In a move that’s rattled diplomatic relations and raised eyebrows worldwide, the US State Department has placed South Africa and Brazil on its human trafficking “Tier 2 Watch List,” citing insufficient progress in battling modern-day slavery. The decision, announced on September 30, 2025, comes amid already tense relations between the Trump administration and the governments of both countries, and has sparked a flurry of political and economic repercussions.
The annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, which typically lands with little fanfare, was released nearly three months late this year. According to Reuters, the delay was due to a dramatic 71% reduction in staff at the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Michael Rigas told Congress that over 1,300 staff were cut earlier in 2025, with those impacted mainly involved in writing reports. Democratic lawmakers, including Representative Sarah McBride, voiced concerns about the timing and implications of the report’s delayed release.
Despite the bureaucratic chaos, the TIP report packed quite the punch. Both South Africa and Brazil were officially downgraded to the Tier 2 Watch List, a designation that signals a warning: shape up, or face possible US sanctions. The report notes that while both governments made notable efforts, their actions fell short of what’s needed to tackle forced labor, sex trafficking, and other forms of modern-day slavery.
On South Africa, the report was explicit: “Significant efforts included launching the country’s first sub-provincial task team and convicting more traffickers. However, the government identified fewer victims, investigated fewer cases, and initiated fewer prosecutions.” Brazil, for its part, initiated fewer investigations and prosecutions and saw a decline in trafficking convictions compared to previous years, as detailed in the TIP report and echoed by BusinessTech.
What does a Tier 2 Watch List status mean in practice? It’s a yellow card, not a red one—yet. Countries on this list must demonstrate greater efforts to combat trafficking or risk being bumped to Tier 3. And Tier 3 is where things get truly dicey: US law allows for the imposition of sanctions, including restrictions on nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance, as well as blocking access to loans from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Cultural exchange programs and development funds could also be slashed, though humanitarian aid is technically exempt. But as BusinessTech points out, “technically” doesn’t always mean “in practice”—the Trump administration already cut humanitarian aid to South Africa earlier this year, citing “human rights” concerns.
Trade and diplomatic relations are also on a knife’s edge. Lawmakers in both the US Senate and House are currently considering bills that could disrupt the US-South Africa trade relationship and slap sanctions on African National Congress (ANC) politicians. President Donald Trump, for his part, has a history of tough talk and tough action against both countries. He’s accused South Africa—without evidence—of “persecuting its white minority,” launched a special refugee program for white South Africans, and imposed steep tariffs on South African goods. Brazil has faced its own share of penalties: tariffs, visa restrictions, and financial sanctions, all tied in part to the trial and conviction of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close Trump ally now battling legal woes back home.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who delivered the official statement on the TIP report, condemned human trafficking as “a horrific and devastating crime that also enriches transnational criminal organizations and immoral, anti-American regimes.” Notably, Rubio’s statement stopped short of explaining why South Africa and Brazil were singled out for the downgrade, leaving some to speculate about the political motivations behind the move. In previous years, State Department officials fielded questions from reporters about the report’s findings, but this year, no one was made available for comment, as reported by Reuters.
The reaction from both countries has been swift and pointed. Brazil’s competition authority, the Tribunal for the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE), publicly condemned US sanctions against council member José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior after his US visa was suspended. Another council member criticized the sanctions as “unjustified restrictions,” highlighting the growing frustration in Brasília. While it remains unclear if further sanctions will be imposed on José Levi, the episode has added fuel to an already simmering diplomatic fire.
For South Africa, the TIP report’s findings are both a warning and a diplomatic headache. The government’s efforts—such as launching the first sub-provincial task team and securing more convictions—were recognized, but the overall decline in identified victims, investigations, and prosecutions painted a picture of backsliding rather than progress. The US report’s blunt assessment puts additional pressure on Pretoria to ramp up its anti-trafficking measures or risk more severe consequences in the coming year.
Brazil faces similar challenges. The TIP report’s criticism of fewer investigations and convictions comes at a time of heightened scrutiny over the country’s political and judicial systems. The US has linked some of its punitive measures, including visa restrictions and financial penalties, to the legal troubles of Bolsonaro, further complicating an already fraught relationship.
The backdrop to these developments is a broader pattern of escalating tensions between the Trump administration and both South Africa and Brazil. The White House has repeatedly cited “human rights” and “American values” to justify its actions, but critics argue that politics and personal vendettas may be just as much at play. Trump’s accusations against South Africa regarding white farmers, for example, have not been substantiated by independent investigations, yet they’ve driven policy decisions with real-world consequences. Similarly, the administration’s actions against Brazil come as Bolsonaro, once hailed as a Trump ally, faces mounting legal and political troubles at home.
Meanwhile, the delayed release of the TIP report has cast a shadow over the State Department’s credibility. The massive staff cuts and lack of transparency have left many wondering whether the report’s findings are as robust and objective as in years past. As Democratic lawmakers have noted, the process behind the report matters just as much as its content—especially when its conclusions carry the weight of possible sanctions and international censure.
For now, South Africa and Brazil find themselves at a crossroads. Both governments must decide how to respond to the US’s pointed critique and the looming threat of sanctions. Will they double down on anti-trafficking efforts to get back in Washington’s good graces, or push back against what they see as politically motivated interference? Only time will tell, but one thing’s certain: the consequences of this year’s TIP report will ripple far beyond the pages of a delayed bureaucratic document.
As global attention turns to the next moves by Pretoria and Brasília, the fate of US relations with these two major economies hangs in the balance—proof, perhaps, that in international politics, timing and perception are often just as important as substance.
