In a headline-grabbing twist that feels more like a geopolitical soap opera than high-level diplomacy, former U.S. President Donald Trump has once again waded into controversy—this time by confronting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with claims of a “white genocide” targeting Afrikaners during their recent meeting. The topic, long a right-wing talking point in some Western circles, was raised bluntly by Trump in a manner that left South African officials startled and global analysts scrambling to decode the implications.
The scene was reportedly tense. Sources familiar with the exchange say Trump, known for his brash approach and penchant for nationalist rhetoric, questioned Ramaphosa on the treatment of white farmers in South Africa, echoing a conspiracy theory that alleges systematic persecution of whites in the post-apartheid nation. The claim, though popular among some fringe groups, has been widely discredited by international human rights monitors and South African statistics alike.
Ramaphosa, ever the statesman, is said to have responded with measured firmness. He denied any such genocide, emphasizing that crime and violence in South Africa are complex, affecting all communities, and should not be interpreted through a racial lens. “We are dealing with a national challenge of violence, not a racially motivated campaign,” Ramaphosa reportedly said. His rebuttal underscored South Africa’s long-standing position: while white farmers have been victims of attacks, so too have thousands of others—black, coloured, and Indian South Africans alike.
But Trump’s decision to raise the issue during an official meeting has already had ripple effects. Critics see it as another instance of him projecting far-right narratives into global diplomacy. “This isn’t about concern for farmers; it’s about appealing to a certain voter base back home,” said one analyst, referring to the vocal conservative groups in the U.S. that have long harped on this theory as part of their anti-immigrant and white nationalist platforms.
This is not Trump’s first dance with the “white genocide” narrative. Back in 2018, during his first term, he tweeted about land seizures and the “large-scale killing of farmers” in South Africa, prompting the U.S. State Department at the time to issue clarifying statements. South Africa responded then with diplomatic indignation, calling the allegations “misinformed” and “regrettable.” And yet, here we are again—same myth, new setting, same controversy.
South African commentators were quick to push back. “This is a deliberate provocation,” said veteran journalist Mondli Makhanya. “Trump is meddling in our internal affairs with a narrative that is not only false but dangerous. It undermines the real issues facing the country: poverty, inequality, and crime, which cut across racial lines.”
Meanwhile, South Africa’s white farming community finds itself once again at the center of an unwanted spotlight. Some farmers, weary of both the violence in rural areas and the international sensationalism, have expressed frustration. “We face many risks, yes. But this idea that we are being hunted because we’re white is not just inaccurate—it’s harmful,” said Hendrik van Rooyen, a grain farmer from Free State province. “It turns our pain into a political football.”
The South African government is reportedly considering a formal statement to address the matter. Insiders say Ramaphosa wants to avoid inflaming tensions but also doesn’t want to let such a provocative claim go unanswered. The balancing act is delicate: too soft a response may appear as tacit acceptance of the myth; too strong may fuel even more headlines.
Back in Washington, Trump’s team has not walked back the comments. In fact, one aide reportedly told a conservative outlet that Trump was “just saying what everyone’s thinking.” Whether that “everyone” includes anyone outside of fringe media bubbles remains to be seen.
For seasoned observers of South African politics, this dust-up is both infuriating and familiar. The land issue, long a sensitive topic rooted in apartheid’s legacy, is often twisted in international discourse. “Foreigners misunderstand the context,” said political analyst Thandeka Moyo. “Reform is necessary, and yes, rural safety is a concern. But the idea that this is genocide? That’s absurd—and dangerous.”
In an age of viral misinformation and geopolitics via tweet, the Trump-Ramaphosa exchange is yet another reminder of how deeply narratives—true or false—shape global perceptions. It’s also a case study in how one man’s microphone can become a megaphone for myths, regardless of the facts on the ground.
Ramaphosa may have thought his visit would be about trade and diplomacy. Instead, he walked into a soundbite minefield. Welcome to global politics, 2025 edition—where myth often travels faster than diplomacy.
