US-South Africa relations stand at new lows ahead of Ramaphosa-Trump meeting

The upcoming meeting between Presidents Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump marks a pivotal moment in deteriorating US-South Africa relations.

Key issues include South Africa’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, its diplomatic ties with Russia, China, and Iran, and the Trump administration’s controversial decision to offer refugee status to Afrikaners.

The situation escalated further following the announcement of the meeting, as tensions mounted over the US’s welcoming of white South African farmers claiming persecution. This move has stirred racial sensitivities and historical grievances in South Africa, especially as Trump continues to frame the ANC government as systematically targeting white minorities.

South Africa’s firm support for Palestine continues to be a major source of tension in its relationship with the United States. Its recent filing of a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in early 2024 marks a stark divergence from Washington’s unwavering pro-Israel stance to date.

President Trump has described South Africa’s move as an “aggressive position” against the US and its allies, going so far as to issue an executive order in February 2025 suspending all US aid and assistance to South Africa. The order cited the ICJ case as evidence of an anti-American foreign policy and accused South Africa of tacit support for Hamas, a US-designated terrorist organisation.

Rooted in its own history of overcoming apartheid, South Africa draws strong parallels between the Palestinian struggle and its own liberation, framing its stance as a principled commitment to international law and human rights. Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola affirmed there is “no chance” of withdrawing the case, underscoring South Africa’s resolve to remain consistent with its values despite international pressure.

This principled position has placed South Africa prominently within the global pro-Palestinian movement and directly clashes with Trump’s “America First” approach and his longstanding pro-Israel policies, including the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The fallout has led to diplomatic sanctions and heightened friction, complicating bilateral dialogue and making the upcoming Ramaphosa-Trump meeting highly sensitive. US officials have strongly criticised South Africa’s actions, and by framing them as support for extremism, the Trump administration seeks to isolate South Africa diplomatically and bolster domestic backing for its hardline Middle East policy.

One particularly contentious issue is the Trump administration’s decision to expedite refugee status for Afrikaner farmers, citing claims of a so-called “white genocide” in South Africa. Despite multiple South African court rulings rejecting these claims - including a 2025 ruling that labelled the idea “clearly imagined” - the US accepted its first group of approximately 59 Afrikaners on 12 May 2025.

South African officials have condemned the move as politically motivated and racially biased, arguing it undermines the country’s democratic efforts and misrepresents the broader issue of violent crime, which affects all communities regardless of race.

President Ramaphosa dismissed the genocide narrative as “completely false,” calling those who left “cowards” longing for apartheid-era privilege.

The backlash intensified when high-ranking US officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, publicly welcomed the refugees, while the US simultaneously slowed admissions for other vulnerable populations. Critics, including refugee advocacy groups, have accused the administration of hypocrisy and racial favouritism.

Fuelling the narrative is Elon Musk, whose amplification of “white genocide” claims and criticism of South African policies - through both his platform and controversial AI chatbot, Grok - has shaped public perception and, arguably, US foreign policy. South Africa views these developments as a calculated effort to discredit its post-apartheid reforms and racial reconciliation agenda.

South Africa’s growing alliances with China, Russia, and Iran - particularly through the BRICS coalition - have deepened US suspicions about shifting spheres of influence in Africa and beyond.

The Trump administration has expressed clear discomfort with South Africa’s non-aligned foreign policy, most notably in a February 2025 executive order accusing Pretoria of expanding ties with Iran through commercial, military, and alleged nuclear cooperation - claims South Africa firmly denies.

Washington views BRICS as a strategic threat to the Western-led global order, and South Africa’s engagement within the bloc has been met with escalating rhetoric. President Trump has threatened 100% tariffs on BRICS nations pursuing de-dollarisation efforts, reinforcing his administration’s “America First” stance.

Tensions escalated further when the US boycotted key G20 events hosted in Johannesburg under South Africa’s 2025 presidency.

Drawing on its historical roots of non-alignment during the anti-apartheid era, South Africa insists on its sovereign right to engage with a diverse set of global actors.

Yet, the growing US hostility toward this stance - and the targeted nature of its criticism compared to other nations with similar ties - suggests a broader strategy to isolate South Africa diplomatically and signal its disapproval of any perceived challenge to US dominance.

The worsening diplomatic environment between the United States and South Africa is already having tangible economic consequences. The South African rand (USD/ZAR) has grown increasingly volatile, with fluctuations closely tied to political developments and trade uncertainties.

Investor sensitivity to the bilateral relationship was underscored in May 2025, when the announcement of a forthcoming meeting between Presidents Ramaphosa and Trump triggered a brief appreciation in the rand, which traded at 18.22 against the dollar following the news. This movement reflects how political headlines are directly influencing currency sentiment.

Beyond bilateral tensions, broader geopolitical dynamics - including US trade policy toward China - also shape rand performance. Given China’s role as South Africa’s largest trading partner, any escalation in US-China trade disputes indirectly impacts South African financial markets.

For instance, the rand risk gauge dipped after President Trump suggested he might not follow through on China tariffs, underscoring the currency’s exposure to US geopolitical posturing. Political uncertainty within the US, including domestic instability or high-profile events like attempted assassinations, can further fuel market unease and increase exchange rate volatility.

