Trump and the South African Land Act: A Growing Conundrum

At a time of massive flux in geopolitics, the United States (US) has issued South Africa an executive order that cuts its financial assistance, as a way to criticise the recently passed ‘land expropriation act’ and Pretoria's genocide case against Israel at an international court. ^[1] While the South African government perceives this law as a key driver for land reform in the country still grappling with apartheid’s legacy, the Trump administration perceives it as discriminatory. This order clearly signifies a downturn in US-South Africa relations.

To understand this complex issue, we need to look back at South Africa’s history and the content of the new law. South African history is blotched with racial violence owing to Apartheid^[2] a comprehensive system of racial segregation and discrimination that was in practice until 1994. Apartheid, implemented in 1948 was built on the oppressive policies of the earlier colonial regimes. The cornerstone of the segregationist agenda was the Natives Land Act, passed in 1913 that established ‘reserves’ for Black South Africans beyond which they were forbidden to buy or rent land. This segregationist land act resulted in mass forced evictions of Black land owners and restricted the majority of Black South African land ownership to just 7 percent of the country’s territory.

The apartheid era Expropriation Act of 1975 created a highly skewed pattern of land ownership in South Africa. According to research, ‘when racist minority rule over South Africa ended in 1994, about 86 percent of agricultural land was controlled by white people who constituted 10.9 percent of the population.’ Under the 1975 Act, the state was obligated to pay owners to seize their lands under the principle of ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ (WSWB). This consequently delayed the process of land redistribution as the WSWB principle allowed owners to sell to the highest bidder in the open market, easily protecting their racial preferences. ^[3]

After decades of struggle against the oppressive Apartheid regime combined with the efforts of the African National Congress (ANC) and international pressure, the regime collapsed, paving way for the country’s first democratic elections in 1994 and the appointment of Nelson Mandela as the first black President of South Africa. The new government undertook to rebalance land ownership and ensure restitution of land for those dispossessed under Apartheid began land redistribution and land tenure system reforms. The Restitution of Land Rights Act, the first law passed by the democratic parliament in 1994, laid the foundation for land reforms in South Africa. The Act created the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and the Land Claims Court as key institutions to process and adjudicate claims, while providing for various forms of redress including land restoration, alternative land, or financial compensation.

This act paved the way for subsequent steps that were taken to address historical injustices, setting precedents for who could claim restitution and future legislations on land reform. The Expropriation Act of 2025, whose implementation irked the US President, Donald Trump is one such example. On January 24, South Africa implemented the new Expropriation Act.^[4] Under this act, the state can seize land without compensation for public purposes or in the public interest in certain circumstances. In other words, “land can be seized without compensation if the owner is not using it, and is rather just waiting for property values to rise in order to sell at a profit; if a government agency acquired the land for free and has no real use for it; if the land has been abandoned; or if government spending to sustain the land has surpassed its market value.” These are just examples and in practice, the government has yet to seize any land without compensation. It should be noted that the Expropriation Act makes no racial distinction with respect to property seizures.

The South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa faced a lot of reactions not just from the US but from within South Africa too. The second largest party in the ruling coalition, the Democratic Alliance (DA), a white dominated party criticised the law for being unconstitutional and accused the Ramaphosa’s ANC of not consulting its coalition partners before passing the law. The Freedom Front Plus, a right-wing white party also a member of the Government of National Unity (GNU), said it would challenge the constitutionality of the law, as it “poses serious risks” for South African’s property rights. Ramaphosa, however, has clarified that ‘the new act is not a confiscation instrument but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land and just manner as guided by the constitution’. According to a 2017 land audit, white people, who comprised 8% of the population, owned about three-quarters of farms and agricultural holdings, while Black South Africans only owned 4%.^[5] This new law, according to him, as an integral part of the South Africa National Development Plan, 2030 aims to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by uniting South Africans.

It should be emphasized that the Trump backlash is not new. During his previous term (2017-2021), he had taken up the issue of land seizures of the white South Africans. Trump’s close ally, Elon Musk who was born in South Africa, has been vocal about South Africa’s ‘racist laws’; and his considerable influence on the current executive order cannot be undermined. In addition to this, the move of the US President to cut financial aid is expected to have disastrous effect on a country which has more than 9 million HIV positive people, the largest in the world. The USAID’s emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has been critical to South Africa’s fight against the disease, out of the $320 million aid committed to the country by the US in 2024, more than $220 million aid has gone towards supporting its HIV/AIDS program.

In the current scenario, the future of PEPFAR and millions of South Africans dependent on US lifesaving aid remains uncertain. The ideological crossfire between the South African government’s efforts to rectify apartheid’s wrongs and Donald Trump’s renewed narrative of ‘white man’s burden’ also brings to light the broader geopolitical shifts with South Africa attempting to cultivate ties with Russia and China while the United States’ influence dwindles in Africa. The future of the US-South Africa relations depends on successful diplomatic engagement as expressed by Cyril Ramaphosa.

End Notes

^[1] Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa, Executive Order (February 7,2025), Presidential Actions. Accessed on February 20, 2025 at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/addressing-egregious-actions-of-the-republic-of-south-africa/ [3]
^[2] AUHRM Project Focus Area: The Apartheid, African Union. Accessed on February 27, 2025 at https://au.int/en/auhrm-project-focus-area-apartheid [4]
^[3] Lahiff, Edward (2007) 'Willing Buyer, Willing Seller': South Africa's Failed Experiment in Market-Led Agrarian Reform, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 8, Market-Led Agrarian Reform: Trajectories and Contestations, pp. 1577-1597. Accessed on February 27, 2025 at https://www.jstor.org/stable/20455018 [5]
^[4] Government Gazette, Republic of South Africa, Vol-715, 24 January 2025, No-51964. Accessed on February 27, 2025 at https://static.pmg.org.za/1/51964_24-1-2025_Expropriation_Act13_2024.pdf [6]
^[5] Land Reform, South African Government. Accessed on February 27, 2025 at https://www.gov.za/issues/land-reform [7]

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>