The air in Johannesburg was thick with anticipation as world leaders gathered for the G20 summit on November 22, 2025. But the absence of a major player—namely, the United States—cast a long shadow over what was supposed to be a triumphant moment for South Africa’s presidency. The U.S. boycott, led by President Donald Trump, was not just a diplomatic snub; it signaled a deepening rift between two influential nations and raised urgent questions about the future of global cooperation.
According to Xinhua, the drama began on November 7, when President Trump took to social media to announce that U.S. officials would not attend the Johannesburg summit, accusing the South African government of discriminating against the white minority. This public boycott was the latest in a series of escalating confrontations between Washington and Pretoria. In response, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa didn’t mince words, declaring the U.S. absence was “their loss” and warning that the boycott would only backfire on Washington.
Despite the tension, the G20 summit proceeded as planned. For the first time, a joint declaration was adopted on the opening day—a testament to South Africa’s determination to keep the wheels of international dialogue turning, even as one of the world’s most powerful countries chose to sit out. The presidency, as reported by The Conversation, was ambitious and inclusive, hosting 177 official meetings and involving 15 thematic working groups ranging from youth and business to women’s rights and science.
The symbolism of the U.S. absence loomed large. Traditionally, the host nation’s leader ceremonially hands the G20 gavel to the next host, but this year, the ritual was unceremoniously bypassed. Instead, South Africa handed over the G20 documents to a junior U.S. embassy official in a low-key ceremony on November 25. The following day, Trump upped the ante, declaring that South Africa would not be invited to the 2026 G20 summit in Miami. Pretoria called this decision “regrettable” and insisted it was based on false information, as noted by Xinhua.
Diplomatic fallout didn’t end there. On December 3, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement lambasting South Africa’s domestic policies and even threatened to replace South Africa with Poland in the G20. Ramaphosa responded the next day, telling reporters that South Africa had received no formal written notice of exclusion from the Miami summit and would not attempt to rally other countries to boycott it. “We are yet to receive anything formally, and we will deal with that when it comes,” he said, signaling a measured, if wary, approach.
The roots of this diplomatic standoff run deep. Since Trump began his second term in 2025, bilateral relations have soured at a rapid pace. Disagreements over South Africa’s 2023 case at the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, as well as Pretoria’s close ties with Iran, have widened the gulf. In February, Trump denounced South Africa’s new land law, accusing the government of seizing land in a way that discriminated against white citizens, and swiftly cut off U.S. aid. He later expelled South Africa’s ambassador after public criticisms, and during Ramaphosa’s May visit to the White House, Trump confronted him with videos and newspaper clippings alleging a “white genocide”—claims Ramaphosa flatly rejected as unfounded.
By August, the U.S. State Department’s human rights report had sharply criticized South Africa’s situation, specifically targeting the new land law as a “worrying step” toward expropriating white-owned land. South African officials dismissed these accusations as baseless. The economic consequences soon followed: beginning August 7, the U.S. slapped a 30% tariff on South African exports, the highest rate for any sub-Saharan African country.
Despite these hostilities, the Johannesburg G20 summit was not without its achievements. As described in The Conversation, South Africa’s presidency championed themes of solidarity, equality, and sustainability. The final declaration supported the Paris Agreement and acknowledged Africa’s unique vulnerability to climate change, calling for wealthier, higher-emitting nations to provide funding and support based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Yet, the declaration’s language was criticized as vague, especially regarding the implementation and funding of just energy transitions.
South Africa also introduced a voluntary plan to make clean cooking fuels a global priority, addressing a dire need: 80% of African households lack access to clean cooking fuel, leading to 3.2 million premature deaths annually, mostly among women and children. However, the plan’s voluntary nature and the option for countries to opt out limited its impact. The summit also saw progress on environmental crime—an issue of growing importance for Africa—through ministerial declarations on air quality and illicit trafficking of flora, fauna, metals, and minerals.
Yet, some observers, like energy and climate policy researchers cited by The Conversation, viewed the presidency as a mixed diplomatic success. The G20’s 2025 declaration failed to mention the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, a commitment made back in 2009, and did not explicitly address energy poverty or further develop principles for just energy transitions agreed during Brazil’s 2024 presidency. The debt crisis, too, remained a thorny issue: most climate finance for Africa still comes as loans, deepening the continent’s debt burden and hampering clean energy projects that rely heavily on public investment.
Meanwhile, the U.S. boycott reverberated far beyond the summit’s walls. Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, wrote in the Florida Courier that the Trump administration’s actions amounted to the U.S. “relinquishing our nation’s leadership on global economic and social policy.” Morial argued, “We cannot be a beacon of truth while spreading lies. We cannot promote American ideals if we abdicate our leadership to nations that are hostile to our goals.” His critique underscored a growing concern: as the U.S. steps back, other global powers—particularly China and Russia—are poised to fill the vacuum, reshaping the international order in ways that may not align with American interests or values.
Looking ahead, analysts cited by Xinhua expect relations between the U.S. and South Africa to remain fraught, with political confrontation likely to dominate. However, both countries have strong incentives to maintain cooperation in critical areas such as HIV/AIDS prevention, counterterrorism, transnational crime, and mineral resource development. Shared interests in food security, climate change, and public health make a complete decoupling improbable—even if the political rhetoric remains heated.
The coming year’s political calendar could also influence the tone of bilateral relations. The 2026 U.S. midterm elections and South Africa’s local elections might prompt policy shifts, such as easing tariffs on agricultural and automotive products to win domestic support. For South Africa, maintaining a working relationship with Washington is vital for coalition stability and continued access to global forums.
As the U.S. assumed the G20 presidency on December 1, 2025, South Africa’s exclusion from future G20 engagements remained a contentious issue. The world will be watching to see whether the remaining G20 members champion the themes of solidarity, equality, and sustainability that South Africa sought to advance—or whether the diplomatic rift marks the start of a new era of fractured global leadership.
The events in Johannesburg serve as a stark reminder: in a world grappling with climate change, economic inequality, and shifting power dynamics, showing up at the table still matters. The stakes—for Africa, for the United States, and for the world—are simply too high to ignore.
