The Elephant in the Oval Office: Trump-Ramaphosa Meeting over South African White farmer ‘genocide.’
- Vick Ssali
- 11 hours ago
- 12 min read
Rangarirai Gavin Muchetu.
Introduction
On May 21, 2025, President Donald Trump met with President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa at the Oval Office. This meeting turned into a circus when President Trump asked his aides to dim the lights so they could watch a compilation of YouTube videos as evidence of a white farmer genocide in South Africa. In the video, Julius Malema of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) opposition party in South Africa was heard talking about how he envisages the eventual killing of white South African farmers if issues of poverty were not addressed. In the same video, Jacob Zuma was also heard singing and chanting a song about killing white South African farmers. The end of the clip showed a supposed memorial site for over 1000 murdered white South Africans. The entire matter evolved into a de facto court proceeding, in which Ramaphosa was unprepared to defend himself. President Trump went on to show the president of South Africa a compilation of articles, printed from the internet, supposedly showing evidence of white genocide in South Africa.
An American colleague of mine describes his President, Trump, as “a television character who sees life as a drama or soap opera. Everything is a show to him; how he handles diplomatic situations is no different.” James Poniewozik’s words were more plain:
“Donald Trump made himself out of television. He treated his life as a show. He knew that it was better to seem like New York's most successful businessman than to actually be it. The seeming was something you could leverage and license and sell.” (Poniewozik, 2019, p. xix)
What happened with Ramaphosa resembles what happened with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was humiliated by the president and vice president, JD Vance, at the White House. President Trump’s ‘sensationalized’ worldview is just a storyline in his reality television show.
Nevertheless, based on Ramaphosa's reaction to all of this, we can undoubtedly say that he is a Master of Diplomacy. He stayed cool and, at some point, cracked jokes in response to the ludicrous accusations from President Trump. While the video and printouts may have caught him off guard, he had also brought a few wealthy white South Africans who enjoyed playing. Another golf lover, and one of South Africa’s most affluent Afrikaners, Johan Rupert, accompanied Ramaphosa to provide context regarding the situation of white people in South Africa. President Ramaphosa was obviously trying to appeal to the side of President Trump that likes influential individuals and golf. In addition, Ramaphosa also brought his agricultural minister, John Steenhuisen, an Afrikaner from the white dominated Democratic Alliance (DA) political party. The DA formed a Government of National Unity (GNU) with the African National Congress (ANC) after the 2024 elections. His speech, echoing Johan Rupert, highlighted how the problem of South Africa was with its relationship with violent crime. South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in Africa, affecting not just farmers, but also other citizens throughout the country. Despite these proclamations, Trump remained vehement that there was a white genocide in South Africa, and just that no one wanted to report on it.
So, several questions arise. Is there a genocide in South Africa? Why is Trump convinced there is, despite flimsy evidence? To what extent does the country’s role in suing Israel for war crimes play in all of this? Could there be another reason behind this tough stance on South Africa? Why, despite banning all refugee programs, was the USA quick to accept white South Africans? Does the color of the refugee’s skin matter under Donald Trump’s immigration policy?
Is there a genocide in South Africa?
Definitely not. While crime data by the police does not segregate by race, there is no evidence to support this claim; instead, the evidence reveals a deep problem of crime. For instance, in 2024, of the 19,696 murders that occurred, 36 were on farms (seven farmers were victims) (CNN, 2025). Experts indicate that farm murders account for less than 1% of the country's annual murders, and the primary motive for these attacks is robbery, not racial or political targeting. Even the Afrikaner civil society organizations (CSOs), such as AfriForum and the Transvaal Agricultural Union, appear to concur with these statistics (Aljazeera, 2025). Joseph Dana (South African journalist), in an interview on Al Jazeera, highlighted that
“The USA received only 59 Afrikaner refugees. They could not even fill a jet in a population of 2.7 million white Afrikaner South Africans. If it were a flight carrying refugees from Gaza, it would be filled to the brim. There would be a need for more planes. This is not present in South Africa, so there is no genocide.” (Dana, 2025).
