Fear mongering

In an all-too-familiar display of ignorance, United States President Donald Trump recently denounced South Africa’s new Expropriation Act, falsely framing it as a racially driven attack on the white minority. His remarks, steeped in misinformation, echo the rhetoric of far-right groups that have long sought to delegitimise South Africa’s efforts to correct centuries of land dispossession.

While Trump is well within his rights to withhold US aid – money South Africa neither relies upon nor seeks – he has no business interfering in a sovereign nation’s attempt to address historical injustice. His inflammatory comments are not just misguided; they are dangerous. South Africa, a country that emerged from the brutal system of apartheid only 30 years ago, remains deeply scarred by racial and economic inequality. The land question is at the heart of these unresolved wounds, and reckless statements from the US president risk inflaming tensions in a society still striving for justice.

But perhaps the greatest irony of all is that the US itself has expropriation laws under its Fifth Amendment. The notion that land can be taken for public good, with or without compensation, is not new – it is foundational to US property law. So why, then, does Trump feign outrage when South Africa follows a similar path?

This irony pales in comparison to Trump’s remarks about “taking over” Gaza and making it “ours” after Israel’s mass destruction and genocide in Palestine. Expropriating land within one’s borders is one thing; ethnic cleansing and annexing foreign land is hypocrisy and moral corruption at an unimaginable level.

To grasp why land reform is necessary, one must confront an uncomfortable truth: South Africa’s land was stolen. From colonial conquest to apartheid-era forced removals, Black South Africans were systematically dispossessed and relegated to overcrowded, barren “homelands”. The 1913 and 1936 Land Acts codified this theft, reserving 87 percent of the land for the white minority and leaving the Black majority crammed into just 13 percent of the country.

This is not ancient history. The consequences of these laws remain deeply entrenched. Today, despite making up 80 percent of the population, Black South Africans own only a fraction of agricultural land, while white landowners – less than 8 percent of the population – still control the vast majority. The result? About 64 percent of Black South Africans remain landless, and millions live in informal settlements or overcrowded townships.

Successive post-apartheid governments have attempted to redress this injustice, but progress has been painfully slow. The “willing-buyer, willing-seller” model, introduced in the 1990s, placed the financial burden on the state to buy land at market rates. This approach, while politically cautious, has failed: land redistribution targets remain unmet, and economic disparities continue to widen.

The Expropriation Act seeks to change that. It provides a legal framework for land to be expropriated in specific cases, including instances where the land is abandoned, unused, or it was acquired through past racial privilege. Compensation – when required – is determined by considering factors such as historical acquisition, state subsidies, and public interest. In some cases, this means land can be taken without compensation.

This is not an attack on white farmers. It is a necessary step towards restoring dignity and economic agency to the millions who were stripped of both.

Trump’s comments did not emerge in a vacuum. They align closely with the narrative pushed by white nationalist groups in South Africa – organisations that have long sought to portray land reform as an existential threat to white landowners. The “white genocide” myth, which falsely claims that white South Africans are being systematically targeted, has been thoroughly debunked. Yet it continues to resurface in right-wing circles, amplified by figures like Trump who thrive on stoking racial grievances.

The facts tell a different story. There is no widespread campaign to seize land arbitrarily, nor is the government engaged in racial persecution. The Expropriation Act does not grant the state unchecked power – it simply aligns South Africa’s land reform strategy with constitutional principles of justice and equity.

But beyond the inaccuracy of his claims, Trump’s interference is dangerous. South Africa is still navigating its postcolonial identity, balancing reconciliation with restitution. Foreign leaders who recklessly insert themselves into this process – particularly those with no understanding of the country’s history – risk derailing genuine progress.

Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in Trump’s stance is the fact that the US itself has expropriation laws. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution allows for the government to seize private property for public use, provided that “just compensation” is offered. What constitutes “just” is often debated – just as it is in South Africa.

Excerpted: ‘Trump’s fear mongering on South Africa’s land reform exposes his hypocrisy’. Courtesy: Aljazeera.com