As Johannesburg prepares to welcome global leaders for the G20 Summit on November 22, 2025, a sense of anticipation fills the air—but not for the usual reasons. This year, the absence of United States President Donald Trump and his entire administration has become the defining backdrop to an event already fraught with high stakes and historic significance. Across South Africa, the mood is unmistakable: many are relieved, even optimistic, that the summit will proceed without the unpredictable drama that has so often accompanied Trump’s presence at international gatherings.
For weeks, the phrase "Trump can keep his America; we keep our South Africa" has echoed on radio shows, in community forums, and across social media. According to AFP, event organizers and officials have noted a lighter atmosphere, freed from the anxiety of last-minute shifts in tone or political theatrics that have marked previous summits attended by Trump. One commentator captured the prevailing sentiment, stating, “This summit will feel more respectful and more serious without him.”
The official story, however, is more complex and runs far deeper than simple relief. On November 7, Trump took to his Truth Social account to announce that no US government official would attend the Johannesburg G20, calling it "a total disgrace that the G20 will be held in South Africa." He cited what he called the "genocide" of Afrikaners—descendants of Dutch, French, and German settlers—alleging that their land and farms were being "illegally confiscated." Trump declared, “No US government official will attend as long as these human rights abuses continue.”
This public boycott is the latest crescendo in a diplomatic rift that has widened over the past two years. The roots of this tension trace back to December 29, 2023, when South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. South Africa’s government argued that Israel’s actions contravened the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. According to The Diplomatic Insight, the majority of the Global South rallied to South Africa’s cause, while the United States, standing firmly with Israel, dismissed the allegations as "unfounded," "meritless," and "counterproductive." The US accused South Africa of acting as "Hamas’ legal team" and responded by slashing financial aid to Pretoria.
Despite these pressures, South Africa remained steadfast. Its principled stance in the ICJ case, combined with a series of domestic reforms, further stoked Trump’s ire. On January 23, 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act, a landmark law designed to address the deep-rooted land ownership disparities left by apartheid. The act allows the government to expropriate unused private land—without specifying race, but in practice affecting mostly White landowners, who still control a disproportionate share of farmland. Trump and his supporters interpreted the move as racially motivated "confiscation," despite the law’s constitutional safeguards and due process requirements.
The response from Washington was swift. On February 7, Trump signed an executive order halting all US financial aid to South Africa, accusing the government of "confiscating land and mistreating certain classes of people." He also directed his administration to promote the resettlement of Afrikaners "escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination." US Secretary of State Marco Rubio cancelled his own trip to Johannesburg for the G20 talks, cementing the administration’s hardline stance.
Al Jazeera’s analysis places Trump’s actions within a broader historical context, noting that Western leaders have long sought to "discipline African sovereignty" through mischaracterization and selective outrage. The article argues that Trump’s boycott is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a larger pattern of Western paternalism and evangelical-imperial traditions that have shaped US foreign policy toward Africa for generations. Trump’s narrative—casting South Africa as a failed state in need of Western correction—mirrors a "moralised paternalism" that has persisted since the colonial era.
Yet, South African officials and independent experts have consistently rejected claims of systematic persecution or genocide of white farmers. Judicial rulings, official statistics, and constitutional safeguards all point to the absence of any organized campaign against Afrikaners. As Al Jazeera notes, "there is no credible evidence whatsoever to support the claim that white farmers in South Africa are being systematically targeted as part of a campaign of genocide." Instead, the government’s land reform policy is aimed squarely at rectifying historical injustices and promoting economic inclusion.
For South Africa, hosting the G20 is about more than symbolism; it’s a strategic effort to amplify the voice of the Global South in shaping the rules of global governance. The summit’s agenda, according to both AFP and The Diplomatic Insight, centers on new approaches to development financing, reforming the global financial system, clean energy transitions, support for vulnerable economies, and a stronger voice for developing nations. With Trump absent, officials believe these priorities will receive the focused attention they deserve—free from the shadow of American controversies.
President Ramaphosa has not shied away from addressing the US boycott. Speaking outside parliament, he declared, “The United States’ absence is their loss.” He insisted, “Boycott politics doesn’t work,” and emphasized that South Africa would not be bullied into submission. “As a nation with a unique history of resilience against racism and bigotry, we will continue our struggle to make the world more equitable and just for all,” Ramaphosa said.
Behind the political theater, the stakes are immense. South Africa’s G20 presidency coincides with rising global inequality and mounting frustration among developing nations over their limited influence in international institutions. Earlier this year, Ramaphosa commissioned the G20 Global Inequality Report, chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, which revealed that the world’s richest 1 percent have captured more than 40 percent of new wealth since 2000. More than 80 percent of humanity now lives in conditions the World Bank classifies as high inequality. The Johannesburg summit is expected to push for reforms to multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, to better serve the interests of the Global South.
While the US under Trump has retreated from multilateralism—sanctioning the International Criminal Court, abandoning key UN bodies, and resisting international scrutiny—South Africa is betting on cooperation, shared responsibility, and adherence to international law. The country’s leaders hope to use the G20 stage to champion a more inclusive and equitable global order, one that recognizes the legitimate aspirations of all nations, not just the most powerful.
As the world’s eyes turn to Johannesburg, the absence of the US is both a challenge and an opportunity. For South Africa, it is a chance to lead with confidence, free from the distractions of American political drama, and to show that the future of global governance may well be shaped in the South as much as the North.
