In a post he made last Friday on his Truth Social platform, President Donald Trump lambasted what he called “terrible” South Africa, announced he was cutting all federal funding to this country, and invited its farmers to seek citizenship in the US.
The surprise announcement comes while Trump continues to articulate possible policy standpoints in preparation for the November elections, surprising both foreign policy experts and immigration advocates alike. The statements made by the former and future president immediately ushered debate about the practicality of such moves and raised questions regarding what it would mean with respect to future relations between the United States and South Africa.
“South Africa has become a terrible place, and we will be cutting off all funding to them effective immediately,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. He continued, “All South African farmers are hereby invited to come to the United States, where they will be welcomed with open arms, and given the ability to become U.S. Citizens. We want them!”
Post not found.
The announcement comes as part of Trump’s newest intrusiveness into South African politics: a subject he’s broached from time to time since his first term in office. Back in 2018, he instructed then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate land grabs and “large-scale killing of farmers” in South Africa yet was criticized for peddling innuendo, minus a shred of evidence, at the time.
Political Context Underlying Trump’s Announcement:
Trump’s remarks came as South Africa was busy realigning politically and appeared quite propitious in sealing off the present political grounds for his base, ahead of November’s election. The African National Congress (ANC) became the first political party in post-apartheid South Africa to lose parliamentary majority and form unity government with opposition parties such as the Democratic Alliance.
“Trump is appealing to different audiences with this statement,”
Said Michael Johnson, a political scientist with specialization in U.S.-Africa relations at Georgetown University. He added, “He’s signaling to his domestic base that he’s tough on foreign aid while also appealing to constituencies concerned about the treatment of white farmers in South Africa—one of the cause célèbres in certain conservative circles.”
That same event is attached to the current ongoing discussion within the Republican circle on immigration reforms among others; it has been an effort by Trump to demarcate immigrants he considers worthy or unworthy, in his own speaking. Specifically inviting South African farmers-here primarily white and skilled in agriculture-into the fold of worthies would further undergird Trump’s positions in previously referenced “merit-based” immigration.
South African authorities and the international community have reacted to the president’s remarks. The South African government hastened to respond to Trump’s remarks, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ronald Lamola deeming them as thus: “unfortunate and uninformed.” In an official briefing in Pretoria, Lamola insisted that “South Africa remains committed to protecting all its citizens regardless of race or occupation” and stated that “foreign aid represents a minuscule portion of our national budget.”
The U.S. State Department seemed surprised by Trump’s pronouncement, with spokesperson Emily Watson only saying that “current U.S. policy toward South Africa remains unchanged” and that “any future policy adjustments would be implemented through proper diplomatic and congressional channels.”
According to international relations scholars, there would be very serious legal or constitutional impediments to Trump unilaterally cutting off all funding to South Africa or fast-tracking citizenship for certain groups. Still, the damage has been done.
“Such rhetoric, however, is going to render relations difficult with important regional partners,” states Ambassador Thomas Richards, formerly the U.S. envoy to South Africa during the Obama administration. “South Africa is the most industrialized economy on the continent and an important strategic partner on trade, counterterrorism, and other issues.”
The Story Behind U.S. Aid to South Africa:
An assertion made by Trump, on cutting ”all funding” to South Africa, needs context, as U.S. aid to that country has transformed significantly over the years. Currently, aid focuses on the health sector, most notably on HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment through programs such as PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief).
The following table summarizes U.S. foreign assistance to South Africa in recent fiscal years:
| Fiscal Year | Total U.S. Aid (millions) | Health Programs | Democracy Programs | Economic Development | Security Assistance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | $459.7 | $404.2 | $13.5 | $27.8 | $14.2 |
| 2021 | $484.2 | $418.6 | $15.7 | $31.5 | $18.4 |
| 2022 | $469.8 | $410.2 | $16.5 | $29.2 | $13.9 |
| 2023 | $452.1 | $398.7 | $14.2 | $26.3 | $12.9 |
| 2024* | $441.5 | $391.8 | $13.7 | $24.6 | $11.4 |
Health assistance makes up by far the majority of U.S. aid to South Africa, of which PEPFAR has spent more than $7.5 billion since 2004 on fighting HIV/AIDS within the country. An abrupt termination of such programs would not primarily affect the South African government, but would impact the public health initiatives.
