Tensions rose as Trump showed Ramaphosa a video of EFF chanting “Shoot the Boer”.
During a high-stakes meeting with South African leaders, former US President Donald Trump stirred up tensions by confronting President Cyril Ramaphosa with video clips linked to opposition politics. The footage featured Julius Malema and EFF supporters singing “Shoot the Boer,” a chant with roots in South Africa’s liberation history.
Trump Pushes White Genocide Narrative
Trump used the video to revive old claims often pushed by conservative groups — that white farmers are under targeted threat in South Africa. He spoke about so-called “white genocide,” an idea widely disputed and not supported by official records.
Facts Don’t Match the Claims
According to data from the South African police, the reality is different. Between October and December 2024, 12 people lost their lives in farm-related attacks. Surprisingly, only one of those was a farmer. Most were either black workers or other residents of the farms.
Land Seizure Law Sparks More Tension
A law at the center of Trump’s concern — the Expropriation Act of 2024 — allows land to be taken without payment if it serves the public. However, it’s still under review and hasn’t been enforced. It has become a talking point for international critics despite its dormant status.
Ramaphosa Defends His Country
Ramaphosa responded by saying crime in South Africa is not about race. He argued that violence is a national issue, affecting all citizens — not just one group. He reminded the US delegation that South Africa’s struggles with safety run deep and are not based on ethnicity.
Court Rules Chant is Not Hate Speech
Though many have called out the “Shoot the Boer” chant as hateful, South African courts have ruled it falls under political expression. The country’s highest court declined to overturn this decision, backing its symbolic nature rather than labeling it as a call to violence.
No Clear Progress in US-SA Talks
After the meeting, both leaders left without issuing strong joint statements or announcing new deals. It was clear the two nations held different views, particularly on land reform and racial matters — leaving the relationship in a fragile “agree to disagree” state.
