On 20 January, Donald Trump was sworn in for a second term as the U.S. President. In his inaugural address, Trump proclaimed his second term, “the golden age of America,” advocating for a “revolution of common sense” and promising to swiftly enact significant policy reforms that would place the interest of Americans above all others.
The Unexpected Turn of Events
A few weeks later, on 8 February, Trump signed an executive order cutting U.S. financial assistance to South Africa, citing concerns over its land policy (Expropriation Act) and its genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Washington’s ally, Israel. The U.S. primarily channels funding through agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), to support initiatives in health, education, economic development, and governance across South Africa and other African nations, including Lesotho, Eswatini, Uganda, and Tanzania.
As a result of Trump’s order, nearly 10,000 global health projects funded by USAID were terminated. For instance, the Elizabeth Glaser Paediatric AIDS Foundation (EGPAF) was forced to shut down HIV treatment programs in Lesotho, Eswatini, and Tanzania, affecting 350,000 people, including almost 10,000 children. While PEPFAR-funded projects -accounting for 17% of South Africa’s HIV health budget – were temporarily exempt until the end of April, and now the National Department of Health (NDoH) faces significant challenges in plugging the gap left by the withdrawal of PEPFAR in the midst of budget cuts across government.
On 4 March, during his State of the Union Address to Congress, Trump criticised the USAID, stating that for many years, it lacked accountability to taxpayers. He argued that the agency funnels vast amounts of money into what he called “ridiculous” and “pet projects” backed by government officials, often with little oversight.
Following the address, Trump also withdrew the U.S. from the Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa, revoking its $56million in grant funds and $1 billion in potential commercial investments by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. Experts have warned that this withdrawal will most likely impact potential private investments in the energy space in South Africa.
This funding cut also strains South Africa-U.S. relations. Historically, the two countries have maintained diplomatic ties, with the South African government collaborating with the Republicans for decades. When he came to power back in 2001, former U.S. President George W. Bush emphasised that no decisions concerning South Africa should be made without its involvement. Despite policy disagreements, dialogue was always maintained. Although there were tensions during Trump’s first term, no sanctions were imposed on South Africa. However, in his second term, Trump has opted for unilateral executive orders instead of diplomatic engagement. His administration seems to have also opted to abandon traditional forms of diplomacy as witnessed by the White House’s refusal to engage the government, or specifically African National Congress (ANC) members of the government but has had no qualms about engaging members of the Democratic Alliance (DA) and interest group AfriForum and trade union Solidarity.
This is not the first time Trump’s administration has clashed with South Africa. During his first term, he claimed that white farmers in South Africa were being widely killed and subjected to violent land seizures—an assertion dismissed by Pretoria as misinformation.
“We Will Not Be Bullied”
During the State of the Nation Address (SONA), South African President Cyril Ramaphosa declared that South Africa would not be bullied. Ramaphosa, who signed an act empowering the government to expropriate property for public interest purposes, firmly defended the legislation, stating that no land had been unlawfully confiscated. He emphasised that the policy is crucial for addressing historical racial disparities in land ownership, ensuring justice and fairness. However, Trump and his ally Elon Musk, who has his own business interests at stake, have publicly claimed that white South Africans are being targeted by “racist ownership laws,” alleging discrimination against certain groups.
Meanwhile, the South African Competition Commission ruled that Google, the American tech giant, could be required to pay up to R500 million ($27.29 million) annually, for a three-to-five-year period, to South African media outlets due to anti-competitive practices. The Commission’s 16-month investigation found that as print media declines and journalism shifts online, 87% of South Africans now access news digitally—primarily via Google Search and social media. Meta and X (formerly Twitter), owned respectively by Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk (both Trump allies), also face potential fines for dominating the digital landscape and sidelining traditional news agencies. The U.S. may perceive these actions as an unjustified attack on its tech giants, potentially escalating trade and investment tensions between the two nations, as just seen with the U.S.’s withdrawal from the JET partnership with South Africa
Uncertainty Continues to Rise
Amid these diplomatic strains, the future of South Africa-U.S. relations remains uncertain. A key concern is the impending expiration of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in September. In 2023, South Africa exported approximately $8.3 billion worth of goods to the U.S. through AGOA, including:
- Mineral Resources: Platinum exports valued at $2.9 billion.
- Automobiles: Vehicle exports totalling around $2 billion.
- Agricultural Products: Citrus exports amounting to approximately $475 million.
AGOA has been instrumental in providing tariff-free access to the U.S. market, bolstering South Africa’s trade competitiveness. However, shifting political dynamics could influence the agreement’s renewal or renegotiation. If AGOA is not renewed or stricter conditions are imposed, South African exporters could face higher tariffs, particularly as South Africa strengthens ties with BRICS+ nations, including China and Russia.
South Africa’s growing alliances with China and Russia are raising concerns among Western allies. While AGOA remains beneficial, balancing relationships between the U.S. and BRICS+ is becoming increasingly complex. If political tensions escalate, U.S.-South Africa trade relations could suffer, reshaping the country’s global economic strategy.
Adding to the uncertainty, Trump’s potential attendance at the upcoming G20 Summit in South Africa later this year remains unclear. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently declined to attend the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting, citing South Africa’s “increasingly anti-American” policies, followed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent skipping the finance ministers’ meeting due to obligations with the President. It remains to be seen how the G20 troika, which is to ensure continuity and cooperation in the G20 process, allowing for a smoother transition between presidencies and a consistent approach to global economic challenges will see SA, Brazil and US working closely until the summit in November. If Trump also skips the G20 Summit, it could signal a broader U.S. retreat from multilateral diplomacy amid intensifying geopolitical competition, especially with China. As the U.S. is a major funder of the G20, its absence could have significant economic consequences, affecting trade, financial markets, and global economic balance.
The coming months will be pivotal in determining whether the U.S. maintains its relationship with South Africa or if existing tensions drive a deeper divide between the two nations.
