Unpacking the Law Behind the Trump-South Africa Drama in 2 Minutes
By Yusra Suedi (PhD, Assistant Professor of International Law at University of Manchester)
Did you hear? Trump recently accused the South African government of carrying out a white genocide against Afrikaner farmers.
He also announced special asylum to Afrikaners, called for a boycott of the G20 in Johannesburg and said he will ban President Ramaphosa from the next G20 in the US.
There’s a lot of international law to unpack here, so let’s break it down:
Is there a ‘white genocide’ going on?
No.
Under international law, genocide means trying to wipe out a whole group of people because of their nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion.
That includes killing people, seriously harming them, making life unlivable, blocking births, or taking children away (here, under Article 2).
Farm attacks in South Africa are real and awful: For decades, criminals have been targeting farmers, committing violent crimes such as assault, murder, rape, and robbery.
Ramaphosa also passed a law letting the government take land, mostly owned by Afrikaners, without paying for it, if it’s considered ‘just and equitable’ and in the public interest.
Assessing genocide is super complex and I realise I have 2 minutes, but here’s my take:
To legally prove genocide, you need intent to destroy the group. In past confirmed genocides (the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebrenica), courts found intent through things like government orders, speeches urging destruction, and testimony showing perpetrators knew exactly what they were doing.
Here, there just isn’t evidence of that kind of intent.
Land expropriation hits Afrikaners economically, but that alone doesn’t equal genocide.
A few national inquiries (e.g., here) have backed this up and found that the killings are explained by South Africa having a major crime problem which affects people of all races.
Can Trump give Afrikaners privileged asylum?
Nope.
Trump announced that the US will admit only 7500 refugees in 2026 – and mostly Afrikaners.
The US is not a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which was adopted largely in response to the Holocaust to protect refugees fleeing Europe before 1951.
But the US is a party to the 1967 Protocol, which is basically an expanded version of the Refugee Convention – the same rules, but applicable to refugees worldwide and after 1951.
Even if Afrikaners do qualify as refugees (fleeing ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’), the U.S. still can’t pick and choose based on race or ethnicity.
It can set a cap, and it can prioritise specific countries, but it cannot say “only white refugees from South Africa.”
Can Trump ban South African’s President from the 2026 G20 in the U.S.?
Also no (you’re used to this answer by now, right?).
When you host a big multilateral summit, you don’t get to hand-pick who attends.
Under international diplomatic law (here), the host has to respect visiting heads of state, give them safe passage, and ensure freedom of movement (if you’re feeling nerdy, check out Articles 29, 40 and 26).
Blocking Ramaphosa would violate those obligations and could cause other G20 members to boycott or move the summit (already a live discussion!).
Conclusion
Trump’s hostility towards South Africa has grown since South Africa sued Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide in Gaza.
Ramaphosa has said this tiff is threatening South Africa’s sovereignty.
But legally at least, none of his threats hold much water.
Stay tuned for the next round of international law drama, right here on SAIL!