The US-South Africa relationship stands at a dangerous crossroads

The diplomatic relationship between the United States and South Africa has entered one of its most turbulent phases since the end of apartheid.

Once characterised by cooperation across sectors such as trade, health, defence, and diplomacy, the partnership is now fraying under the weight of geopolitical tensions, ideological differences, and a string of controversial policy decisions on both sides.

The deterioration began during US President Donald Trump’s first term in office and has intensified since 2022, largely due to fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, South Africa’s 2023 case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and South Africa’s close relationship with China.

However, tensions reached a boiling point after Trump’s return to office in January. A series of bold and, in some cases, controversial moves by the US administration and a few strategic mistakes on the part of South Africa have taken the strained relationship to the brink of collapse.





Among the most incendiary was an executive order aimed at offering asylum to white South Africans — specifically Afrikaners — citing concerns over a new land reform law in South Africa.

The law, part of an effort to address historical inequalities rooted in apartheid-era land dispossession, triggered alarm bells in some circles abroad. Trump’s order framed the situation as a human rights issue for Afrikaners, despite pushback from South Africans who saw it as a racially charged external intervention.

Nearly 70,000 South Africans have since expressed interest in US visas under this programme, according to the South African Chamber of Commerce in the US. Critics argue the move echoes past US policies that favored the defunct apartheid regime and undermines South Africa’s ongoing efforts to redress systemic inequality.

The country has the world’s highest levels of income inequality, which, according to the International Monetary Fund, is evident in skewed income distribution, unequal access to opportunities, and regional disparities.



Another major flashpoint was the abrupt pause in US development aid and the dismantling of USAid operations in South Africa. This particularly affected the Pepfar programme — the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief — which had been a cornerstone of the US-South Africa health partnership.

In 2023 alone, South Africa received roughly $460-million in Pepfar funds, covering nearly 18% of the country’s total HIV/Aids budget. The funding freeze has led to job losses in the health sector and could jeopardise efforts to combat one of the world’s most severe HIV epidemics. The South African government has begun reallocating its own resources to make up for the shortfall.

Diplomatic tensions escalated even further in March, when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool persona non grata after Rasool criticised the Trump administration during a private webinar. His inflammatory remarks, in which he accused the administration of mobilising a “supremacist instinct” and “white victimhood”, were considered unacceptable by Washington.

Rasool, already under scrutiny for his advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and his support of South Africa’s ICJ case, was swiftly expelled. Pretoria has refrained from retaliating, instead signalling a desire to de-escalate and maintain open diplomatic channels.

Commercial diplomacy has not escaped the fallout. With a proposed 30% tariff rate, South Africa was among the hardest hit by Trump’s latest round of tariffs, which will disproportionately affect some African countries.

Only Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Angola, Botswana, and Libya face steeper tariff hikes. Although a 90-day pause has been granted before implementation, the looming threat of higher tariffs — particularly on automotive exports — has created deep anxiety in Pretoria.

South Africa is the largest African exporter to the United States, with at least one-quarter of these exports under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) preference programme.

Socioeconomic aspirations undermined