With the world watching, the G20 Summit set for November 22 to 23, 2025, at Johannesburg’s Nasrec Expo Centre is already making headlines—though not for the reasons its South African hosts might have hoped. In an unprecedented move, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that neither he nor any American official will attend, citing claims of white genocide against Afrikaners in South Africa—allegations roundly rejected by the South African government and independent observers alike. The fallout from this diplomatic snub is rippling far beyond the summit halls, raising questions about the future of multilateralism, U.S.-South Africa relations, and the global balance of power.
International relations experts and political analysts are weighing in on the ramifications of the boycott, which comes at a time when the G20—under the theme of "Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability"—is meant to address pressing global challenges like climate change, technological innovation, and economic growth. According to Professor Kgothatso Shai of the University of Limpopo, the impact of Trump’s absence may be less dramatic than headlines suggest. "The role of the Presidencies in this context is largely ceremonial. But the reality is that real work has happened in the 130-plus ministerial and official G20 meetings that have taken place this year. With the oncoming summit, its expected role is to consolidate several sectoral agreements into a unified declaration of the leaders," Shai explained, as reported by The Star.
Still, the symbolism of the U.S. boycott is impossible to ignore. The United States, as one of the world’s largest economies and a key sponsor of international initiatives—from climate change efforts to United Nations programs—has long played a central role in shaping G20 agendas. Dr. Nomvula Mphahlele, a researcher on South African foreign policy, warned, "The US sponsors most of the international initiatives like climate change, they use a huge amount of money for the operation of the United Nations and other financial institutions like the World Trade Organisation. If the US is boycotting then it sends a strong message of the future of multilateralism and how the G20 is going to operate moving forward."
The U.S. decision to stay away is rooted in a series of diplomatic spats and unfounded claims. Since taking office, Trump has repeatedly accused South Africa of persecuting white farmers, a narrative dismissed by Pretoria and international observers. The situation escalated earlier this year when South Africa’s ambassador to the U.S., Ebrahim Rasool, was expelled, further souring relations. Trump’s most recent move—offering refugee status to Afrikaners from May 2025—only deepened the rift.
President Cyril Ramaphosa, however, has remained unflappable. In public remarks on November 10, 2025, he shrugged off the boycott, saying, "boycott politics doesn't work" and describing the U.S. decision as "their loss." He assured South Africans that the summit would proceed as planned and that the absence of the U.S. would not derail the G20’s agenda. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni echoed this optimism, stating, "We want South Africans to feel comfortable that their country is going to lead this G20."
But not everyone is so sanguine. Dr. Noluthando Phungula, an international relations expert at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, sees the U.S. boycott as a catalyst for deeper shifts in global alliances. "This reality builds into the BRICS expansion and growth. This decision inadvertently speaks to a clearer call from the Global South towards multilateralism and a reformation of international power structures," Phungula told Cape Times. She noted that South Africa’s growing alignment with China, Russia, and other BRICS nations is part of a broader effort by emerging economies to counterbalance Western dominance.
Phungula also pointed out that the boycott raises serious concerns about the future cohesion, legitimacy, and effectiveness of the G20. "This is as the USA retains the position of being one of the key global economies that has in the past contributed to stability of global financial markets, coordinating economic policy, and addressing geopolitical crises," she said. The absence of the U.S. could, in her view, undermine the group’s ability to address urgent issues like economic inequality and climate change.
There’s another wrinkle: the presidency handover. With the U.S. next in line to chair the G20, Trump’s decision to skip the summit complicates the ceremonial transfer of leadership. Professor Shai admits that "the US absence from the summit is unprecedented, making it challenging to predict how the presidency handover will unfold." Yet, he maintains that "physical presence only projects a symbolic value. Real work has to happen beyond the handover moment." Dr. Mphahlele adds that while the handover ceremony could be awkward, South Africa is unlikely to lose its G20 seat, as membership is determined by a vote of existing members, not by any single country’s fiat.
Meanwhile, the absence of other U.S.-aligned countries is also being felt. Argentina, which currently receives significant financial support from the U.S., has reportedly decided to stay away from the summit in solidarity. Mexico’s participation also remains uncertain. Dr. Mphahlele emphasized that while South Africa is unlikely to be expelled, the U.S. might exclude it from certain G20 activities that require special invitations, such as finance ministers’ meetings or working groups. "Maybe the US could exclude SA from some of these activities but it is not possible to remove them from their seat," she said.
Despite the diplomatic storm, preparations for the summit continue apace. Gauteng MEC for Roads and Transport, Kedibone Diale-Tlabela, highlighted the positive impact the G20 has had on local infrastructure and inter-agency cooperation. "And there is evidence that G20 has reignited the spirit of the 2010 soccer World Cup, where government, business and law enforcement agencies work together to deal with rampant vandalism, destruction, and theft of public infrastructure," she told The Citizen. Diale-Tlabela praised the integrated approach to service delivery and crime prevention, noting that the summit has compelled government agencies to break down silos and collaborate more effectively.
Public policy analyst Bennitto Motitswe urged President Ramaphosa to keep the lines of communication open with Trump, despite the frustrations. "Ramaphosa must continue to talk to Trump, because there is a lot at stake to promote existing people-to-people relations, in the same way that there is a need to bridge government-to-government policy stances. Therefore, giving up on dialogue is not an option, no matter the frustrations caused by strained diplomatic engagements between the two," Motitswe advised.
Independent analyst Sandile Swana was more dismissive of the U.S. boycott’s impact, arguing that the summit will succeed regardless, thanks to strong support from key U.S. allies like the United Kingdom and the European Union. Swana suggested that Trump’s decision was a reaction to South Africa’s refusal to bow to U.S. pressure, particularly regarding its stance on Israel and the International Criminal Court.
As the G20 Summit approaches, the absence of the United States casts a long shadow over the proceedings. Yet, for many in South Africa and beyond, the event is still seen as a crucial platform for addressing global challenges—and perhaps, for redefining the world’s diplomatic playbook in the process.
