiant, Downplays US Aid to HIV Program
In response to Trump’s threats, Ramaphosa has remained defiant, insisting that South Africa will not bow to external pressure. Earlier this week, he addressed concerns over the potential impact of the aid withdrawal, particularly regarding health funding. The United States is a major contributor to South Africa’s HIV response program, but Ramaphosa dismissed the significance of the support, noting that it only accounts for 17 percent of the country’s total HIV budget.
His comments signaled that Pretoria does not view US financial assistance as indispensable, suggesting that the country is prepared to continue its fight against HIV/AIDS with or without Washington’s support.
“We will not be deterred. We are a resilient people. We will not be bullied,” Ramaphosa stated in an address to Parliament on Thursday.
Under the expropriation law, the South African government may seize land without compensation where it is deemed to be “just and equitable and in the public interest,” such as in cases where land is unused, and after efforts to reach an agreement with the owner have failed. Ramaphosa and the ruling African National Congress (ANC) argue that the legislation is necessary to address the vast disparities in land ownership stemming from colonial rule and apartheid. However, no land has been expropriated under the law so far.
Pretoria Believes Musk Is Behind Trump’s Retaliation
While Trump has framed his decision as a response to human rights violations and South Africa’s foreign policy stances, officials in Pretoria believe there is another factor at play: Elon Musk. South African authorities suspect the billionaire, a vocal supporter of Trump and a fierce critic of the ANC government, has played a role in influencing Washington’s hardline stance against Pretoria.
The speculation arises from Musk’s ongoing faceoff with South Africa over its refusal to grant a license to his satellite internet service, Starlink. The country has stood firm on its requirement that Starlink must partner with a local service provider to operate legally, a move Musk has openly criticized as unnecessary regulatory red tape designed to stifle competition. With his satellite network expanding rapidly across the globe, Musk has grown increasingly frustrated with South Africa’s resistance, and Pretoria believes his influence within Trump’s inner circle may have contributed to the US decision to freeze aid.
Musk, who was born in South Africa but has long severed ties with the country, has frequently used his platform to attack the ANC government. His criticism intensified after the government rejected Starlink’s application, with Musk accusing South African authorities of preventing citizens from accessing free-market solutions to internet connectivity. His comments have resonated with Trump, who has a history of aligning with Musk on various policy issues, particularly in opposition to regulatory oversight.
The decision to freeze aid has reignited debates over land ownership and racial inequality in South Africa. Land distribution remains one of the country’s most contentious issues, given the enduring legacy of apartheid. While Black South Africans constitute over 80 percent of the population, they own just 4 percent of privately held farmland, according to a 2017 government audit. In contrast, White South Africans—who make up about 7 percent of the population—control roughly three-quarters of the land.
Critics of the expropriation law, including opposition parties such as the Democratic Alliance (DA), warn that the policy could deter foreign investment and lead to economic instability. The DA, which draws most of its support from white, Indian, and multiracial South Africans, has also expressed concern about Trump’s retaliation but rejects claims that the law allows arbitrary land seizures.
Trump’s broader crackdown on foreign assistance adds to the controversies. His administration has been aggressively reducing foreign aid, including dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAID). According to the most recent data, Washington allocated approximately $440 million in aid to South Africa in 2023.
Despite the potential economic ramifications, Ramaphosa’s government appears determined to move forward with its policies. With tensions mounting between the two nations and suspicions growing over Musk’s role in the dispute, the standoff between South Africa and the United States is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.