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.
