On 7 February 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order titled “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa.” If you knew nothing about South Africa—a country whose history is marked by centuries of colonial dispossession, racial segregation, and economic exclusion, followed by a hard-fought struggle for democracy, reconciliation, and socio-economic redress—and nothing about Trump, the order might appear to you as a principled stand against human rights violations and foreign policy misconduct by a country where “terrible things are happening.” Reading with the required context, however, reveals a distorted, politically charged misrepresentation of South Africa’s land reform policies, crime realities, and diplomatic stance.

Why I write this? I am a South African lawyer, who cares deeply about our country, its people, its future, and how we are represented on the global stage. I care about social justice, truth, and challenging empty rhetoric that distorts reality, especially when that noise carries real consequences. I have seen how Africa is misrepresented, reduced to a caricature, and used as a pawn in global politics. I believe in calling out racism, neo-colonialism, and the narratives designed to keep us in our place. And I write to cut through the propaganda, lay out the law and policy as they truly stand, and push back against the suffocating, self-serving narratives imposed on us by global superpowers.

The False Narrative of “Race-Based” Land Seizures

Central to the justification of Trump’s Executive Order (“EO“) is the claim that South Africa’s Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 enables the government to seize the land of Afrikaner farmers without compensation, as part of a campaign of racial persecution. This is flatly misleading.

The Expropriation Act (the “Act“), which aligns with Section 25 of the South African Constitution, does not authorise blanket confiscation of land owned by white farmers. Instead, it establishes a framework for land reform that:

• Allows for expropriation only in the public interest or for a public purpose, particularly for land redistribution, infrastructure development, and urban expansion (Section 25(4)).
• Requires that expropriation be subject to just and equitable compensation, except in limited cases where land is unused, abandoned, or acquired through historical injustices (Section 25(2)-(3)).
• Is not race-specific. Section 25 of our Constitution provides that no person may be deprived of their property, except in terms of a law of general application. The Act is that law of general application, and it applies to all landowners, regardless of racial identity.

The EO’s portrayal of the Act as a tool of racial persecution ignores the historical context of land dispossession under apartheid, where 87% of land was reserved for white ownership under the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts. South Africa’s land reform policies are legally and morally necessary to address these injustices, not a means of singling out Afrikaner farmers.

Exaggeration of Racial Violence and Crime

The EO also falsely claims that South Africa’s government is inciting racial violence against white landowners. While farm attacks are a serious issue, the EO’s framing suggests an orchestrated campaign against white South Africans, when the reality is:

1. South Africa has a high violent crime rate overall, affecting all sectors of society. The claim that only white farmers are targeted is a gross oversimplification that ignores the complexity of South African crime dynamics.
2. Farm attacks are not exclusively racial, and both white and Black farm owners have been victims.
3. There is no state-sponsored policy encouraging violence against landowners, and no evidence to support any claims to the contrary. Rightfully so, the South African government has repeatedly condemned such farm killings and racial violence.

By failing to acknowledge the broader socio-economic and security challenges in South Africa, the EO fuels an unfounded victimhood narrative that is unsupported by statistical or policy evidence.

Foreign Policy Retaliation: Punishing South Africa for Independent Diplomacy

Beyond domestic policy issues, the EO ties South Africa’s supposed misconduct to its foreign policy decisions, particularly:

• The ICJ genocide case against Israel: South Africa’s decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice over its actions in Gaza is presented as a sign of hostility towards the U.S. and its allies. Yet, South Africa has long championed international legal mechanisms, and bringing a case before the ICJ is a lawful exercise of diplomatic and legal rights, not an attack on the U.S..
• Ties with Iran: The EO accuses South Africa of developing military and nuclear ties with Iran, an assertion lacking credible evidence. South Africa maintains diplomatic relations with a range of nations, as does the U.S., and there is no indication that this engagement threatens American security interests in any meaningful way.

By penalising South Africa for exercising sovereign foreign policy choices, the EO signals that any nation challenging U.S. interests—particularly on Israel—will face economic retaliation. This sets a dangerous precedent for punishing diplomatic dissent rather than engaging in constructive dialogue.

Prioritising Afrikaner “Refugee” Resettlement

Perhaps the most overtly ideological part of the EO is its provision for the U.S. to prioritise resettlement of Afrikaner refugees fleeing South Africa. This move:

• Misrepresents Afrikaners as a persecuted ethnic group, despite no credible human rights body classifying them as refugees.
• Selectively applies humanitarian policy based on race, ignoring other vulnerable groups facing displacement, violence, or economic hardship.
• Creates a racialised standard for asylum and refugee status, using ethnicity rather than genuine persecution as the primary qualifier.

Rather than a principled humanitarian initiative, this appears to be a racially motivated immigration policy disguised as a human rights effort.

Political Consequences of This Executive Order

This EO harms both U.S. and South African political interests in multiple ways:

1. It distorts the realities of South Africa’s land reform policies, fuelling misinformation, domestic racial tensions, and unnecessary diplomatic tensions.
2. It undermines U.S.-Africa relations, alienating not only South Africa but also other African nations that see this as neo-colonial interference in domestic policy.
3. It promotes racialised narratives in foreign policy, reinforcing white victimhood discourses at the expense of factual accuracy.
4. It weakens U.S. credibility on human rights, exposing hypocrisy in selective enforcement, given the administration’s silence on human rights abuses in other allied nations.

To Conclude: Here’s what I really think

This EO has little to do with South Africa’s land reform policy and even less to do with protecting white Afrikaners.

At its core, this order is about political influence and control. It is a familiar tactic: a global superpower exerting pressure to keep a country in check, framed in a way that appears principled but ultimately self-serving and out of touch with reality. It presents itself as a stand against injustice, but its true function is to shape narratives, dictate terms, and remind South Africa of its place on the global stage.

It is a veiled warning—fall in line, or face consequences—but one packaged carefully to curry favour with white South Africans. Going so far as to offer refuge in America, Trump sells the illusion that the minority in South Africa is seen, heard, and that they have a powerful ally. But the reality is that most Afrikaners enjoy a higher standard of living and greater economic security in South Africa than they would in the United States.

Let’s be clear: this is not a policy rooted in principle or concern for human rights. It is a strategic manoeuvre, designed to influence and contain, rather than to support or protect. It uses South Africa’s internal challenges as a tool for political posturing, rather than engaging in any meaningful or constructive way.

But these are just my views. Would love to hear your thoughts: does this EO reflect reality, or is it a political stunt?