“Ending PEPFAR funding would place treatment for millions at risk for HIV mainly South Africans,” said Dr. Whitman, an expert in public health with considerable work experience in the implementation of PEPFARS. It would also harm one of the most successful and bipartisan programs of foreign aid America has ever known.
South African Agricultural Scene
Trump’s targeting of South African farmers is only a tiny portion of a broader, historically-Past and Present complex issue dating back to the apartheid era and even earlier. Land ownership in South Africa still remains unequal; according to government land audits, approximately 72% of privately held farmland belongs to white South Africans who constitute fewer than 10% of the total population.
Since the end of apartheid in 1994, land reform has been one of the stated priorities of the South African government; however, implementation progress has been somewhat tardy than many of the citizens had expected. In the latest developments, the government proposes a number of possible approaches to land reform, including possible expropriation without compensation under certain circumstances.
There is violence against farmers both white and black in South Africa, though these numbers really correlate with the overall crime rate in the country rather than being a manifestation of focused persecution, according to many international sources.
“When one is a farmer in South Africa, life can be complicated and often oversimplified beyond its borders,” Anele Mt wane, agricultural economist at the University of Cape Town, explained. “Although traumatic for victims, farm attacks do happen and empirical crime data do not provide support for the genocide rhetoric one hears from time to time internationally.”
Immigration Effects and Litigation Queries:
Most of all, Trump called upon farmers in South Africa to apply for U.S. citizenship-a process that usually takes years and has to follow strictly outlined legal pathways.
So it didn’t take long for immigration attorneys to remind loose-lipped politicians like Trump that citizenship or direct permanent residency cannot be granted to specific groups without congressional approval; current U.S. immigration law has some limited avenues by which farmers may be allowed entry, though skilled worker visas or investment visas might suffice in some instances.
“There is no standing provision in U.S. immigration law for expediting citizenship on the mere bases of nationality and occupation,” elucidated Jennifer Rodriguez, immigration attorney based in Washington, D.C.” Establishing such a program would mandatorily involve extensive legislative changes-not only executive action.
” It also raised questions of coherence vis-a-vis Trump’s overall immigration platform, which generally has taken restrictive rather than expansive views of immigration pathways. As president, Trump brought refugee admissions down to historic lows and applied an extensive range of restrictions on legal immigration programs.
“As regarding a notable paradigm shift from Trump’s general position on immigration,” said Peter Chen, fellow at the Immigration Policy Institute. “It betokens that immigration is not uniformly evil but is here for selective rationalizations about specific political or demographic objectives.”
FAQS:
At present, how much assistance does South Africa receive from the United States?
This means that South Africa, on average, receives approximately $450 million annually as U.S. assistance, of which over 85% is specifically set aside for health programs, especially in HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention.
Can a president of the U.S. unilaterally cut all aid to a country?
However, there are certain flexibilities as far as the president cutting or eliminating foreign aid is concerned, but when it comes to much-coveted cuts or the elimination of appropriated funds, moving a little bit of that would have to be through congressional approval or some complicated legal maneuverings.
Do South African farmers qualify for any special U.S. visa categories?
At this stage, there is no specific visa category reserved solely for farmers from South Africa. They will have to qualify under any of the existing categories, such as skilled worker visas, investment visas, or family-based immigration.
Has violence against farmers in South Africa grown in the last few months?
Official statistics obtained from the South African Police Service indicate a fluctuating pattern over the years regarding farm attacks rather than a clear increase. It is still very high for all groups across the population in murder in South Africa.
Is it possible for Trump to take these actions if he were re-elected into power?
Cutting all foreign aid and creating new ways to give citizenship to undocumented immigrants would be subject to legal and congressional hurdles while a president has great power over foreign policy. No power of the executive would suffice for full implementation.