The term genocide in South Africa is also rejected by experts, as there is no indication of a state-sponsored campaign or intent to eliminate a specific racial group. In the Oval Office meeting, the Minister of Agriculture also highlighted that there was no systematic killing of white farmers. The violence against farmers, while severe, is consistent with broader patterns of violent crime in South Africa, which disproportionately affects poor, under/un-employed young Black males. Claims of systematic land confiscation targeting white farmers are also unfounded, as South Africa's new land law primarily focuses on compensating landowners and addressing historical inequalities, with no evidence of widespread land seizures (BBC, 2025; PBS, 2025).
The Afrikaners are a South African ethnic group primarily descended from Western European settlers who arrived in the region during the mid-17th century – descendants of Dutch and French colonists. Their language, Afrikaans, is closely related to Dutch. Historically, Afrikaners, also known as Boers (meaning farmers), were associated with farming and played a significant role in South Africa's apartheid system, which institutionalized racial segregation from 1948 until its end in 1994 (BBC, 2025). They comprise approximately 2.7 million people, accounting for around 4% of South Africa's population. Approximately 80% of South Africa's population is Black (PBS, 2025).
Julius Malema, who blatantly hides behind the dictates of a revolution – arguing that it sometimes calls for brutal force – has not made things easier. Both he and Jacob Zuma have been recorded singing “Dubul'ibhunu,” which translates to “Kill the Boer/Farmer,” a song that Elon Musk has argued is hate speech and is a call for the genocide of white South Africans. The song originated in 1980s South Africa amid a period of intense resistance against the apartheid regime. It emerged as a militant anthem during mass uprisings. These lyrics were often accompanied by the defiant protest dance known as toyi-toyi (also popular in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique civil movements) and gestures simulating the firing of rifles. The song was a deliberate part of the “theatre of mass insurrection,” and it continues to be remembered in that context (Houston, 2015). While some argue it constitutes hate speech, others defend it as a symbolic expression of historical resistance. South African courts have wrestled with its implications: earlier rulings deemed it hate speech, particularly in cases involving Malema (Jolaosho, 2013, p. 145). However, more recent decisions – including a 2022 Johannesburg High Court ruling and a 2024 Supreme Court of Appeals judgment – have concluded that the song does not incite violence against white South Africans and should not be interpreted literally (Aljazeera, 2025). Instead, it is recognized as a complex artifact of South Africa’s turbulent political and cultural legacy.
What explains Trump’s fixation on South Africa?
If it’s not genocide, then what is the reason that the USA has singled out South Africa? President Trump and Musk know that the evidence for genocide is superficial, given the resources at their disposal. Trump has long held the claims of genocide in South Africa since his first term in office. Why is Donald Trump so fixated on South Africa? During the Oval Office meeting, he also presented a batch of stories prepared by his aides. While the public does not have access to these articles, one of the stories featured a picture (see Picture 2), which was most likely taken from the Democratic Republic of Congo (Chin’ono, 2025). Why would Trump go out of his way, to the extent of using fake pictures from the DRC to prove a non-existent genocide?
Trump shows Ramaphosa an image from a DRC burial site for COVID-19 victims.
Could it be a far-right wing conservative thing? Some argue that the Apartheid system is a symbol of right-wing conservatives, and Trump, having crawled back into office on the back of right-wing nationalism, may be thought of as wanting to protect the ideas of right-wing conservatives around the world. Is it about race? Is Trump so racist that he feels more compelled to forego his foreign policy and allow refugees into the USA, as long as they are white? Or is it all just rhetoric? Genocide rhetoric has been promoted by influential figures such as Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. And they have been amplified recently as white house adviser, Elon Musk, also posted about the same issue on X, arguing that he could not operate his Starlink business in South Africa because he was white. Peter Thiel is another highly influential figure driving the idea. But is this enough to justify the actions of the US President? Are all these stories true? Whether they are true stories or not, what is certain is that a larger issue is at play, which enables the Trump administration, or the West, to take action and punish South Africa before it's too late. That is the issue of private property land rights of white Afrikaners.
The elephant in the room: Land appropriation
We put it to you that all this drama and sensationalization intend to mask the West’s disapproval and harsh attempt to prevent any chances of land appropriation, especially without compensation, in South Africa. Put differently, they want to avoid another Zimbabwe. If South Africa takes the Zimbabwe route, it could result in a domino effect on other countries (such as Namibia) where land ownership still reflects the pre-colonial, racially motivated land tenure system. We argue so because we have seen it play out before in Zimbabwe as a reaction to land confiscation without compensation.
