Ramaphosa Rejects Trump’s Land Confiscation Accusations, Defends South Africa’s Land Policies

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has firmly dismissed claims by former U.S. President Donald Trump that South Africa is engaged in land confiscation and unfair treatment of certain groups. Ramaphosa also addressed Trump’s announcement of a funding cut to the country, clarifying that South Africa does not rely on U.S. financial aid beyond a specific health program.

Trump’s Allegations and Funding Threat

Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Sunday to accuse South Africa of land seizures and mistreatment, announcing that the U.S. would halt future funding to the nation until a full investigation is conducted.

“South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people very badly. I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!” Trump posted.

Later, in a press briefing, Trump reiterated his concerns, stating, “South Africa’s leadership is doing some terrible things, horrible things. That’s under investigation right now. They’re taking away land and confiscating land, and actually, they’re doing things that are perhaps far worse than that.”

Ramaphosa’s Response: No Land Confiscation in South Africa

In a strong rebuttal on Monday, Ramaphosa took to X (formerly Twitter) to reaffirm South Africa’s commitment to democracy, justice, and the rule of law. He rejected Trump’s claims, emphasizing that no land confiscation has taken place.

“South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is deeply rooted in the rule of law, justice, and equality. The South African Government has not confiscated any land,” Ramaphosa stated.

He further clarified that the Expropriation Act, recently adopted by the government, is a constitutionally mandated legal process designed to expand public access to land fairly and equitably, not to arbitrarily seize property.

“The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution,” he explained.

Ramaphosa also noted that expropriation laws exist in many countries, including the United States, where governments occasionally take land for public use while compensating owners.

“South Africa, like the United States of America and other countries, has always had expropriation laws that balance the need for public usage of land and the protection of rights of property owners,” he stated.

Funding Cuts? Ramaphosa Clarifies U.S. Financial Role

Addressing Trump’s threat to withdraw U.S. funding, Ramaphosa downplayed the significance of such a move, stating that South Africa does not rely on American financial support, except for PEPFAR Aid—a U.S. government program funding 17% of South Africa’s HIV/AIDS program.

“The US remains a key strategic political and trade partner for South Africa. With the exception of PEPFAR Aid, which constitutes 17% of South Africa’s HIV/AIDS programme, there is no other funding that is received by South Africa from the United States,” he clarified.

Ramaphosa expressed optimism that constructive discussions with Trump’s administration would lead to a better understanding of South Africa’s land policies and bilateral relations.

“We look forward to engaging with the Trump administration over our land reform policy and issues of bilateral interest. We are certain that out of those engagements, we will share a better and common understanding of these matters,” he added.

The Controversy Over South Africa’s Land Policies

Land ownership has long been a highly contentious issue in South Africa. Despite the end of apartheid in 1994, much of the country’s farmland remains under white ownership, leading to calls for land redistribution to address historical injustices.

The South African government argues that the Expropriation Act allows land acquisition in cases where it serves the public interest. The bill does provide for “nil compensation” in some cases, but Pretoria insists it does not permit arbitrary government seizures of private property.

However, critics—including conservative figures in the U.S. and South African white landowners—fear that the policy could mirror Zimbabwe’s land seizures, where commercial farms were taken without compensation, leading to economic decline and food shortages.

Trump’s Allies and the Influence of Apartheid-Era Figures

Trump’s comments reflect growing concerns among right-wing activists and business leaders, including Elon Musk, a South African-born billionaire and vocal critic of the South African government’s land policies.

Musk, who grew up in Pretoria, has repeatedly raised alarms over white landowners losing property in South Africa. Alongside him, other influential Silicon Valley figures with ties to apartheid-era South Africa—such as David Sacks and Peter Thiel—have also emerged as Trump’s allies and advisors.

Thiel, a PayPal co-founder, previously lived in Namibia, which was under South African control during apartheid. His political connections played a role in introducing Trump to his Vice President, J.D. Vance. Thiel has faced accusations of supporting pro-apartheid policies, although his spokesperson has denied such claims.

A Strained Diplomatic Relationship?

Trump’s remarks and the potential U.S. funding cut could add tension to relations between Washington and Pretoria. While South Africa values its trade and diplomatic ties with the U.S., it has increasingly sought to diversify its global partnerships, strengthening relations with China, Russia, and other emerging economies.

With land reform remaining a politically sensitive issue in South Africa, it remains to be seen how Trump’s accusations and Ramaphosa’s response will influence future diplomatic and economic engagements between the two nations.