Presidential Deception: Unpacking Trump’s Executive Order on South Africa

Just over two weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency, the world is witnessing chaos, with South Africa also caught in the turmoil. The clash between Trump’s rhetoric and Elon Musk’s provocations has ignited racial tensions, creating a deadly whirlwind of deflection. South Africans and the world have fallen into the trap. Let me explain.

On February 2, at 6:19 p.m., Trump took to Truth Social, asserting that “South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY.” He declared, “I will cut off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation is completed!” This incendiary statement set the stage for dramatic escalation.

South African-born Elon Musk soon entered the fray. In response to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s explanation on X of the recent Expropriation Act, aimed at addressing land inequalities, Musk provocatively questioned, “Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?” This query unleashed a torrent of reactions on X, with around 13,000 responses—many overtly racist—while others attempted to clarify the complexities of the land situation to no avail as tensions mounted.

Supporters of Ramaphosa highlighted that the contentious land law, signed last month, grants the government authority to expropriate land from private entities only in specific cases and with just compensation. In a country where whites make up only 7% of the population yet control around 70% of the land, reform is pressing. Critics have long accused the government of inadequately tackling the issue.

By February 5, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on X, “I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg. South Africa is doing very bad things. Expropriating private property.”

Two days later, Trump issued an Executive Order claiming that “ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property” was being taken without compensation and that there were “countless government policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fuelling disproportionate violence against racially disfavoured landowners.” The Order concluded that the United States would cease all aid to South Africa and support the resettlement of “Afrikaner refugees,” now effectively cast as escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination.

Trump’s directive further lambasted South Africa for its “aggressive positions” towards the U.S. and its allies, specifically mentioning accusations made against Israel of genocide in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The internet erupted, with comments mainly focusing on land and Afrikaners' status, with little mention of the ICJ.

Some white South Africans interpreted Trump’s order as validation of their grievances, claiming victimhood despite their historical role in apartheid. Others recorded videos in their lush gardens, asserting life wasn’t that bad in sunny South Africa. Many ridiculed the notion of privileged whites being classified as refugees by the U.S. Some even offered to assist in packing the bags of those wishing to leave.

More seriously, the President of the South African Chamber of Commerce in the USA, reported they had received over 15,000 inquiries from South Africans seeking to emigrate to the U.S.

The blame game intensified.

The right-wing group AfriForum, claiming to defend Afrikaner rights, found itself at the centre of the controversy. The ANC accused AfriForum of misleading the international community and perpetuating apartheid-era land ownership narratives, leading to a flurry of accusations on social media.

Then the situation took a surprising turn.

AfriForum confirmed their lobbying efforts in the U.S. regarding the land issue but distanced themselves from Trump's claims, asserting they had no influence over the Executive Order. AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel stated, “We have no idea where Trump got the idea that there are land grabs, genocide, and targeted farm murders.” The organisation maintained that while they had concerns about the new land act, they wanted to work with others to improve their situation in the country, not flee to the U.S.

The Orania community, a self-governing group of whites seeking their own homeland, echoed this sentiment and declined Trump’s offer of resettlement. They did, however, request support (not financial aid they stressed) to secure their self-determination in South Africa.

Meanwhile, Ramaphosa stated that South Africa would not be “bullied.” He reached out to Musk on February 5 to clarify the misinformation stemming from Trump’s statements, presumably highlighting that compensation would be paid for any land taken. He defended his position as “sensible” and “logical,” despite criticisms that he was pandering to Musk, who is largely unpopular among South Africans.

Undeterred, on February 9, Musk ramped up his rhetoric in his usual one-dimensional style. This time, he targeted Julius Malema and shared videos of his anti-white comments, some from years ago. Musk called for Malema to be declared an international criminal and for sanctions against him. Despite Malema’s EFF being a fringe party with only 9% support, Musk’s 200 million followers amplified the noise. The distinction between the South African government and fringe EFF was lost, and the idea of a fictional white genocide cemented in their minds. Musk’s misinformation campaign was complete. Malema’s response, telling Musk to go “to hell” and challenging the “mischaracterization” of him as genocidal, fell on deaf ears, although the publicity by the whole affair may well have given his ailing party a boost in South Africa.

As this piece is published, the situation seems to be less volatile, or at least for now as Trump, Musk and the chaos merchants have moved onto Ukraine. But the implications of the storm are profound for South Africa and globe.

The origins of Trump’s Executive Order are murky, but he has a history with this issue, as does Musk.

In 2018, Trump tweeted that he had asked then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to "closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large-scale killing of farmers.” Fox News has perpetuated the myth of “white genocide,” running various segments on the topic. Musk has previously accused the South African government of being anti-white, claiming in 2023 that it was allowing a "genocide" against white farmers. Musk, as we know, has influence over Trump.

So this is not a new issue but the context has changed.

The latest comments and Executive Order have landed amid the U.S. destruction of foreign aid and the newly emboldened Trump regime. The ICJ genocide case against Israel, which is mentioned significantly in the Executive Order, has been oddly linked to perceived white persecution in South Africa.

This raises two significant issues.

Firstly, with Trump and Musk cutting the U.S. aid budget, the potential withdrawal of funding poses a threat. Although the US support only accounts for 17% of the total HIV responses in South Africa, with nearly 8 million people living with HIV and 5.5 million receiving antiretroviral treatment, this is significant in real terms. Some direct impact on those suffering, certainly in the short term, will invariably follow.

It should not be overlooked that while the world debates the plight of a small number of white South Africans, hundreds of thousands of poor black South Africans could potentially die because of the US decision.

Secondly, it is naive not to see that ordinary South Africans are now being punished for the country’s actions against Israel in the ICJ case. The Executive Order clearly states that the withdrawal of aid is linked to the “unjust and immoral practices that harm” the U.S. and its allies via the ICJ case. The Executive Order specifically notes that “South Africa has taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies, including accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice, and reinvigorating its relations with Iran”.

