President Donald Trump swiped at “terrible” South Africa, said he was stopping all federal funding for the country, and invited its farmers to seek citizenship in the U.S. in a post on his Truth Social platform Friday morning.
Also Read:- US Federal Student Loan Repayments Suspended? What Borrowers Should Know
The unexpected announcement came as Trump continues to outline potential policy positions ahead of the November election, surprising both foreign policy experts and immigration advocates alike. The former and future president’s comments immediately sparked debate about the feasibility of such actions and raised questions about the implications for U.S.-South Africa relations going forward.
“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!”
The declaration marks Trump’s latest foray into South African politics—a topic he has periodically addressed since his first term in office. Back in 2018, he directed then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to study land seizures and “large-scale killing of farmers” in South Africa, though critics at the time accused him of amplifying misleading claims and statistics.
The Political Context Behind Trump’s Announcement
Trump’s latest comments come amid ongoing political shifts in South Africa and appear strategically timed as he seeks to solidify his base ahead of November’s election. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) recently lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since the end of apartheid, forming a unity government with opposition parties including the Democratic Alliance.
“Trump is playing to multiple audiences with this statement,” explained Michael Johnson, a political scientist at Georgetown University specializing in U.S.-Africa relations. “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—a topic that has become something of a cause célèbre in certain conservative circles.”
The timing also coincides with ongoing debates within the Republican Party about immigration policy, with Trump attempting to draw distinctions between immigrants he deems desirable versus undesirable. By specifically inviting South African farmers—predominantly white and skilled in agriculture—Trump is reinforcing his preference for what he has previously termed “merit-based” immigration.
Reactions From South Africa and the International Community
The South African government responded swiftly to Trump’s statements, with Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola calling the comments “unfortunate and uninformed.” In a press briefing in Pretoria, Lamola emphasized that “South Africa remains committed to protecting all its citizens regardless of race or occupation” and noted that “foreign aid represents a minuscule portion of our national budget.”
The U.S. State Department appeared caught off-guard by Trump’s declaration, with spokesperson Emily Watson offering only 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.”
International relations experts note that Trump’s authority to unilaterally cut all funding to South Africa or fast-track citizenship for specific groups would face significant legal and constitutional hurdles. Nevertheless, the statement has already created diplomatic ripples.
“Even as campaign rhetoric, statements like these complicate relationships with important regional partners,” noted Ambassador Thomas Richards, former U.S. envoy to South Africa during the Obama administration. “South Africa remains the continent’s most industrialized economy and an important strategic partner on issues ranging from trade to counterterrorism.”
The Reality of U.S. Aid to South Africa
Trump’s claim about cutting “all funding” to South Africa requires contextualization, as U.S. aid to the country has evolved significantly over the years. Current assistance primarily focuses on health programs, particularly HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment through initiatives like PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief).
The following table outlines U.S. foreign assistance to South Africa over 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 |
*Projected figures based on appropriations
Health assistance represents the overwhelming majority of U.S. aid to South Africa, with PEPFAR having invested over $7.5 billion since 2004 to combat HIV/AIDS in the country. Abruptly cutting such programs would primarily impact public health initiatives rather than the South African government directly.
“Ending PEPFAR funding would potentially jeopardize treatment for millions of South Africans living with HIV,” warned Dr. Sarah Whitman, a public health expert who has worked extensively on PEPFAR implementation. “It would also damage one of America’s most successful and bipartisan foreign aid programs.”
The Agricultural Picture in South Africa
Trump’s specific focus on South African farmers touches on a complex and historically fraught issue dating back to the apartheid era and before. Land ownership remains highly unequal in South Africa, with statistics from the government’s land audit showing white South Africans, who comprise less than 10% of the population, own approximately 72% of privately held farmland.
Land reform has been a stated priority of the South African government since apartheid ended in 1994, though progress has been slower than many hoped. In recent years, the government has debated various approaches, including potential expropriation without compensation in certain circumstances.
Violence against farmers—both white and black—does occur in South Africa, though statistics show it generally aligns with the country’s overall high crime rate rather than representing targeted persecution as some international commentators have claimed.
“The situation for farmers in South Africa is complex and often oversimplified abroad,” explained Anele Mtwana, an agricultural economist at the University of Cape Town. “While farm attacks do occur and are traumatic for victims, comprehensive crime statistics don’t support the narrative of genocide that sometimes circulates internationally.”
Immigration Implications and Legal Questions
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Trump’s statement was his invitation for South African farmers to seek U.S. citizenship—a process that typically takes years and follows strictly defined legal pathways.
Immigration attorneys quickly noted that a president cannot unilaterally grant citizenship or even permanent residency to specific groups without congressional approval. Current U.S. immigration law provides limited pathways for farmers specifically, though skilled worker visas or investment visas might apply in some cases.
“There’s no existing mechanism in U.S. immigration law that would allow for expedited citizenship based on nationality and occupation alone,” explained Jennifer Rodriguez, an immigration attorney based in Washington, D.C. “Creating such a program would require significant legislative changes, not just executive action.”
The statement also raised questions about consistency in Trump’s broader immigration platform, which has generally focused on restricting rather than expanding immigration pathways. During his administration, Trump reduced refugee admissions to historic lows and implemented various restrictions on legal immigration programs.
“This represents a notable departure from Trump’s general stance on immigration,” observed Peter Chen, fellow at the Immigration Policy Institute. “It suggests he views immigration not as uniformly problematic but rather as a tool that can be selectively applied to advance specific political or demographic objectives.”
FAQs About Trump’s South Africa Comments
How much U.S. aid does South Africa currently receive?
South Africa receives approximately $450 million annually in U.S. assistance, with over 85% dedicated to health programs, particularly HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention.
Can a U.S. president unilaterally cut all aid to a country?
No. While presidents have some flexibility in foreign aid implementation, significant cuts or elimination of congressionally appropriated funds would require congressional approval or complex legal maneuvering.
Do South African farmers qualify for any special U.S. visa categories?
Currently, no special visa category exists specifically for South African farmers. They would need to qualify under existing categories such as skilled worker visas, investment visas, or family-based immigration.
Has violence against farmers in South Africa increased recently?
Official statistics from the South African Police Service show farm attack numbers have fluctuated year to year without showing a clear upward trend. The overall murder rate in South Africa remains high across all population groups.
Could Trump implement these policies if re-elected?
While a president has significant authority over foreign policy, both cutting all aid and creating new citizenship pathways would face substantial legal and congressional hurdles. Executive authority alone would be insufficient for full implementation.
Also Read:- Social Security Payment of March 2025 is increased – you have recived?