Why Trump Is Furious About South Africa’s Land Law

When President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act into law, few could have predicted the global backlash it would spark. Not least from former US President Donald Trump, who now headlines the chorus of critics claiming the law discriminates against white farmers.

But is that what the law really does?

In South Africa, where the scars of apartheid still define much of the socioeconomic landscape, land ownership is one of the most sensitive and unresolved issues. And now, a legal attempt to address the historical imbalance has collided with fierce political opposition—both at home and abroad.

What the Law Actually Says

Despite its dramatic reception, the law itself is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

The Expropriation Act gives the government the ability to acquire certain types of land without paying for the land portion itself—under very specific conditions. Legal experts Bulelwa Mabasa and Thomas Karberg say that compensation would still apply in most situations. The “without compensation” clause only kicks in for unusual cases like abandoned plots or land held purely for speculation.

Buildings and other improvements on the land? Still subject to compensation.

And contrary to the popular narrative, the law isn’t aimed squarely at farmland. Urban land, especially derelict properties in inner cities, could also fall under its purview.

So why all the noise?

Trump’s Fury and a Showdown in the Oval Office

Donald Trump has framed the law as a targeted attack on white landowners. In February, he cut US aid to South Africa. Then in April, he announced a punishing 30% tariff on South African exports—though that’s currently on hold.

But it wasn’t just policy. In a now-infamous meeting, Trump confronted Ramaphosa with a pile of articles alleging racial persecution of white South Africans. Much of the material was later discredited, but the damage was done.

The optics of this confrontation have fueled conservative outrage, both in the US and among Afrikaner groups in South Africa. Farmers have protested. Lobby groups have rallied. The issue has snowballed far beyond legal debate into a cultural flashpoint.

The Real Reason Behind the Law: Land Reform That Works

More than 80,000 land claims remain unresolved in South Africa. For decades, efforts to return land to Black South Africans have been slow and costly. The post-apartheid “willing buyer, willing seller” system hasn’t delivered the transformation promised back in 1994.

Professor Ruth Hall from the University of the Western Cape explains it plainly: too many Black South Africans still live and work on farms they do not own. In many cases, they receive no pay, only the right to live there and keep livestock. The goal of the new law is to speed up transfers of ownership in such cases—without bankrupting the state.

The law also targets cases where landowners bought land cheap and tried to sell it back to the state at inflated prices. Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson gave an example involving Eskom, where land initially bought for R1 million was later resold for R20 million. That’s the kind of abuse the law is designed to prevent.

Not Everyone’s On Board

Ramaphosa’s own coalition partner, the Democratic Alliance (DA), is officially opposed to the “nil compensation” clause. Yet interestingly, it supports the broader shift to “just-and-equitable” compensation rather than rigid market-based payments—as long as a court has the final say.

Even among conservative Afrikaners, opinions are mixed. Jaco Kleynhans of the Solidarity Movement admitted the law might not lead to widespread land grabs, though he remains skeptical.

The South African Property Owners Association has warned the law could backfire on those whose business model is based on land speculation, saying it unfairly punishes legitimate investment.

Still, others argue that the courts and Constitution offer enough safeguards. Any expropriation must follow fair procedures, and owners can challenge decisions.

Stuck in Legal and Political Limbo

For all the controversy, the law hasn’t even taken effect yet. Ramaphosa signed it into law months ago, but there’s no implementation date in sight. With US trade negotiations on a knife’s edge, and domestic lawsuits piling up, the President seems reluctant to pull the trigger.

Macpherson, who helped draft the bill, warned that scrapping it entirely could open the door to even more extreme alternatives. Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), for instance, argue that the law doesn’t go far enough.

In short, the debate is far from over. The law may be signed, but its future is uncertain.

A Nation Caught Between Justice and Jitters

South Africa is at a crossroads. The Expropriation Act is an attempt to balance the scales of history, giving back what was taken during a painful and unjust era. But it’s also become a magnet for misinformation, political grandstanding, and global tension.

The fear that white farmers will have their land seized en masse has been largely debunked by legal experts. The law doesn’t open the floodgates—it builds a narrow, controlled path toward restitution. Still, the emotional and economic weight of land makes any change feel seismic.

This is not just a legal issue. It’s a deeply human one, woven into South Africa’s past and its future.

If you want to understand South Africa today, watch the land. It tells a story of who we were, who we are, and who we want to become.