What happened in Zimbabwe?
The year is 1980, after a protracted war between black Zimbabwe guerrilla fighters and the colonial settler army had reached an impasse, peace and ceasefire talks commenced and were eventually concluded on December 21st, 1979, at the Lancaster House, London. One of the most significant outcomes was the agreement to reform unjust racial land ownership structures through a willing-buyer, willing-seller arrangement. In this arrangement, the white-settler farmers, who held over 80% of the fertile farming land, would offer to sell land to the government as and when they saw fit. Then, the government would approach the UK government to obtain funding for the purchase of that land. This process was slow, and relatively little land was put forward for sale in the land market, with only a tiny fraction of black indigenous Zimbabweans having been resettled by the 1990s (Moyo, 2011). This prompted the Land Acquisition Act of 1992, which aimed to expedite the process by identifying ‘derelict’ land or ‘too big farms’ to be acquired through financial compensation. The government of Zimbabwe identified 1490 farms that could potentially be distributed under this new act (Muchetu, 2018).
The Zimbabwe white farmers, with title deeds in hand and the mighty sword of international private property rights on their side, fought tooth and nail against this new attempt to redistribute land. They also understood the critical roles they played in the Zimbabwean economy and how deeply ingrained the Zimbabwean economy was in European and international markets for its survival. They believed they had enough leverage to keep the land reform off the agenda for the foreseeable future. They vowed that not even an inch of their land – acquired through murder, rape and plunder less than a century before from the indigenous Zimbabweans – would be given up for redistribution. By 1997, the white farmers had successfully defended their private property rights through the courts, leading to further frustration not only of the Mugabe administration but also of local traditional leaders, such as Chief Svosve. The victory of the Labor Party in 1997 ushered in a new era, with Ms. Claire Short’s (Secretary of State for International Development) letter to Mugabe, highlighting that Britain would no longer honor the promises of the Lancaster House Agreement to fund land reform.
In 1998, Chief Svosve invaded and occupied a Nyahunda farm in Marondera, Mashonaland East, setting a precedent for the nationwide farm invasions that followed in 2000. Robert Mugabe deployed the army and the police to protect white farmers and the idea of private property rights. It is easy to see how the white farmers could not ever imagine that Mugabe could ever unleash the War Veterans to violate international private rights along with several human rights in the process. The USA and Western countries also assumed that Mugabe, who had undergone investiture by the British in 1994, would never stir the murky waters of private property rights, which undergird global neoliberal economic production. But Mugabe had been put into a corner. His 2000 reaction to take land without compensation was a gross violation of private property and human rights during the fast-track land reform program. And the US and EU economic sanctions, such as the ZIDERA, have been used to punish Zimbabwe for the violation of private property and human rights.
How the issue is playing in South Africa
Suppose we use this conventional knowledge to understand South Africa today. We can see how certain events mirror those that happened in Zimbabwe. Since the 1994 independence, the land reform program in South Africa has primarily employed the land restitution approach (Gumede, 2014), resulting in a slow and ineffective land reform process. Discussion of taking a more radical approach has remained on the agenda for the past 30 years, gaining momentum with the entrance into political leadership positions by figures such as Jacob Zuma and Julius Malema. These figures have contributed to the enactment of the Expropriation Act of 2024, which permits the government to acquire private land for public purposes, to address historical inequalities. It outlines procedures for expropriation and compensation, although it controversially permits "nil compensation" in some instances. Like Zimbabwe’s act, it targets land redistribution but operates under South Africa’s constitutional framework, emphasizing legal oversight and fairness (Act 13 of 2024: Expropriation Act, 2024). In December 2024, it was signed into law by President Ramaphosa, sparking panic not only within the South African white farmer community but also across the Western world. As is true of the nature of 21st-century social media, propaganda and misinformation ran amok, peddling falsehoods of widespread farm invasions, violence, and murder against white farmers.