Domestically, disappointing economic indicators, such as an expected contraction in the mining sector, are compounding the rand’s fragility. This multifaceted pressure on the currency directly impacts rand hedge stocks - companies that earn significant revenue in foreign currencies. Often viewed as a buffer against a weakening rand, these stocks have experienced heightened sensitivity in recent months.

While a depreciating rand boosts their reported earnings in local currency terms, their overall performance is also tied to global market trends and company-specific fundamentals. As such, they remain an imperfect hedge against politically driven volatility.

At a broader level, South Africa’s preferential access to the US market through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is also under threat. AGOA has been instrumental in supporting South Africa’s agricultural and automotive exports, with around two-thirds of US-bound agricultural products - such as citrus fruits, wine, and nuts - entering tariff-free. In 2024, automotive exports under AGOA reached billions of rand in value.

However, repeated threats from the Trump administration to revoke AGOA eligibility, coupled with proposed tariffs - including a 25% duty on vehicle imports and a temporarily suspended 30% tariff on various goods - have undermined the agreement’s economic benefits.

Losing AGOA access could have sector-specific repercussions far more severe than the modest 0.06% GDP impact projected by analysts. The stakes are much higher for industries like food and beverages, transport equipment, and fruit and vegetables. Job losses, reduced export earnings, and diminished investor confidence are likely outcomes.

Recognising these risks, South Africa is pursuing trade diversification strategies and even exploring the possibility of a new bilateral agreement with the US to stabilise economic ties.

Ultimately, the mounting strain between the two nations risks disrupting established trade flows, revealing South Africa’s vulnerability to US foreign policy decisions. The volatility in its currency, exposure of key sectors to shifting trade dynamics, and investor unease all signal that the economic fallout from diplomatic tensions is no longer hypothetical - it’s already unfolding.

South Africa faces a major diplomatic challenge as it prepares to host the G20 Summit in Johannesburg in November 2025 - its first time holding the rotating presidency of this influential global forum.

The summit’s central themes of “Solidarity, Equality, and Sustainability” reflect South Africa’s effort to reposition itself as a leading voice for the Global South. However, these priorities are at odds with the Trump administration’s “America First” agenda, deepening an already growing rift between the two nations.

Tensions have escalated with clear signals from Washington that the US may boycott the summit. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has already declined to attend preparatory meetings, and reports indicate that the US National Security Council has instructed all federal agencies to withdraw from G20-related activities hosted by South Africa.

Rubio publicly dismissed South Africa’s summit themes as a repackaging of “DEI and climate change,” highlighting the ideological divide between the two administrations.

The potential absence of the United States - a founding G20 member and one of its most influential participants - poses a serious risk to the summit’s credibility. With South Africa having extended formal invitations to all member states, including President Trump, President Ramaphosa is now under pressure to use his diplomatic leverage to secure US participation.

The geopolitical backdrop further complicates the situation: Russia is expected to attend only at the ministerial level, given the ICC’s outstanding arrest warrant for President Putin. In this vacuum, China and other powers could gain greater influence, reshaping the summit’s balance of power.

If President Trump chooses to boycott the summit altogether, it would be seen as a direct snub of South Africa’s leadership and a deliberate attempt to undermine the country’s role in shaping global governance. With the US slated to assume the G20 presidency in 2026, the current stance signals a breakdown in multilateral continuity. It could further fragment international cooperation at a time when global consensus is already fragile.

The broader implications of this diplomatic standoff go beyond the summit itself. The US’s withdrawal highlights a deeper divide in global values and priorities. While South Africa focuses on inclusive growth and sustainability, the current US administration takes a more transactional approach, driven mainly by national interests.

The upcoming meeting between Presidents Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump is critical in the increasingly strained relationship between the United States and South Africa.

Tensions have been building over a series of flashpoints, including South Africa’s vocal support for Palestine, its expanding ties with China, Russia, and Iran, and the controversial US refugee policy that favours Afrikaner farmers - an issue that has inflamed sensitivities around race and sovereignty.

These divisions highlight geopolitical differences and conflicting interpretations of domestic and international priorities.

This bilateral meeting presents a rare opportunity for high-level dialogue and a potential inflexion point, but expectations for a breakthrough remain tempered. The underlying disagreements are ideological and strategic, and President Trump’s personal views have, at times, amplified diplomatic friction.

Yet, the stakes are high: failure to de-escalate tensions could have significant economic and geopolitical consequences for South Africa, particularly regarding trade relations, US foreign investment, and the country’s positioning within the global order.

The outcome of the meeting will not only shape future cooperation but could also impact market confidence and regional diplomacy, especially as South Africa prepares to host the G20 Summit later this year amid signals of possible US disengagement.

The broader context reflects a world in flux, where global alliances are shifting and middle powers like South Africa are increasingly challenged to balance competing relationships while asserting greater autonomy on the world stage.

Going forward, the restoration of trust and a commitment to pragmatic, respectful engagement will be essential. While a full reset may be unlikely, even incremental progress could help stabilise bilateral relations and safeguard mutual economic and diplomatic interests at a time of growing uncertainty in international affairs.