Ramaphosa in resolve-and-reset mode on SA-US ties despite Trump's white Afrikaner genocide claims

When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa emerged from the White House after a three-hour working visit with US President Donald Trump, his tone was calm, even warm.

“It went very well,” Ramaphosa told reporters when asked how the meeting concluded. “Yes … It went very well,” he repeated, when asked if Trump had heard him.

It was a diplomatic answer to what many viewed as an ambush in the Oval Office – broadcast live to the world – over one of the thorniest narratives in US-South Africa relations: Trump’s assertion that there is a “genocide of white farmers” occurring in South Africa.

Despite Ramaphosa’s direct engagement on the issue – including bringing two of Trump’s favourite South African golf icons, Ernie Els and Retief Goosen – Trump would not budge.

The president said bluntly that he is not backing down, as the world should hear what is happening. Asking for the lights to be dimmed, Trump displayed a video showing Julius Malema singing “Kill the Boer” and a memorial to slain white farmers.

Ramaphosa, resolute yet respectful, disagreed. Rather than escalate, he stayed engaged, reflecting what he had earlier in the week described as his “rational” approach to diplomacy.

He called on his agriculture minister, John Steenhuisen, and billionaire Johann Rupert to explain, but Trump did not appear convinced. 

Read more: ‘In the end, we had a really good bilateral’ — Ramaphosa at press conference after Trump meeting

Diplomatic reset, rough edges

Framed by South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) as a “reset” in the two countries’ relationship, the visit was a high-level attempt to move past previous misunderstandings and find common ground. And in some ways, it succeeded.

For Ramaphosa, the objective was clear: preserve strategic partnerships, de-escalate political narratives, and advocate continued US support in areas of trade, security cooperation and global diplomacy.

For Trump, the goals were more personal and political: reaffirm his administration’s position on global threats, reassert US leverage in trade relations and publicly underscore his own foreign policy instincts.

That is why the meeting mattered beyond optics. It was a live display of geopolitical friction, nation-state interests as well as cooperation in real time.

Read more: Ramaphosa’s Oval Office meeting with Trump is a diplomatic coup — now he must secure a deal

America’s executive stage

The bilateral meeting in the Oval Office — the symbolic epicentre of American executive power — was live-streamed globally, giving millions the chance to observe foreign policy being made in real time.

This format is rare.

Historically, most bilateral discussions at this level happen behind closed doors, with filtered readouts to the press. But Trump, now in his second term, has made transparency a hallmark of his executive style – even when it invites confrontation. The result: Ramaphosa had to defend South Africa’s democracy and human rights record not just to a counterpart, but to a global audience.

Ramaphosa’s decision to bring Ernie Els and Retief Goosen was a calculated move to soften the tone and meet Trump in a cultural comfort zone. It was also deeply symbolic.

Golf, often dismissed as “soft diplomacy”, has long served as a relationship tool in US political circles, particularly in Republican administrations.

Still, Trump’s genocide claim remained a sticking point. Ramaphosa’s effort to counter this narrative in person was respectful and data driven, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

“He didn’t yell. He didn’t grandstand,” said a senior South African official. “He corrected, clarified and moved forward.”

And forward they went — straight to lunch.

Read more: Trump’s Afrikaner refugees — the search for white victims

Three-course statecraft

The Bilateral Working Lunch, held in the Cabinet Room and closed to the press, offered a different environment. Over a three-course meal, both delegations had the opportunity to shift tone, explore areas of alignment and build rapport.

At a press conference later at the Ritz-Carlton, President Ramaphosa smiled when asked about the lunch menu.

“It was a three-course meal,” he said.

He explained that he usually does not eat dessert, but it looked good. He had some; the lunch was “delicious”.

This moment – small but telling – captured a recurring theme of the visit: the balance of serious policy and human diplomacy.

Common ground: The DRC

Not all was disagreement. Both sides hailed progress in brokering a ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with South Africa playing a stabilising role and the US offering diplomatic pressure.

“This is a clear example of what responsible regional leadership looks like,” Trump acknowledged, praising South Africa’s role.

Ramaphosa, in turn, thanked the US for “being firm but fair” and for “backing African-led solutions”.

This area of cooperation showed that despite disagreements on domestic issues, the two countries can find alignment on continental security, counter-terrorism and regional peacebuilding.

Read more: Experts reject SANDF’s inference that SAMIDRC was a success

Ramaphosa pressed for renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), set to expire soon. Trump did not make a commitment, but South African officials left “optimistic”.

The language of reciprocity versus partnership may be where future possibilities lie — and where the next South Africa-US conversation must dig deeper.

Two presidents, two rationalities

In international relations theory, states are often described as “rational actors”, meaning they make decisions based on their own national interest. But rationality is not always uniform — it depends on goals, history and world-view.

Trump’s rationality is transactional, built on a “show strength and never retreat” doctrine. Ramaphosa’s rationality is procedural, focused on long-term stability, alliance-building and respectful dialogue.

The meeting showed what happens when these two logics meet: tension, yes, but also opportunities for clarity.

In the end, President Ramaphosa left the White House pleased that “re-engagement” is beginning, even if he didn’t persuade Trump on every point. His calm posture, cultural savvy and commitment to engagement showed a clear effort to elevate South Africa’s global profile without sacrificing its values.

“Very well,” he said again as he departed the White House North Portico, in a delegation with his golfing envoys. “Yes, he [Trump] did hear me.”

The US-South Africa relationship is not built on total agreement. But after today, it could be built more on mutual recognition of differences, of truths and of the need to keep talking. 

By the time President Ramaphosa exited the White House through the North Portico at 2.58pm in Washington, the skies had cleared – a fitting image for a meeting marked by stormy differences, but also by efforts to reset and re-engage. DM