The Far Right Has Never Stopped Lying About South Africa
Aside from Elon Musk, there’s a gaggle of wealthy and politically influential South African fascists who have been pushing the U.S. in the kind of neo-Nazi direction “normal” among South African right-wingers. To understand Musk’s obsession with current-day South Africa, it’s necessary to look at the growing political influence of the Afrikaner far-right in the U.S. Since at least the 1980s, American conservatives have seen apartheid South Africa as an ideological model. The Reagan administration openly supported the regime, and overtly racist figures like Jesse Helms spent years trying to prop up white-minority rule. When apartheid finally collapsed, many in the South African security and business elite sought refuge in the United States, forming a small but influential class of reactionary exiles, many of whom embedded themselves in the American right-wing ecosystem. Enter Musk, the son of an apartheid-era emerald mine owner, who grew up in an environment where white South Africans saw themselves as a besieged ruling class, destined to either maintain their supremacy or face violent retribution. Musk’s worldview has always been colored by this background, but now, with Twitter as his personal megaphone, he is openly reviving apartheid-era fear-mongering and laundering it into mainstream Republican politics.
His allies include billionaires Peter Thiel, David Sacks and L.A. Times publisher Patrick Soon-Shiong. Another is Paul Furber, a South African tech journalist and deranged QAnon sociopath. The specific conspiracy theory they promote— that white farmers in South Africa are being systematically murdered as part of a government-backed genocide— has been thoroughly debunked. It originated from the same circles that spent decades justifying apartheid as a “defensive” measure against Black majority rule. But Musk’s purpose in spreading it isn’t just ideological nostalgia; it’s strategic. He’s aligning himself with a global movement of ethno-nationalists who see America’s future as mirroring South Africa’s past: a racialized struggle where white wealth and power must be protected at all costs.
With a politician as transactional as Trump in office, Thiel was able to buy the vice presidency for one of his acolytes, J.D. Vance, and Musk, basically, has acquired the presidency itself— in all but name— for close to $300 million in campaign contributions and God-only-knows how much in secret deals. Thiel has long understood that racial paranoia is a powerful organizing tool for authoritarian movements and his funding of Vance is no accident; Vance’s rhetoric about “American carnage” and demographic decline is drawn straight from the South African far-right playbook. A Thiel-controlled vice presidency ensures that these policies—ethnic gerrymandering through selective immigration, state suppression of democratic movements, corporate capture of government— become permanent fixtures of American governance. It’s also worth noting the staggering hypocrisy of Musk and the Republicans clutching their pearls over South Africa’s land reform policies. Their outrage over expropriation without compensation evaporates when the U.S. government seizes land from working-class Americans to build oil pipelines, highways, or Trump’s own border wall. The only difference? When eminent domain is used to displace Black farmers in the American South or Indigenous communities for corporate profit, they call it progress. When it’s used to undo centuries of violent dispossession in South Africa, they call it tyranny. Trump has eagerly seized on this rhetoric, not because he cares about South Africa, but because it provides a perfect pretext for his broader war on immigration and democracy.
Musk’s rule over the executive branch— the dominance of DOGE— has been on full display all week, as he and his band of young fascist incels have overrun one government agency after another. Last night’s NY Times described another piece of influence by the South African mafia, America’s turn against the South African government on belief of the remnants of the apartheid Afrikaners. Michael Shear and John Eligon reported that Trump “ordered that all foreign assistance to South Africa be halted and said his administration would prioritize the resettling of white, ‘Afrikaner refugees’ into the United States because of what he called actions by the country’s government that ‘racially disfavored landowners.’ In the order, Trump said that ‘the United States shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa’ and that American officials should do everything possible to help ‘Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.’
Let’s hope we don’t see a mass migration white South African fascists into the U.S. the way the Midwest saw Nazis from Eastern Europe who were encouraged by the Dulles brothers to resettle in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, as well as in New Jersey, after World War II. In 2018, Trump’s administration signaled interest in giving “refugee” status to white South Africans, a move reminiscent of how the U.S. welcomed Eastern European Nazi collaborators after World War II under the guise of anti-communism. Trump orbit is once again promoting the idea of selective asylum— just not for those fleeing actual persecution, like Central Americans or Palestinians, but for the ideological heirs of apartheid.
This new order by Trump follows his dishonest and incendiary accusation on his social media site last Sunday that “the South African government was engaged in a ‘massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum.’ He vowed a full investigation and promised to cut off aid. ‘South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY,’ the president wrote in the post. ‘It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to so much as mention.’ The order was stunning in providing official American backing to long-held conspiracy theories about the mistreatment of white South Africans in the post-apartheid era.”
Trump’s recent comments were in reference to a policy that President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa signed into law last month.
The law, known as the Expropriation Act, repeals an apartheid-era law and allows the government in certain instances to acquire privately held land in the public interest without paying compensation— something that can be done only after a justification process subject to judicial review.
The order from Trump came a day after Ramaphosa delivered his State of the Nation address with a defiance that appeared to be a reference to the American president’s accusations.
“We will not be bullied,” he said. The South African leader vowed to stand united in the face of what he called “the rise of nationalism and protectionism.”
“We will speak with one voice in defense of our national interest, our sovereignty and our constitutional democracy,” he said.
In addition to the halt in foreign aid, Trump ordered officials to provide “humanitarian” assistance to Afrikaners and to allow members of the white South African minority to seek refuge in the United States through the American refugee program.
Since the transition to democracy in 1994, the South African government has taken a willing-seller approach to try to transfer the ownership of more land to the country’s Black majority. The new law, with limited exceptions to that approach, came as many Black South Africans have argued that Nelson Mandela and other leaders did not do enough to force the white minority to give up wealth that had been accrued during apartheid.
