WASHINGTON: In a contentious move, U.S. President Donald Trump has approved refugee status for a group of South African Afrikaners, and as justification for the decision is what he calls a “genocide” against white farmers.
According to the latest BBC report, close to 60 persons have arrived in the U.S., an extraordinary exodus in method and optics—they were accommodated in a rented flight from Johannesburg’s main international airfield with the consent of South African authorities. The U.S. worked on their refugee claims on South African soil, circumventing the usual route of immigrants urgently bolting from their native country.
Recapping a story from his first term of office, Trump asserted that white farmers were being viciously slaughtered and their land commandeered, stating that the situation made it difficult for him to attend the forthcoming G20 conference in South Africa. However, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa sacked the genocide account as “completely false” and held the departing Afrikaners responsible for attacking constitutional modifications in an evolving democracy.
The myth of genocide: Fact vs. fear
Notwithstanding Trump’s assertions, there is not one political party in South Africa, not even those who stood on behalf of Afrikaners, that claims genocide. The narrative, a stretched and widespread tale among far-right groups overseas, is challenged by legal decisions and statistical proof.
A South African magistrate professed recently that the genocide claims were “clearly imagined” during a court case linking a white xenophobic group. To illustrate further, the republic’s newest crime records show that from late 2024, there were 6,953 murders, and only 12 cases were associated with farm attacks. Of those 12, most fatalities were farm residents or workers, expected to be black South Africans. The concept of a targeted operation against white farmers is basically not substantiated by data.
Land reform, race, and regulation
Land restructuring remains a divisive issue in South Africa. A new regulation inked by Ramaphosa aims to address past property denial from the apartheid period. Although the régime repudiates any illicit impounding, its ally, the Democratic Alliance, opposes the law and plans to challenge it in court, saying that such a rule could destabilize property privileges.
South African-born U.S. billionaire Elon Musk chimed in. He disparaged South Africa’s Black Economic Empowerment regulations, asserting that they jammed his Starlink satellite internet from being operational in the country because of ethnic ownership guidelines. Officials rebutted the claim, saying that Starlink had not even applied for authorization to operate.
Divided opinions among Afrikaners and South Africans
In spite of the international attention it garnered, the huge number of mainstream Afrikaners has no interest in leaving. Although a business group stated that 70,000 have expressed interest in migrating after Trump’s proposal, the eagerness was not translated into mass migration. Solidarity, an Afrikaner civil group, even printed a piece inspiring people to stay, stressing historical and social ties to South Africa.
Political voices also discard the migration narrative. Corné Mulder of the Freedom Front Plus party said to parliament, “We are bound to Africa and will build a future for ourselves and our children here.”
This act of the Trump administration has raised questions about migration programs, strategies, and international relations, as well as the power of dogmatic narratives that mould insights and shape policies across borders.