The "willing-seller, willing-buyer" (W-B-S) policy, adopted in the post-apartheid era to facilitate land redistribution, has been widely criticized as ineffective. Under this policy, white landowners could refuse to sell or demand exorbitant prices, effectively stalling meaningful redistribution. Additionally, poor regulatory oversight often meant that nonarable or degraded land was prioritized for sale, further undermining reform goals.
In response to these failures, 2018 saw the introduction of a new approach: Expropriation Without Compensation (EWC), championed by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and later adopted as part of broader policy discussions. Despite sensationalist portrayals, South Africa’s land reform policies — including EWC — remain among the most conservative globally, shaped by a cautious balancing act between redress and economic stability.
When EWC was introduced, the Trump administration, along with media figures such as Tucker Carlson, seized upon the issue to create a hyperbolic narrative, portraying an inaccurate and inflammatory picture of the situation. This intervention not only misrepresented the realities on the ground but also echoed a long history of American political intrusion into South Africa’s internal affairs.
There is much complexity to unpack in South Africa's land reform efforts. However, it is essential to recognize that the country's policies, even at their most progressive, reflect a deeply cautious approach rooted in its historical, political, and economic realities, rather than the radical upheaval portrayed by foreign commentators.
Six years later, the issue resurfaced—this time under Trump’s second act. After a four-year break from the presidency, Trump 2.0 has returned bigger, brasher, and even more combative. No one is spared; everyone is fair game. It was therefore no surprise when South African land politics re-entered the spotlight. But 2025 is different. This time, Trump shares power with South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, who now acts as a co-president. On February 2nd, Trump reignited the controversy by posting about South Africa’s land policies on Truth Social, setting off another wave of political theater.
The Trump administration's actions are riddled with ironies. First, expropriation isn't unique to South Africa. In the U.S., it’s called eminent domain—a practice Trump himself has championed as both a businessman and president, often seizing land under dubious "public interest" claims. (See here: CBS News and New York Times).
Second, Trump has halted U.S. aid to multiple countries, but what aid is being suspended in South Africa? Foreign aid was already minimal. This move feels more like political theater than serious policy.
Third, and most glaring, land reform is an internal South African matter. What happened to "America First," the very slogan that swept Trump to power? Why meddle now, especially when even white South Africans themselves have overwhelmingly rejected Trump’s offer of refugee status?
During a recent visit to Cape Town, I saw firsthand how white South Africans live—comfortably, even luxuriously. In communities that would make American millionaires envious, they enjoy sprawling homes, daily domestic workers, low labor costs, and vast tracts of land. Why on earth would they abandon this lifestyle to live as "refugees" in the U.S.? The idea is laughable.
To gauge public sentiment, I spoke with several friends in South Africa. The consensus among Black South Africans? Let them leave, if they want. One Cape Town resident told me his white colleagues are embarrassed by the whole situation—too awkward even to discuss it. Meanwhile, the far-right Afrikaner groups are accusing Trump of betraying them, claiming he’s conspiring to help their enemies seize their land. (A fiery three-hour meeting posted on Twitter/X captured their outrage.)
So, what’s really at play here? What does Trump stand to gain by manufacturing a crisis in South Africa? What does Musk hope to achieve by aligning with him, especially when destabilizing South Africa would hurt the very white population they claim to defend?
Only 1 percent of South Africa’s white population lives in poverty. If Trump and Musk were genuinely concerned about impoverished whites, they should charter planes and bring that tiny percentage to the U.S., and Musk, the world’s richest man, could build them a cozy estate somewhere in Texas or Florida. It would make for a perfect, symbolic "return ticket." And the rest of South Africa would carry on—just fine—without the spectacle.
Here's the reality: A few might want a free ride to the USA, but no mass exodus is coming. Anyone familiar with South Africa knows that white South Africans, who still own the vast majority of land and wealth, have far more to lose in any instability Trump and Musk try to stir up.
Patricia Agupusi (Ph.D)
Assistant Professor of Social Science
Dept. of Social Science & Policy Studies
Affiliation: Global School
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
100 Institute Rd, Worcester,
MA 01609
Tel: +401 241 7538