South Africa’s colonial regimes were particularly brutal in dispossessing Black people of their land and forcefully removing them. Despite the efforts of postcolonial governments, the result remains clear to this day: White South Africans, who make up 7 percent of the population, own farmland that covers the majority of the country’s territory.
In an earlier executive order, Trump had demanded a three-month pause in the United States’ refugee program, blocking the admission of desperate people fleeing war, economic strife, natural disasters or political persecution. Friday’s order appeared to make white South Africans an exception to the broader halt.
While it is not clear whether he had an influence on the president’s order, Elon Musk, the billionaire who has become a close adviser to the president, is from South Africa. In 2023, Musk posted similar far-right conspiracy claims about South Africa on twitter, the social media platform he owns.
“They are openly pushing for genocide of white people in South Africa,” Musk wrote.
Ramaphosa and Musk spoke by phone after that social media post, with the South African president trying to clarify what his administration has called “misinformation” peddled by Trump.
In much of South Africa, Trump’s attacks in recent days inspired a rare bit of political unity, with leftist, centrist and even some far-right activists all saying that the American president’s characterization of the land transfer law was wrong.
His comments amplified a long-held grievance among some white South Africans who claim they have been discriminated against by the Black-led government after apartheid. But Trump’s comments also angered many South Africans, who saw the law as a necessary means of redressing historical injustice.
Since 1994, when South Africa became a democracy, the country has enjoyed a close relationship with the United States. Barack Obama visited there several times during his presidency, including when he attended the memorial service for Mr. Mandela, who had been imprisoned for 27 years before becoming the country’s president.
But Trump’s actions on Friday made it clear that he does not view the relationship in the same way.
South Africa received more than $400 million in aid from the United States in 2023, almost all of which went to funding efforts to fight H.I.V. and AIDS. The government has said that American funding makes up about 17 percent of its budget for battling H.I.V.
Far-right white Afrikaners applauded Trump’s attacks on South Africa’s government in recent days.
Ernst Roets, the executive director of the Afrikaner Foundation, which lobbies for international support of the interests of Afrikaners, said that while the government was not seizing land, it was trying to create a legal and policy framework to be able to do so.
The expropriation law opens the door to abuse, Roets said, because the government “can justify a lot of things under the banner of public interest.” But even Roets and his group had not called on Trump to broadly cut aid to South Africa, instead seeking targeted actions against government leaders.
After Trump first commented about land confiscation, the South African government tried to broker a conversation between its foreign minister and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, according to Ebrahim Rasool, South Africa’s ambassador to the United States. But the Trump administration did not respond, he said.
This kind of expropriation in the United States is generally referred to as “eminent domain.” The Fifth Amendment, includes the Taakings Clause, which states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Congress can directly take private property by passing an Act that transfers the property's title to the government. In such cases, property owners must sue for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Kelo v. City of New London was a significant Supreme Court decision in 2005 which upheld the ability of governments to seize property for economic development, albeit with just compensation.
On top of that, each state has its own set of laws and constitutional provisions that govern eminent domain. States can define “public use” more narrowly or broadly than federal interpretations. For instance, after Kelo, several states passed laws or constitutional amendments restricting the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Local governments, like cities or counties, typically exercise eminent domain powers through statutes passed by the state. These local entities are often the ones directly involved in acquiring land for public projects like roads, schools, or utilities. Some states might have more stringent requirements or offer more protections for property owners, while others might be more permissive in defining public use.
The purpose of South Africa's Expropriation Act is aimed at addressing historical land ownership inequalities stemming from apartheid. The Act allows for expropriation without compensation when land is not in use or has been abandoned, with the goal of land reform and rectifying past racial injustices. While the Act generally mandates “just and equitable” compensation, there's a provision for nil compensation under specific conditions like when land is held for speculative purposes or is abandoned.
Eminent Domain in the U.K., known as “compulsory purchase,” allows the government to acquire land for public purposes, although compensation (based on market value) is legally required. The process involves public inquiries for objections, and compensation is based on market value. Canada and Australia have laws similar to the U.S., the U.K. and, to a somewhat lesser extent, South Africa, in terms of compensation for expropriated land. The most significant difference is South Africa's provision for nil compensation in specific scenarios, which is not standard in U.S. law or in most other countries where compensation is a constitutional or statutory right. South Africa's law is deeply tied to its history of land dispossession under apartheid, making it more about land reform than just public infrastructure development, unlike the broader application in the U.S. or other countries. While all countries focus on public benefit, South Africa’s Act explicitly includes addressing historical racial injustices in defining public interest, which adds a layer of social justice to the legal framework, and you can imagine how that would freak out the billionaire class, not just Musk, Thiel and Sacks but also Trump himself.
It’s important to keep in mind— though Trump and the South African fascists haven’t— that the new South African law is still within a constitutional framework that requires due process and judicial oversight, similar to the U.S. and other countries, even if there is a specific emphasis on historical rectification.
Musk isn’t just an eccentric billionaire with reactionary views; he’s the linchpin of a global fascist project. He isn’t merely amplifying racist conspiracy theories— he’s ensuring they become the foundation of U.S. policy. And he’s doing it by turning the Republican Party into a mouthpiece for a dying class of white supremacists who, like the apartheid rulers before them, would rather burn everything down than accept democracy. Trump may be the figurehead, but Musk is the architect. If he gets his way, America’s future won’t just resemble South Africa’s past— it’ll be much, much worse.
Comments