The real implications of Trump’s funding freeze for South Africa and broader African stability

6 Feb 2025

Despite President Cyril Ramaphosa’s downplaying of their potential impact, the reality is that South Africa and the continent are at grave risk.

It has been four days since United States (US) President Donald Trump declared on Truth Social that he would be “cutting off all future funding to South Africa” until an investigation into the Land Expropriation Act was complete. He called the act “a massive human rights violation” and falsely accused the South African government of “confiscating land and treating certain classes of people very badly”.

Trump’s claims have since been widely refuted by government leaders and civil society organisations countrywide, with the notable exception of AfriForum – which is reportedly behind Trump’s misinformation campaign against South Africa. The Land Expropriation Act, similar to the law of eminent domain in the US, grants the government the power to acquire private land for public use as long as fair compensation is provided.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s response was measured. He said South Africa was a “constitutional democracy deeply committed to the rule of law, justice and equality”. And that apart from Pepfar (President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief) Aid, which accounts for 17% of the country’s HIV/Aids programme, “there is no other significant funding provided by the United States in South Africa”.

Despite Ramaphosa’s best efforts to confront Trump’s threats and alleviate public concerns about the potential loss of US funding, the reality is quite different.

In 2024 alone, the US provided $453-million (R8.5-billion) in direct funding to South Africa under Pepfar, with a projected$439-million (R8.2-billion) in 2025.

In 2024, the US Agency for International Development (USAid) programmes invested nearly $60-million in initiatives to address climate change, promote gender equality, support community-based violence prevention, and uphold democratic principles. That is hardly insignificant considering the many non-governmental organisations in South Africa that rely on international donors, among which USAid has always been a major player.

On 4 February 2025, John Steenhuisen, the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA) – formerly South Africa’s main opposition party and since 2024, a Government of National Unity (GNU) member — expressed this heightened sense of concern. He said it would be a “tragedy” for South Africa to lose funding over the misunderstanding, and that the GNU would engage with Trump to clarify the situation.

Freeze on all foreign aid

The decision to cut US funds to South Africa comes just one week after Trump announced a freeze on all foreign aid. The world is still grappling with the repercussions, particularly for African countries that have relied on this support for decades. The crisis is compounded by the rapid dismantling of USAid over the weekend.

Although a US federal court temporarily blocked the freeze last week, Trump seems uninterested in respecting the limits of his executive power. He has enlisted Elon Musk to purge whatever he considers “wasteful” expenditure by the federal government.

Over the weekend, two USAid senior security officials were placed on administrative leave for denying members of Musk’s newly established Department of Government Efficiency (not even an official government department) access to USAid information systems.

Shortly thereafter, USAid’s website went offline. By Monday, the USAid headquarters in Washington DC were closed, and CNN reported that Musk said the agency was “beyond repair” and a “criminal organisation” that should be “shut down”.

Trump and Musk clearly view lifesaving forms of aid — not just to South Africa, but globally — as an unnecessary expense.

While concerns were growing about the implications of Trump’s potential re-election for South Africa amid a global rise in authoritarianism and a retreat from human rights principles, few anticipated South Africa would be targeted. And no one thought the US would cut funding entirely — not even drafters of that country’s controversial far-right Project 2025.

Considering Trump didn’t visit Africa once during his first term and made derogatory statements about the continent, his ignorance about the facts in South Africa and Africa more generally comes as no surprise.

Trump’s disinterest in Africa is underscored by a bulletin issued on Sunday by new Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Titled Bringing US Foreign Policy Home: Advancing American Interests First, the bulletin talks about building “a prosperous Western Hemisphere” by prioritising US relations in Central and South America over those in Africa and the rest of the world.

What could this mean for Africa?

According to USAid and US State Department data for 2022, every African country received some form of US aid, ranging from$125-million to$500-million. A total or partial withdrawal would hinder economic progress and exacerbate poverty, worsening humanitarian crises.

The US has offered vital financial and technical assistance to countries facing escalating security challenges. In 2024, programmes supporting democracy, human rights, governance and security accounted for 10% of USAid’s proposed$8-billion African aid package. Leading recipients of US non-humanitarian aid were Nigeria ($622-million), Mozambique ($564-million), Tanzania ($560-million), Uganda ($559-million), and Kenya ($512-million).

Discontinuing this funding raises the risk of increased human rights abuses and diminishing public trust in their governments, making countries vulnerable to more violent extremism. Terrorist groups often exploit low levels of citizen trust, security force abuses and underlying poverty and exclusion as their primary recruitment tools. The potential consequences are alarming, especially in West African nations Somalia and Mozambique, where violent extremist groups cause widespread violence.

What could this mean for the US?

A partial or total withdrawal from Africa would create a significant void, allowing authoritarian powers like China and Russia — already increasing their influence on the continent — to extend their reach. This could restrict US access to emerging markets, leading to missed trade opportunities in a region brimming with potential and fostering the development of policies that counter US interests.

Pulling back from Africa might also increase security risks for the US, creating a vacuum for insurgents to exploit and compromising the safety of Americans everywhere. The fallout from diminished public health and humanitarian assistance to Africa would fuel the perception of abandonment and could further damage long-term diplomatic relations.

Many of these risks contrast with US interests, especially considering the continuing threat of terrorism in Somalia, where al-Shabaab is strengthening ties with Houthis in Yemen.

Withdrawing the US’ role in Africa would halt vital development initiatives, exacerbate instability and poverty, and disrupt geopolitical alignments. That would weaken America’s ability to promote democracy and human rights while undermining its influence in Africa and standing across the globe. DM

Dr Kelly E Stone is a Senior Consultant, Justice and Violence Prevention, at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in Pretoria.

First published by ISS Today.

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

South Africa

Freeze on all foreign aid

What could this mean for Africa?

What could this mean for the US?