Trump’s U.S. Also Hits South Africa

South Africa’s new Expropriation Bill, signed into law in December 2024, has sparked a diplomatic firestorm. The United States, led by President Donald Trump, sees it as a threat to property rights and a jab at white Afrikaners.

South Africans view the U.S. reaction — complete with a $440 million aid cut — as an attempt to flex its muscle on the world stage. The truth, as ever, lies in the messy middle.

Trump’s executive order accused South Africa of a “shocking disregard” for citizens’ rights, claiming the bill greenlights land seizures without compensation. The U.S. President is not entirely wrong to raise an eyebrow — the legislation does allow “nil compensation” in specific cases.

Not a populist grab

Yet, South Africa insists this is not the confiscation spree Washington imagines. President Cyril Ramaphosa calls it a “constitutionally mandated” tool for equitable land access, not a populist grab.

The bill’s text backs him up — sort of. Section 12(3) permits zero compensation if land is unused, abandoned or a public hazard. Owners can still demand “just and equitable” pay under Section 7(4), subject to negotiation or courts.

It is hardly a free-for-all. Compare this to Zimbabwe’s chaotic land grabs in 2000. South Africa is not following that example nor has any desire to follow in their footsteps, which resulted in economic devastation.

Selective U.S. outrage

Washington’s outrage has a selective tint. Trump’s team has amplified the statements of Julius Malema, the firebrand EFF leader who cheers expropriation, as if he speaks for Pretoria. He doesn’t. The ANC-led government, now in coalition with the Democratic Alliance (DA), holds the reins.

The DA, in fact, is suing to kill the bill — arguing it is unconstitutional. South Africa’s democracy is noisy, not rogue.

Why the U.S. fixation? South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice might be a clue. Or perhaps it is the BRICS membership — Pretoria courts Western investment but is not shy about Eastern ties. Trump’s aid cut smells like punishment dressed as principle.

Rooted in history

South Africa’s defense of its new Expropriation Bill is rooted in history. Nelson Mandela fought apartheid to end racial inequity — including land ownership skewed by colonial theft.

A 2017 audit found 72% of farmland in white hands — 8% of the population — while Black South Africans, 80% of the total, held just 4%.

Section 25 of the Constitution already allows expropriation for “public interest,” including land reform. This bill operationalizes that — not invents it.

Red tape

Lawyers like Ayanda Khumalo of the law firm Webber Wentzel see flaws. “It may not achieve its stated goals,” he warns, suggesting it could bog down reform in red tape.

The DA also has major beef with the bill. Yet the coalition government, the Government of National Unity — newly formed after voters clipped the ANC’s wings — adds checks. Challenges in court are standard in South Africa — a sign of a healthy democracy, not collapse.

The global dimension

Globally, this is less about South Africa than about who gets to judge. The African Union, scarred by colonial legacies, will not take kindly to lectures from afar.

As G20 chair this year, Pretoria knows optics matter — it is dispatching envoys to Washington, Beijing and beyond to smooth feathers and secure cash.

Conclusion

Will the bill fix South Africa’s land woes? Doubtful — it’s a step, not a cure. Will the United States’ verbal attack sway it? Unlikely.

The real story is how a nation balances its troubled past while investing in the future — a story that is shared by the rest of Africa.

South Africa has its own tricky waters to navigate that is not helped by misinformation.