When the United States formally assumed the G20 presidency on December 1, 2025, it did so with a flourish—and a pointed rebuke. President Donald Trump’s administration not only wiped the G20 website clean of South Africa’s recent summit legacy, but also made it clear that the upcoming 2026 summit in Miami would mark a dramatic shift in priorities. The message, delivered in a statement on Monday and widely reported by outlets including Cape Times and CounterPunch, was unmistakable: the G20, under Trump, would return to what he called its "core mission"—driving economic growth and prosperity, with a focus on results.
"As we usher in these much-needed reforms, we will prioritise three core themes: unleashing economic prosperity by limiting regulatory burdens, unlocking affordable and secure energy supply chains, and pioneering new technologies and innovations," the statement read, as cited by Cape Times. The statement’s subtext, however, was a sharp departure from the diplomatic tone of previous summits. In fact, the US had already ordered a boycott of the 2025 G20 Summit in Johannesburg, citing what Trump described as the persecution of white Afrikaners in South Africa—a claim widely discredited by both the South African government and independent observers.
This move, according to political analysts and former leaders, signals a fundamental reorientation of the G20’s agenda. For many, it’s a return to a US-centric approach—one that sidelines issues like climate change and global equity, which had been championed by South Africa and other recent hosts. As Professor Theo Neethling, a prominent political analyst, explained to Cape Times: "Trump is not known for being constrained by prior commitments, and he is unlikely to treat the summit’s Africa-focused agenda as a starting point. Instead, he will set new parameters for the G20, effectively discarding discussions and statements formulated in Johannesburg."
Neethling went further, predicting that under Trump, the G20 presidency would likely revolve around "a reduced emphasis on climate agreements, a harder line on China, and a focus on migration, borders, and security." This sentiment was echoed by former South African President Thabo Mbeki during the 2025 Cape Town Conversations. Mbeki observed that the US, under Trump, had made it clear they were "not interested in the outcomes of the G20 Summit hosted by South Africa," and would instead advance their own national interests, regardless of international consensus.
The decision to exclude South Africa from the 2026 G20 summit—announced by Trump in a fiery Truth Social post—further inflamed tensions. Trump accused the South African government of "horrific Human Right Abuses endured by Afrikaners," and declared, "South Africa will NOT be receiving an invitation to the 2026 G20, which will be hosted in the Great City of Miami, Florida next year. South Africa has demonstrated to the World they are not a country worthy of Membership anywhere, and we are going to stop all payments and subsidies to them, effective immediately." As CounterPunch pointed out, even the US State Department’s own Human Rights Report failed to substantiate such claims, noting only that new legislation could allow property expropriation—something that applies broadly, not just to white farmers.
For many observers, this episode is more than a diplomatic spat; it’s indicative of a broader shift in global power dynamics. The BRICS bloc—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, now joined by several others—has grown to represent 46% of the world’s population and 41% of global GDP, as Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs highlighted in a viral speech at the University of South Africa. Sachs argued that the BRICS, "can look at the G7 and say, ‘Who are you?’ And that’s what they’re doing. So this is the new phase of geopolitics." Yet, as CounterPunch noted, the much-touted multipolar world order remains elusive. The BRICS bloc, despite its size, has shown little unity or willingness to confront the US head-on—whether on trade, climate, or diplomatic norms.
South Africa’s own attempts at appeasement, as recounted by former US Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, were extensive but ultimately fruitless. Rasool described how President Cyril Ramaphosa traveled to the White House with a delegation aimed at reassuring Trump, only to be met with increased tariffs and further hostility. "We’ve tried the appeasement route. It didn’t work… We even, as we led the discussions to the G20, kind of collapsed the ambitious agenda we had about revitalizing the Global South in this G20… We gave into Trump’s idea that we’ve widened the G20 too much," Rasool lamented in an interview cited by CounterPunch.
The US’s hardline stance has not gone unnoticed among other G20 and BRICS members. Institute for Global Dialogue Research Director Mikatekiso Kubayi revealed that some European embassies had even considered the possibility of a "G19"—a G20 summit without US participation, should Trump’s approach continue to alienate partners. South African commentator Oscar van Heerdon speculated that if Trump "doubles down on this issue, BRICS nations are going to boycott the next G20. I think Brazil, Russia, India and China are going to say if South Africa is not allowed to come, then we will also not come."
Despite these threats, the reality is more complicated. The BRICS group, for all its rhetorical defiance, remains divided. As Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar and economist Michael Hudson observed, internal frictions and a lack of coherent strategy have hampered BRICS’ ability to challenge US dominance. Some members, like India and the United Arab Emirates, are often seen as more aligned with Western interests than with a radical realignment of global power.
Meanwhile, the US’s decision to revoke the travel visa of South Africa’s former foreign minister Naledi Pandor—a move described by Pakistani scholar Junaid Ahmed as a sign of "empire’s fear"—underscored the personal and political stakes involved. South African President Ramaphosa’s spokesperson responded with a warning: "The world cannot allow this brazen disdain for rules and established norms of diplomatic engagements… It can’t go unchallenged in global fora."
Looking ahead to the Miami summit in December 2026, the question remains: will the G20 fracture under the weight of these disputes, or will the lure of economic cooperation prove stronger than the push for principled resistance? As history has shown, global forums like the G20 often reflect the shifting sands of power, ambition, and compromise. For now, one thing is clear—under Trump’s presidency, the US is determined to set the agenda, for better or worse, and the rest of the world must decide how, or whether, to respond.