The social media circus that has ensued seems to have missed these points or at best, under-emphasised them.

It is outrageous that the social media world is debating whether there is a genocide against white South Africans—an accusation that AfriForum itself has stated is unfounded—rather than the hostile acts by the U.S. against South Africa through the Executive Order.

It is profoundly hypocritical for Musk to call for an individual to be deemed an international criminal for singing unsavoury songs (authorities also sanctioned and investigated him for “hate speech”), while Musk met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel days earlier. As massively problematic as Julius Malema can be, Netanyahu has an arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court for directly authorising war crimes and genocide, not for talking or singing about it.

Nonetheless, South Africans have fallen for the trick and are now deeply engaged in heated discussions about their national identity and the role of whites in South Africa. Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza and the serious U.S. accusations against South Africa, followed by the punishment of ordinary people, are fading into obscurity. It is likely only a matter of time before Netanyahu starts calling double standards in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel, despite the comparison being ludicrous in the extreme.

In this perfect storm of political theatrics, South Africans must resist the temptation to engage in a racially charged debate about who belongs in South Africa or not. Succumbing to an increasingly fractious domestic debate will leave only one winner: Israeli President Netanyahu. The poor in South Africa and the Palestinians will, once again, be the biggest losers.

Published by Brandon Hamber on Substack and Medium, 25 February 2025.

A new dawn for South Africa, but a false start for Northern Ireland

South Africa has a new leader; the current negotiators in the North feel like a spent force               

In a strange way the South Africa and Northern Ireland peace processes have always been linked. In the 1990s both were heralded as examples of how deep divisions could be overcome, and co-operation fostered between former enemies. Other connections were more direct, such as the former ANC lead negotiator and now new South African president Cyril Ramaphosa’s role in the decommissioning processes as an inspector on behalf of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

Two decades later, however, both peace processes have lost their shine.

In Northern Ireland a lot has been achieved. For example, a stable powersharing arrangement was running for a number of years, there has been substantial police reform and a dramatic decrease in political deaths.

However, the powersharing government has been collapsed for over a year. Social division also remains. Some 90 per cent of social housing is still single-identity, according to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations. Only 7 per cent of children go to integrated schools.

Although paramilitary activity has decreased, there were 30 bombing incidents last year. Assaults, mainly on young males, by paramilitary groups have continued at roughly consistent rates for the last 10 years.
Significant gains

For South Africa, redressing decades of racial inequality has been a priority. Significant gains have been made. For example, 93 per cent of South Africans now have access to potable water compared to 62 per cent in 1994. The ANC government has built three million homes, housing 16 million people.

However, a backlog of 2.5 million houses remains. The official unemployment rate stands at a staggering 26 per cent. On top of this, the former government led by Jacob Zuma was throughout beset with serious corruption allegations.

However, unlike Northern Ireland, which has now seen a breakdown in the negotiations to re-establish powersharing, South Africa saw Ramaphosa instated as president. A wave of new-found optimism has swept the country. In his state-of-the nation address on Friday, Ramaphosa spoke of a new dawn, turning the tide against corruption and tackling inequalities, while maintaining economic stability.

The campaign to remove Zuma has been sustained over a number of years, and has included media exposés of corruption, large public demonstrations by opposition parties and civil society organisations, a series of court cases that have opened the way for the prosecution of Zuma and his cronies, and latterly a determined bloc inside the ANC and its allies to remove Zuma from office.

South Africans have a new belief in democracy and people power, and have learned first-hand the value of a free media and an independent judiciary. There is new hope in the constitution, the rule of law and the institutions developed to protect democracy.
Frustration

In Northern Ireland things feel very different. Everywhere one turns you hear people complaining about the inability of politicians to make a deal. The frustration is palpable, yet the malaise continues despite the ongoing division, Brexit and economic difficulties looming large.

Like Zuma’s administration that suffered from illegitimacy and drift, the Stormont talks have lost their way, and have lost touch with the people.

While South Africans are optimistic on the promises of Ramaphosa’s “new dawn”, Northern Ireland wallows in the tatters of what was once called a “fresh start”. So why the difference, and what can be done?

First, in South Africa there has at last been a qualitative change in leadership. In contrast, the current negotiators in the North feel like a spent force. Although some top positions in Northern Ireland have changed, those who were there at the start of the current impasse remain largely the same. One way to change this dynamic is to rework the talks structure to include all political parties, bringing in new leadership.

Second, civil society participation has been key to the new South African impetus. It is time to reignite civil society interest in the Northern Ireland peace process. New ways of people interacting with the talks have to be found. Ideas such as a citizens’ assembly have been proposed. Politicians need to encourage new civic interactions rather than corralling around the stale and secret Stormont talks.
New energy

Of course, South Africa is not a perfect or a directly comparable model. The new energy will dwindle over time if expectations are not met. Time will tell if Ramaphosa can deliver. But the current situation in South Africa reminds us once again that change is possible and the re-set button can be pushed. Hope and vitality can be restored to the body politic.

We forget at our peril that a commitment to a new vision, farsighted leadership, civil society engagement and, ultimately, the willingness to compromise is what drove the remarkable changes in Northern Ireland and South Africa in the 1990s.

Unless this genuine spirit for transformation can be reignited in Northern Ireland, as it has been sparked in South Africa recently, the risk is that the Belfast Agreement will become a rather sullied footnote in history.

Published by Professor Brandon Hamber, John Hume and Thomas P O’Neill chair in peace based at the International Conflict Research Institute (INCORE), Ulster University, Irish Times, 20 February 2018

The original article is available here in the Irish Times, 20 February 2019