National Land, International Meddling

Trump’s threat to cut funding over South Africa’s land reform exposes a deeper, unresolved historical wound.

Few issues are as politically explosive in South Africa as land reform. More than three decades after apartheid ended, the vast majority of private farmland remains in white hands, a glaring legacy of colonial dispossession and racial segregation. President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision last month to sign into law a bill that allows land expropriation without compensation has reignited fierce debate which now extends far beyond South Africa’s borders.

Donald Trump, never one to shy away from controversy, has waded into the fray with characteristic bluntness. The US president announced that he would cut all future funding to South Africa over what he called the country’s policy of “confiscating land” and allegedly “treating certain classes of people very badly.” He has demanded a full investigation into what he perceives as state-sponsored land seizures.

The South African president has dismissed these allegations outright, declaring that his country remains a constitutional democracy. The law, his government insists, is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but rather an essential corrective to an unjust past. As Ramaphosa fends off Trump’s broadsides, he is also contending with mounting resistance at home - not just from white landowners and opposition parties but even from within his own government.

To understand the current controversy, one must look back more than a century. In 1913, the British colonial authorities enacted the Natives Land Act, which restricted black land ownership to just 7 percent of the country’s total area. This was later expanded to 13 percent but remained grossly disproportionate in a country where black people formed the overwhelming majority. Apartheid-era forced removals deepened the injustice, relegating millions to impoverished townships and so-called “homelands.”

When Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) took power in 1994, land reform was a priority. But successive governments struggled to implement it effectively. By 2017, a government report found that 72 percent of privately owned farmland remained in white hands, despite whites constituting just 7.3 percent of the population.

The new law, its proponents argue, is a belated but necessary step to address this imbalance. It allows for expropriation without compensation in cases where land is unproductive, abandoned, or poses a social risk. The government insists that it will not lead to mass land seizures.

Comparisons with Zimbabwe’s disastrous land seizures loom large. At the turn of the millennium, Robert Mugabe’s government forcibly removed white farmers, triggering economic collapse and hyperinflation. Investors fled, and agricultural productivity plummeted.

Ramaphosa’s critics warn that South Africa could be heading down the same path. The pro-business Democratic Alliance (DA), the country’s second-largest party, has vowed to challenge the law in court. Even some members of Ramaphosa’s governing coalition are wary, arguing that the process of enacting the law lacked due diligence.

On the other side of the spectrum, the radical Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have lambasted the law for not going far enough. They advocate sweeping nationalisation of land, arguing that anything short of this is a betrayal of the landless black majority.

Into this volatile mix steps Trump. His threat to cut aid is unlikely to have a crippling financial impact as most US funding to South Africa comes through Pepfar, the health initiative that supports HIV/AIDS treatment. But it signals Trump’s alignment with white South African farmers, a constituency that has long sought international support against land reform.

Trump’s position also plays well to his base. Many on the American right view South Africa’s land policies as an example of ‘reverse racism.’ Yet, Trump’s posturing may prove counterproductive. His comments risk alienating South Africa, a major player in the BRICS bloc that has been moving closer to China and Russia.

They could also backfire domestically; even AfriForum, an organisation advocating for white Afrikaner rights, has distanced itself from Trump’s blanket condemnation, suggesting that any punitive measures should target ANC leaders rather than the country as a whole.