President Donald Trump’s latest remarks have stirred the pot, signaling he might ditch the G20 summit in South Africa come November 2025.
Fox News reported that on Tuesday, aboard Air Force One, Trump voiced concerns about South Africa’s policies, particularly violent crime and land seizures, suggesting he’d rather send a representative than attend the summit himself.
Fresh off securing a major trade deal with the European Union in Scotland, Trump’s focus shifted to South Africa’s domestic issues, which he called “very bad policies.”
His blunt critique, laced with his signature bravado, dismisses diplomatic niceties but risks alienating a key African partner.
Trump’s skepticism about South Africa stems from a May 21, 2025, Oval Office meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa.
He presented Ramaphosa with news clippings and a video alleging mistreatment of White Afrikaner farmers. The move was bold but ignored South Africa’s firm denial of any systemic harassment.
Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch settlers who arrived in 1652, have been at the heart of Trump’s narrative.
He claims they’re being “slaughtered and forced off their land,” a charge that South African officials, including Ramaphosa, have consistently refuted. The rhetoric, while attention-grabbing, oversimplifies a complex issue.
“I think maybe I’ll send somebody else because I’ve had a lot of problems with South Africa,” Trump said.
His words reflect a broader conservative frustration with progressive land reform policies, but they sidestep the nuance of South Africa’s historical inequalities. It’s a classic Trump play—bold, divisive, yet rooted in a kernel of truth.
Trump’s stance isn’t new; earlier in 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio boycotted a G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in South Africa.
Rubio’s absence was a protest against the country’s controversial land seizure policies, which critics argue unfairly target White farmers. The boycott set the stage for Trump’s current posturing.
South Africa’s land reform debate is thorny, tied to redressing apartheid-era injustices while balancing property rights.
Trump’s focus on White Afrikaners amplifies a conservative talking point but glosses over the broader context of racial and economic reconciliation. It’s a selective lens that plays well to his base.
“They have some very bad policies,” Trump declared, doubling down on his critique. His vague phrasing leaves room for interpretation, but it’s clear he’s signaling discontent with South Africa’s progressive agenda. The statement, while punchy, lacks the specificity needed for serious policy critique.
Trump’s comments also tie into South Africa’s foreign policy, particularly its accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations have criticized this move, seeing it as a diplomatic misstep. It’s another strike against South Africa in Trump’s book.
The G20 summit, a critical platform for global economic coordination, could lose heft if Trump skips it.
His absence would signal a retreat from multilateral engagement, a hallmark of his “America First” doctrine. Yet, sending a representative might soften the blow while still making a point.
“Very, very bad policies, like policies where people are being killed,” Trump said, leaning into hyperbole. The claim, while emotionally charged, doesn’t align with South Africa’s official stance, which denies any genocide or widespread violence against farmers. It’s a rhetorical jab that prioritizes impact over accuracy.
Trump’s potential G20 snub fits his broader pattern of using high-profile platforms to spotlight contentious issues. By focusing on White Afrikaner farmers, he taps into a conservative narrative of victimhood while sidestepping South Africa’s complex socio-economic challenges. It’s a calculated move, not a diplomatic olive branch.
South Africa, for its part, has pushed back against Trump’s narrative, with Ramaphosa denying claims of farmer persecution. The country’s leaders argue their policies aim to correct historical wrongs, not create new ones. Trump’s selective outrage risks escalating tensions without offering solutions.
