SA to pay the price of inaction as United States runs out of patience

On September 15, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a new visa restriction policy targeting South African nationals responsible for, or complicit in, the enactment or implementation of laws or policies that enable uncompensated land seizures, race-based discrimination, and/or the incitement of imminent violence against any minority ethnic or racial group in South Africa.

What changed between our two countries to bring the United States to take this action? 

I think South Africans deserve the full truth, not what some South African officials are spinning.

A year and a half ago, in February 2025, President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14204, “Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa”, laid out our concerns in detail.

They deal with rural farm attacks, the race-based measures forced upon American firms trying to invest in – and help grow – the South African economy, and South Africa’s steady drift toward our adversaries. In November 2025 we delivered our concerns to the government of South Africa – the “Five Asks”.   

Bid to strengthen bilateral relationship

We felt they were simple, could and would be answered in the affirmative by the South African government because they, too, would want to strengthen our bilateral relationship. Indeed, there were some leaders in and out of the South African government who were earnestly working to resolve the “Asks”. My arrival in Pretoria in February 2026 accelerated discussions leading to what now, regrettably, appears to have been unfounded optimism. 

I will share with you what we asked for:

• That the South African government not interfere with our processing of Afrikaner refugees under the president’s executive order. We were given this assurance in January. We believe this “Ask” to have been addressed for the moment.  Barring any future setbacks, we consider this done.

• That uncompensated land seizures not be allowed. No government should ever unjustly take private property. The South African government’s support of the 2024 Expropriation Act is deeply concerning – and while the proposed language in this act around expropriation without compensation is now under judicial review – the government’s willingness to sign the act and hide behind a judicial process rather than reject it as a violation of fundamental private property rights is deeply concerning.  This would surely dampen the enthusiasm of many American companies to invest in South Africa. We are watching the judicial process closely, however, and are optimistic a fair result will emerge from the courts. Done.

With the first two “Asks” more or less dealt with, we turned our focus to the final three “Asks” for the last nine months. No matter how many times we attempted to explain the commonsensical nature of these “Asks”, and how they could get our bilateral relations back on track, they were met with formal silence from the South African government. 

Clear mandate

So last month I returned to Washington and met with President Trump and Secretary Rubio. I came back with a clear mandate. I took their message directly to President Cyril Ramaphosa. It was this: The US had run out of patience with the South African government’s nine-month refusal to respond to these final three “Asks”. Answers – positive or negative – needed to be given by a certain date, and the US would respond accordingly. 

Here are the final three “Asks”. Decide for yourself how difficult they were.

• That President Ramaphosa and other senior government officials condemn the singing of “Kill the Farmer! Kill the Boer!” The vast majority of South Africans believe this is an incitement to violence, and deplore it. South African farmers live in fear, carrying sidearms by day and sleeping with loaded weapons by their side. What does this say about the South African government – not its people – when the president won’t condemn it?  

• That rural crime be formally designated a priority crime, with a real, announced plan to address it. We suggested there were already several plans available, including one designed by the government itself. We stated that this plan should be fully resourced. The US even offered technical and financial support, if it would help.

• Create alternatives, such as equity equivalent investment programmes (EEIP) to Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) ownership requirements. The South African government now allows all business sectors to participate in EEIP but refuses to provide this for the telecommunications or mining industries, where it desperately needs foreign investment. Allow them to participate too.

Last week President Ramaphosa formally gave his response to President Trump. He failed to meaningfully respond to any of the three outstanding “Asks”. It is safe to say my government was not just disappointed, it was shocked. The message was clear: the South African government does not want a constructive relationship with the US.

And so, we have responded with the announcement of a visa restriction policy targeting foreign nationals who are believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, the enactment or implementation of laws or policies that enable uncompensated land seizures, race-based discrimination, and/or the incitement of imminent violence against members of minority ethnic or racial groups in South Africa. This visa restriction policy is a first response, calibrated and specific. But I won't pretend it’s the last word, either. 

We don’t have a quarrel with the young entrepreneur in Soweto or the winemaker outside Stellenbosch or the software engineer in Durban trying to build a better life. Our disagreement is with the government that continues to put its ideology above its own people. A refusal to condemn the incitement of violence against a targeted community is wrong. A refusal to give farmers in isolated areas the protection any government owes its people is wrong. And a refusal to loosen ownership rules that stifle the very investment that would create jobs South Africa desperately needs is stunningly shortsighted.

What’s at stake

Here’s what’s at stake, and it’s not abstract. American companies already operate here at real scale, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and investing in major infrastructure. But many more US companies are waiting to bring major investment in critical minerals, energy cooperation, and telecommunications, to name a few. 

This is capital looking for the certainty and security it needs to invest in South Africa. The question is not how many American companies have been able to withstand the burdensome and inefficient race-based regulatory environment needed to do business in South Africa – it is how many companies are not investing in South Africa solely because of these additional hurdles. 

We know that this is a considerable number. At a time when the South African people need American investment the most, the South African government is rejecting a partnership with the US. This is the cost of doing nothing.

We eagerly hope the South African government will rethink this hostility.  At this point we find it a useless proposition to continue with endless dialogue leading nowhere. It is up to the South African government to show it is serious about positive relations with the United States of America.  

It is beyond time for the South Africa government to put its ideological posturing aside and put its people first. DM