U.S.-South Africa Relations: Tensions Rise

U.S.-South Africa Relations: Tensions Rise

CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

INSIGHTi

U.S.-South Africa Relations: Tensions Rise

March 6, 2025

On February 7, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14204, which stated that the South African government “has taken aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies” and “egregious actions” on land reform and racial relations. The EO reportedly has accentuated strains that had emerged in U.S.-South African relations since late 2022, largely over varied Government of South African (GoSA) foreign policy stances, regarding which multiple Members of Congress of Congress had expressed concerns. The Biden Administration, while acknowledging such concerns, largely sought to maintain bilateral collaboration on multiple issues.

Executive Order

The EO sets out concerns over South Africa’s Expropriation Act, enacted on January 23, 2025, which the EO asserts aims to enable GoSA seizures of “ethnic minority Afrikaners’ agricultural property without compensation.” The act does not mention Afrikaners (a predominantly White Dutch settler-descended ethno-racial group). The EO also says the GoSA has pursued “countless”

policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.

The EO further criticizes the GoSA for “accusing Israel, not Hamas, of genocide in the International Court of Justice, and reinvigorating its relations with Iran to develop commercial, military, and nuclear arrangements,” and declares that the “United States cannot support” GoSA domestic “rights violations … or its undermining United States foreign policy.” It states that while such alleged “unjust and immoral practices” persist, the United States

• “shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa” and

• “shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.”

The assistance provision permits “necessary” exceptions. These reportedly had included certain U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) programs in South Africa, under a waiver to a separate foreign aid “pause” and program review under EO 14169 (January 20, 2025). Per that review, the Administration has terminated numerous PEPFAR programs in South Africa. In FY2023 (latest full

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IN12520

Congressional Research Service 2

annual data), South Africa was allocated $492 million in U.S. aid—99% for health and 94% to counter HIV/AIDS—of which $440 million is obligated.

South African Responses

In response to the EO, the African National Congress (ANC)-dominated coalition government has stated that “no arbitrary dispossession of land/private property” has occurred, self-attested to the Expropriation Act’s constitutionality, and likened it to eminent domain laws in other countries. Officials, calling Afrikaners an “economically privileged” group, have refuted as untrue assertions “that Afrikaners face arbitrary deprivation and, therefore, need to flee” South Africa as refugees.

While the Expropriation Act permits state expropriation of private land without compensation in limited circumstances, it otherwise calls for “just and equitable” remuneration. The act, ANC-affiliated GoSA officials contend, is public interest measure to help redress enduring racial socioeconomic inequalities rooted in apartheid, which systematically dispossessed non-Whites of land. It is tied to GoSA land reform efforts intended to increase racially equitable access to privately held agricultural land; in 2015, roughly 72% of such property was owned by Whites (about 7% of the population). The act, however, is domestically controversial; the Democratic Alliance, the ANC’s main governing coalition partner, has sued to overturn it on constitutional grounds and compared it to apartheid-era land seizures.

Afrikaner responses to the EO’s refugee provisions have been mixed. While some Afrikaners reportedly have shown interest in the EO’s refugee and its alleged racial injustice provisions, several influential Afrikaner interest groups have rejected the refugee resettlement offer and denied that their advocacy efforts helped trigger the EO.

U.S.-GoSA Relations Issues and Congress

Prior to the EO, some congressional concerns with the GoSA’s foreign policy focused on

• Russia, including allegations in 2022 by then-U.S. Ambassador to South Africa Reuben Brigety—denied by the GoSA—that South Africa had armed Russia, aiding its war on Ukraine;

• the People’s Republic of China, and GoSA support for China’s “One China” policy (e.g., via pressure on Taiwan), over which some Members raised concerns;

• Amicable GoSA relations with Iran, a U.S.-designated state sponsor of terrorism and a funder of Hamas, a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization; and

• GoSA positions on Israel, a product of decades-long ANC-led political support for the Palestinians have also drawn many Members’ concern. In early 2024, over 200 Members denounced South Africa’s litigation against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Israel, the GoSA alleged, “has violated the genocide convention” during its military actions in Gaza.

In February 2025, neither Secretary of State Marco Rubio nor Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attended GoSA-led G20 ministerial meetings in South Africa, precedent to a November 2025 heads of state summit, underscoring current bilateral strains. Secretary Rubio said South Africa was “doing very bad things” as G20 president. A lower-profile U.S. presence in the G20 summit process could enable greater influence by China and Russia within the G20.

GoSA leaders, calling the United States “a key strategic political and trade partner,” said that they seek “diplomatic solutions to any” EO-linked “misunderstandings or disputes.” The Administration has reportedly rebuffed GoSA diplomatic outreach. Another GoSA response was the mining minister’s

Congressional Research Service 3

IN12520 · VERSION 1 · NEW

proposal to “withhold minerals to the US” if U.S. aid was cut. The GoSA also has sought to mend relations with Congress, address issues of congressional concern, and downplay the ICJ issue.

Possible issues of relevance to congressional oversight, authorization, and appropriations consideration on U.S. South-Africa relations may include the following:

• The scope of bilateral aid terminations under EOs 14204 and 14169, and how this may affect U.S. foreign policy and health sector priorities in South Africa.

• Whether or to what degree South Africa’s foreign policy positions may have undermined U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, potentially violating an eligibility criteria for African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) trade benefits, including in the context of a possible AGOA program reauthorization. H.R. 7256 (118th Congress) would have required presidential certification of GoSA compliance with such criteria and a comprehensive review of bilateral relations.

• Stated congressional concerns about the PRC, Russia, and Iran; access to strategic minerals; and bilateral policy differences and shared views on other regional or global issues.

Author Information

Nicolas Cook Specialist in African Affairs

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.