South Africa has become the latest target of US President Donald Trump’s punitive measures, following a pattern of tariffs and threats against multiple countries—such as his suggestion of making Canada the 51st state and incorporating Greenland into US territories.

Trump signed an executive order cutting US aid to South Africa, which has long relied on American financial support for its public health sector. His administration justified the decision by accusing Pretoria of “unjust racial discrimination” against white Afrikaners—the minority that ruled during apartheid.

US aid accounted for 17% of South Africa’s health budget.

The executive order specifically cited South Africa's Expropriation Act signed recently by President Cyril Ramaphosa as evidence of discrimination against the white minority. The new law allows redistributing white-owned farmlands in specific circumstances in the interest of the public good.

Despite the collapse of apartheid in 1994, white Afrikaners have continued to own much of the country’s wealth and farmland. Afrikaners are the descendants of mainly Dutch colonial settlers. During the colonial and apartheid eras, many Indigenous people were forcibly removed from their land, while the white minority—now just 7 percent of the population—claimed ownership of vast agricultural areas.

Trump’s accusations—ranging from claims that white Afrikaners face discrimination to allegations that their land is being seized by the government—are “empirically incorrect,” says Dale McKinley, a Johannesburg-based political economist and researcher who has written extensively on South Africa’s political and economic landscape.

President Ramaphosa rejected Trump’s claims, declaring that South Africa “will not be bullied” by the US. As usual, Trump provided no concrete evidence for his allegations, and experts like Dr McKinley regard them as baseless.

The South African government understands that Trump’s accusations are “based on hearsay, not on proper information, not on actual data,” says Ebrahim Fakir, a South African political analyst. The US accusation that Pretoria "can just arbitrarily take the land" by utilising the new law is not accurate, Fakir tells TRT World. Trump and his advisers have an inaccurate understanding of South Africa, shaped by misleading information from lobbyists like AfriForum, a right-wing Afrikaner group, he says.

AfriForum leader Kallie Kriel, during a press conference earlier this month, accused Ramaphosa and the African National Congress (ANC) of discrimination through the land law, while also praising Trump.

“We want to show appreciation to President Trump for recognising and identifying the discrimination that Afrikaners are experiencing through racial legislation and threats to property rights,” Kriel said. However, according to McKinley, Afrikaner groups have since softened their stance.

“Even the Afrikaner lobbies that pushed this narrative have had to back off and admit that it is not true,” Dr McKinley tells TRT World.

Minority within a minority

Over the weekend, some members of South Africa’s white minority gathered outside the US embassy in Pretoria to show their support for Trump.

Trump, who proposed controversial policies on migration—including a plan to relocate Palestinians from Gaza to Arab nations such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia—offered refugee status to white South Africans in the US.

Dr McKinley believes that these pro-Trump protesters represent “a minority of people” in South Africa. “The vast majority have reacted negatively, rejecting the reasoning behind Trump’s actions. They see it as part of a broader assault on human rights, democratic rights, and respect for the Global South, as well as an expression of support for Israel.”

He adds, “a very small minority backs Trump for their own political purposes, but they have no real popular support beyond their own narrow constituency.”

Fakir also sees pro-Trump sentiment as representing “a very small portion” of South African society. “It's a minority amongst whites. It's a minority amongst Afrikaners,” says Fakir, adding that “Trump has become like a laughingstock” across South Africa thanks to his wild remarks and solutions on various global issues.

Elon Musk’s Influence?

Elon Musk—the world’s richest man and a South African by birth—now leads Trump’s controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Both McKinley and Fakir suggest that Musk may have played a role in Trump’s recent accusations against Pretoria.

“He is obviously feeding Trump some of this nonsense,” says Fakir, referring to claims about the land law and alleged discrimination against white South Africans. However, he argues that Musk’s motivations are not purely racial but also economic.

Musk wanted to launch his Starlink business in South Africa, Fakir says. While South Africans responded positively to the initiative, they insisted that Musk comply with local Black Economic Empowerment laws.

“He doesn’t want to do that. Instead, he wants to strong-arm the South African government into letting him operate without restrictions,” Fakir says.

Punishing South Africa’s stance on Palestine

Beyond land reform, pro-white lobbying, and Musk’s economic interests, there is another key factor driving Trump’s actions: South Africa’s strong stance on Palestine.

Dr McKinley argues that Trump is targeting South Africa primarily for its role in bringing Israel to trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

“The real reason for Trump’s actions is to punish South Africa for its stance on Palestine,” Dr McKinley says, pointing to the ANC’s longstanding ties with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Both movements fought against oppressive regimes in their respective regions.

But the ICG case “has taken” opposing stances between South Africa and the US “to another level,” says Dr McKinley, adding that some foreign policy choices like strengthening ties between Pretoria and Beijing might also be one of Trump’s motivations to punish the African state.

The executive order explicitly condemns South Africa’s “aggressive positions” against the US and Israel, accusing Pretoria of siding with Iran and falsely blaming Tel Aviv—rather than Hamas—for genocide in Gaza.

Fakir, a Johannesburg-based political analyst, also sees links between Trump’s aid cut and South Africa’s pro-Palestine stance. South Africa’s ICG case is not against the existence of Israel, it just demands from the Netanyahu government to act in the bounds of decency and international law, he says.

But “Trump is basically saying, oh no, no one must ask Israel even to be decent. You can't ask, you must ask them for nothing. They must be able to do whatever they want,” says Fakir.