Why Are Trump and Musk Targeting South Africa?

In South Africa, 70% of agricultural land is still owned by white people, despite them making up only 7% of the population. Meanwhile, the Black majority, who represent 80% of the population, own just 4% of the land. This stark reality makes South Africa one of the most unequal countries in the world, according to the Gini coefficient, which measures economic inequality.

Despite these facts, Washington has chosen to escalate tensions with Pretoria. Last Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to halt financial aid to South Africa. The White House stated that the order was issued in response to what it described as “egregious actions” by the South African government concerning the expropriation of land from minority groups, referring to white farmers and landowners.

However, the motivations behind Washington’s move were not purely economic. The decision was also a direct response to South Africa’s international stance, particularly its bold move to file a case against Israel for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Trump criticized this action, claiming that South Africa had taken “hostile positions” against the U.S. and its allies, accusing Israel instead of Hamas of committing genocide.

Alongside Trump in the White House, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has emerged as a key player in the U.S. escalation against South Africa. According to Foreign Policy magazine, the issue extends beyond political calculations to economic interests and expansionist ambitions that Musk is pursuing in Africa. What is the full story?

Washington Cuts Aid for the Sake of White South Africans

Since early February, tensions between Washington and Pretoria have escalated, reaching a peak with Trump’s decision to cut U.S. aid to South Africa. He justified this by citing “unfair racial discrimination” against Afrikaners, in response to South Africa’s new land reform law.

Afrikaners, a term used for white descendants of Dutch and French settlers, own most of the country’s agricultural land. They make up about 4% of South Africa’s population, while white people overall constitute around 7%. Meanwhile, Black South Africans account for 81% of the country’s 63 million citizens. Land ownership remains one of the most contentious issues in the nation’s post-colonial and post-apartheid history.

For Black South Africans, land ownership has been central to their historical struggle. Despite the end of apartheid in 1994, South Africa remains one of the most economically unequal nations. The disproportionate control of land by a small white minority has reinforced racial economic disparities.

With worsening economic conditions and declining popularity of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), the land issue has returned to the forefront. Last month, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Land Expropriation Act, allowing the government to acquire land for public interest projects, such as infrastructure and schools, often with compensation. Contrary to claims by some critics, the law does not aim to transfer land exclusively to Black citizens but seeks to correct the legacy of decades of racial discrimination.

However, the law sparked a significant reaction in Washington, fueled by a powerful Afrikaner lobby advocating for U.S. intervention. The law became the public justification for Trump’s attack, with explicit support from his billionaire ally.

In his executive order, Trump accused South Africa of “seizing Afrikaner-owned land without compensation,” claiming that the law was part of a broader pattern of “discriminatory policies that limit economic opportunities.” He also criticized previous measures restricting the use of Afrikaans in education, alleging that such moves were attempts to marginalize the white population. Trump’s order even included an unexpected offer—granting Afrikaners refugee status in the U.S. with a fast-track to Green Cards and citizenship, despite them being one of the wealthiest and most privileged groups in South Africa.

South Africa’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed Trump’s claims as “inaccurate and based on misinformation and propaganda.” It pointed out the contradiction in Trump’s refugee policy—welcoming privileged Afrikaners while imposing strict immigration policies on refugees from other parts of the world.

What Is the Real Agenda Behind Trump’s Hostility to South Africa?

Trump’s opposition to South Africa is not solely about land reform. The root of his hostility lies in Pretoria’s decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice over its military actions in Gaza, which resulted in over 160,000 Palestinian casualties, including thousands of children and women.

However, the issue goes deeper. For years, right-wing groups in the U.S. have promoted conspiracy theories about so-called “white genocide” in South Africa. These claims, though debunked, caught Trump’s attention during his first presidency. He even tweeted about his concerns over “atrocities against white farmers.”

Elon Musk, a South African native and the owner of X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX, shares Trump’s antagonism toward Pretoria. Recently, Musk attempted to obtain a license to operate his Starlink internet service in South Africa but was met with regulatory requirements mandating 30% local ownership, as per the country’s Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) laws. Rather than complying, Musk attacked South Africa publicly, calling these laws “explicitly racist.”

Starlink’s Expansion in Africa

Musk’s grievances with South Africa are part of a larger ambition to expand Starlink’s presence across Africa. Starlink operates in over 12 African countries but faces growing complaints about unfair competition due to its lack of local employment. If Musk were to comply with South Africa’s regulations, similar demands could arise in Kenya and other African nations, potentially disrupting his business model.

Musk’s influence over U.S. foreign policy is becoming more evident. His business interests appear to be shaping decisions at the highest levels of government. This was highlighted by U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, who responded critically to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s refusal to attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg, citing alleged “atrocities” in South Africa. Murphy stated, “It’s not hard to see what’s happening here. Musk’s Starlink application was rejected in South Africa, and now he’s orchestrating a political campaign against the country. Our foreign policy is now a tool for billionaires’ business interests. This is outrageous corruption.”

In sum, the growing hostility of Trump and Musk toward South Africa is not about justice for white farmers. Instead, it is fueled by geopolitical calculations, economic interests, and personal vendettas. As Pretoria continues to challenge U.S. allies on the international stage, particularly Israel, it should expect further pushback from Washington’s powerful elites.