So, Donald Trump has waded into South Africa’s land reform debate—again. Last week Friday, Trump signed an executive order that freezes US aid to the country. Bizarrely, he has also offered to resettle white South Africans, specifically Afrikaners, as refugees. His reasoning? He claims they’re facing “unjust racial discrimination” under President Cyril Ramaphosa’s land reform policies. 

Now, while the order does not specifically reference ‘white’ Afrikaners, the racist undertones are heavily implied. The White House release speaks on the “ethnic minority Afrikaners” being the victims of “race-based discrimination”. But here’s the thing: Afrikaners aren’t made up of just one race. A significant portion of Afrikaans speakers in South Africa, who are also descendants of Dutch settlers, are from the coloured community. Are they excluded from this definition of Afrikaners simply because they don’t neatly fit this ‘white victimhood’ narrative? The implication is clear: Trump is talking about white South Africans. This makes his order not only controversial but also exclusionary—suggesting that some Afrikaners are worth rescuing while others are not…Clearly, Trump cannot comprehend the complexities of race, language and cultural dynamics in South Africa.

But we can so let’s break this mess down.

What’s this executive order about?

Trump’s order says the US will prioritise the resettlement of Afrikaners who are supposedly being persecuted in South Africa. It also cuts financial aid to the country, citing two main issues:

  • South Africa’s new land expropriation act, which allows the state to take land without compensation in certain cases, aims to redress historical land inequalities.
  • South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where it has accused Israel of genocide, a move that has angered the US and its allies.

The executive order explicitly states that the US “cannot support the government of South Africa’s commission of rights violations.” Trump has also accused South Africa of “championing terrorism” due to its ties with Iran.

What’s this land law that’s causing a stir?

The law in question, signed by Ramaphosa last month, is part of ongoing efforts to address land ownership disparities left over from apartheid. Right now, white South Africans—who make up less than 8% of South Africa’s 62 million people —own close to 70% of the country’s privately held farmland.

Under the new law, land can be seized without compensation, but only in specific cases, like when it’s abandoned or not being used. The goal, according to the government, is to correct historic injustices and ensure more equitable land distribution.

You can read our explainer about the Expropriation Act here. 

How has South Africa responded?

Predictably, the South African government isn’t happy. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation called Trump’s move “a campaign of misinformation and propaganda aimed at misrepresenting our great nation.”

Ramaphosa has repeatedly defended the land policy, saying no land has been confiscated illegally and that the law is meant to ensure fair access to land. He even had a call with Elon Musk—who was born in South Africa (and clearly has some big feelings to work through)—after Musk questioned the “openly racist ownership laws.”

Do these South Africans even want to leave?

Trump’s order might suggest a mass exodus is on the cards, but many white Afrikaners don’t seem to be packing their bags just yet.

Even AfriForum, a prominent Afrikaner civil rights group that has spread misinformation about Afrikaner ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the past, has acknowledged Trump’s recognition of “injustice against Afrikaners” but insists that their future lies in Africa. The group says its focus is on tackling injustices locally rather than encouraging mass emigration.

 “[We] appreciate that Trump points out injustice against Afrikaners,” said AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel. However, “emigration only offers an opportunity for Afrikaners who are willing to risk potentially sacrificing their descendants’ cultural identity as Afrikaners,” he added. Basically, ‘no thank you’.  

So then, why is Trump so invested in this issue?

This isn’t the first time Trump has spoken about white South African farmers. Back in 2018, he claimed they were facing “large-scale killings of farmers” and ordered an investigation—though no evidence or official data of such a crisis was found. This latest move is being viewed as a continuation of that stance.

The notion that white farmers are under attack has become a rallying point for far-right groups in the U.S. and other Western countries. However, the claim that white farmers are being systematically killed—a so-called “white genocide”—has been widely debunked. Trump’s framing of the issue plays into long-standing narratives of white victimhood, which have been used to stoke fear and mobilise political support, particularly among right-wing voters.

South Africa does experience high crime rates, and farmers (of all races) have been targeted in violent attacks. However, multiple studies, including by the South African Police Service, have shown that farm murders make up a tiny fraction of the country’s violent crime.

What happens next?

For now, South Africa is standing its ground, and Trump’s executive order is unlikely to change its policies. The aid freeze could have economic implications, but South Africa’s foreign policy direction—especially regarding Israel and the ICJ case—seems unlikely to shift.

Political parties forming part of the GNU have presented a united front in condemning Trump’s order. DA leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen said the party was “obviously concerned” about the order and its “grave consequences” for South Africa’s agricultural sector in particular. The US is a key trading partner, with over $21 billion in exports, including R3 billion worth of agricultural products under AGOA.

“If this narrative sets in, we are going to have a very big problem. The last thing we want to see is other trading partners following suit, based on misinformation and inaccurate assessments of where South Africa is and what it does,” said Steenhuisen. 

While the DA has criticised aspects of the Expropriation Act and is challenging it in court, even Steenhuisen has emphasised the claims of mass land seizures were simply untrue. With major political parties aligning in their rejection of Trump’s order, the South African government is now focused on damage control—both diplomatically and economically.

As for the offer of resettlement? It looks like most Afrikaners are choosing to stay put rather than take Trump up on his offer. The land debate, however, is far from over.