It is easy to see, with the case of Zimbabwe as a precedent, how this time the Republican USA and the West might decide to sound the alarm early. Land appropriation with compensation failed dismally in Zimbabwe and is unlikely to be implemented quickly enough to succeed in South Africa. Strategists and think tanks in the West might envision how, in a worst-case scenario, this might force grassroots movements and opposition political parties, especially those born from the military wings of the ANC, such as the MK and the EFF, to take the radical Zimbabwean path. While Ramaphosa, a successful businessman, may be less inclined to allow radical land seizures, it is uncertain what Zuma or Malema might be willing to do if they were to gain power. This point was elaborated during the Oval Office meeting by the Afrikaner Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen:
“The two individuals who are in that video that you've seen are both leaders of opposition minority parties in South Africa—the uMkhonto weSizwe under Mr. Zuma and the Economic Freedom Fighters under Mr. Malema. The reason that my party, the Democratic Alliance, which has been in opposition for over 30 years, chose to join hands with Mr. Ramaphosa’s party is to keep those people out of power. We cannot have those people sitting in the Union Building, making decisions […]. We need support from our allies around the world so we can shut the door on those rebels getting through” (Steenhuisen in the Associated Press, 2025).
The way forward
Currently, compensation is a key issue for the USA in any land reform that may occur. Zimbabwe is attempting to address this issue by retrospectively compensating white farmers with US$3.5 billion. In April 2025, an initial US$3.1 million was disbursed, and the move earned a “Happy Independence Day” message from the iron-hearted Marco Rubio (of all the people) eight days later (The Insider, 2025). South Africa is encouraged to avoid making the same mistake. There are several possible ways to address this. However, most will require out-of-the-box thinking on both sides — the government and the white farmers. The Zimbabwean white farmers’ fallacy that the land question had been resolved should be a case study for the white Afrikaners. The Afrikaner farmer should take a proactive role – rather than wait for the government – in addressing the unequal land ownership situation in South Africa. They can offer as much land as possible and quickly. They must try as much as possible to resist the idea that they can hold their pieces of land in perpetuity. On the other hand, the South African government must ride the wave of expropriation with compensation as much as possible to avoid the wrath of the USA and UK’s sanctions and international backlash. These devastating sanctions & backlash have significant impacts on the local economy, as seen in Zimbabwe.
References
Act 13 of 2024: Expropriation Act (2024).
Aljazeera. (2025, March 26). ‘Kill the Boer’: The anti-apartheid song Musk ties to ‘white genocide.’ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/26/kill-the-boer-the-anti-apartheid-song-musk-ties-to-white-genocide
Associated Press. (2025, May 21). LIVE: Trump and South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa hold meeting - YouTube [Broadcast]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/live/3TLkZv3gzO0
BBC. (2025, May 23). Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wg5pg1xp5o
Chin’ono, H. (2025, May 2). Hopewell Chin’ono (@daddyhope) / X. X. https://x.com/daddyhope
Dana, J. (2025, May 20). Why is Donald Trump fixated on South Africa? | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera [Video recording]. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-take-2/2025/5/20/why-is-donald-trump-fixated-on-south-africa
Gumede, V. (2014). Land reform in post-apartheid South Africa: Should South Africa follow Zimbabwe’s footsteps? International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity, 9(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2014.916877
Houston, G. F. (2015). The state of research on, and study of, the history of the South African liberation struggle.
Jolaosho, O. T. (2013). “You can’t go to war without song”: Performance and Community Mobilization in post-Apartheid South Africa. The State University of New Jersey.
Moyo, S. (2011). Three decades of agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(3), 493–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.583642
Muchetu, R. G. (2018). Agricultural Land-Delivery Systems in Zimbabwe: A Review of Four Decades of Sam Moyo’s Work on Agricultural Land Markets and their Constraints. African Study Monographs, 57, 65–94.
PBS. (2025, May 22). Fact-checking Trump’s claims of white farmer ‘genocide’ in South Africa | PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-claims-of-white-farmer-genocide-in-south-africa
Poniewozik, J. (2019). Audience of one: Donald Trump, television, and the fracturing of America. Liveright Publishing Corporation.
The Insider. (2025, April 18). US looking forward to reinforcing business and commercial ties with Zimbabwe | The Insider. https://insiderzim.com/us-looking-forward-to-reinforcing-business-and-commercial-ties-with-zimbabwe/