For the first time in its history, the G20 Summit is taking place on African soil, with South Africa hosting world leaders in Johannesburg from November 22-23, 2025. Yet, the historic gathering is unfolding under the shadow of a major diplomatic rift: United States President Donald Trump’s decision to boycott the event, a move that experts warn could have far-reaching consequences for South Africa’s role in global affairs and for the cohesion of the G20 itself.
President Trump’s absence isn’t a quiet one. He announced via social media that neither he nor any U.S. official would attend the summit, citing allegations of white farmer persecution in South Africa—claims that have been widely dismissed by the South African government and independent observers. According to BBC, Trump described South Africa’s hosting of the G20 as a “total disgrace” and initially considered sending Vice-President J.D. Vance in his stead before opting for a complete boycott. He doubled down, stating, “No US government official will attend as long as these human rights abuses continue.” He further asserted, “Afrikaners are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated.”
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was quick to respond. Speaking outside parliament, he told reporters, “boycott politics doesn’t work,” calling the U.S. decision “their loss.” As reported by AFP, Ramaphosa insisted that “the absence is their loss and that the boycott would not prevent the meeting from going ahead.” He pointedly added, “boycotting never achieves anything of great impact, because decisions will be taken that will move the various issues ahead.” Ramaphosa also emphasized the importance of the U.S. role in global economic leadership, stating that by not attending, the U.S. was “giving up the very important role that they should be playing as the biggest economy in the world.”
South Africa’s government has firmly rejected the allegations that prompted the U.S. boycott. Officials have called the claims of a white genocide “widely discredited and unsupported by reliable evidence,” according to BBC. They also maintain that no white farmers have had land confiscated without compensation.
The U.S. is not alone in its absence. Argentina’s President Javier Milei, a close ally of Trump, has also declined to attend, sending Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno as his representative. This move, experts say, signals a broader pattern of diplomatic protest and alignment with Washington’s stance, especially among nations currently reliant on U.S. financial support.
The U.S. boycott comes at a particularly sensitive time for South Africa. As the current chair of the G20, South Africa is responsible for setting the agenda and facilitating discussions among the world’s largest economies. The summit in Johannesburg is not only historic because of its location but also because it marks the handover of the G20 presidency from South Africa to the United States. The absence of the U.S. at this crucial juncture, experts argue, could make the transition awkward and potentially undermine the spirit of multilateral cooperation that the G20 is meant to foster.
Dr. Nomvula Mphahlele, a researcher on South African foreign policy, outlined the stakes in an interview with local media. “The U.S. 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 U.S. is boycotting then it sends a strong message of the future of multilateralism and how the G20 is going to operate moving forward.” She noted that while South Africa is unlikely to lose its G20 seat—since membership is determined by a vote among all members—the U.S. could still exclude South Africa from influential working groups and finance ministers’ meetings, which often require special invitations.
“Maybe the U.S. could exclude SA from some of these activities but it is not possible to remove them from their seat,” Mphahlele explained. She also foresaw that the handover ceremony of the G20 presidency could be awkward for South Africa, with the absence of the U.S. as the successor. Mphahlele suggested that Trump’s presidency may prioritize U.S. interests, potentially disempowering emerging economies like China, which has significant influence in the G20.
Dr. Noluthando Phungula, an international relations expert at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, described Trump’s decision as “petty politics” and “throwing his toys,” but acknowledged that it is an effective exercise of soft power. “This is evident in the absence of the Argentinian president who has also declined the invitation and has cited he will send a representative,” she said. Phungula argued that the boycott reflects deeper tensions between Pretoria and Washington, likely to impact trade and diplomatic relations. She believes the U.S. boycott is linked not only to the disputed claims of white farmer persecution but also to disagreements over South Africa’s stance on Israel and the International Criminal Court case against Israel.
Phungula warned that Trump’s decision is likely to weaken U.S.-South Africa bilateral relations further, pushing Pretoria closer to China, Russia, and other BRICS nations. “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,” she observed. The growing alignment of South Africa with alternative global governance structures, she added, reflects a larger shift in global power dynamics, as nations in the Global South seek to counterbalance traditional Western influence.
There are also concerns about the future of the G20 itself. As Phungula noted, “the US retains the position of being one of the key global economies that has a key role in the G20 which has in the past contributed to stability of global financial markets, coordinating economic policy, and addressing geopolitical crises.” The U.S. boycott, she warned, “raises serious concerns about the future cohesion of the G20 and that it undermines the G20’s legitimacy and effectiveness.”
Despite the diplomatic drama, South Africa is determined to make the most of its moment in the global spotlight. The summit will proceed, and Ramaphosa has made it clear that important decisions will still be made—regardless of who is at the table. Still, with the world watching, the absence of the U.S. and its allies will be keenly felt, and the long-term impact of this rift on global cooperation and South Africa’s international standing remains to be seen.
The G20 summit in Johannesburg was always going to be historic, but the U.S. boycott has ensured it will be remembered as a turning point in global diplomacy—one that may shape the future of international relations for years to come.
