CAPE TOWN, South Africa — On Monday, the Democratic Alliance, the second-largest political party in South Africa, initiated a legal challenge against a recently enacted land expropriation law that has faced significant backlash, including condemnation from U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump criticized the law as a violation of rights against the country’s white minority, resulting in his decision to halt all funding to South Africa.
The Democratic Alliance, which is a member of the governing coalition, intensified pressure on President Cyril Ramaphosa following his endorsement of the law, prompting Trump to issue an executive order last Friday that halted U.S. aid to this key African trade partner. The newly implemented law grants the South African government authority to expropriate land for public interest, permitting compensation-free expropriation only after unsuccessful negotiations for an equitable settlement, according to government statements. The administration has defended the legislation as primarily targeting unutilized land and has asserted that it protects private property rights while ensuring land acquisition is not arbitrary.
The government has refuted Trump’s claims that the law primarily affects landowners from the Afrikaner community, which consists of descendants of Dutch and other European settlers who arrived in South Africa over 300 years ago. The Democratic Alliance, known for being South Africa’s most prominent white-led party while also attracting support from various racial groups, has positioned itself as an opponent of Ramaphosa’s African National Congress (ANC). Although it joined the current 10-party coalition last year, the Alliance views the expropriation law as unconstitutional.
“The Expropriation Act presents a serious concern for democracy, as no government should possess such extensive powers to appropriate property without compensation,” stated the DA, emphasizing their desire to completely annul the law. They also reiterated to Ramaphosa’s ANC that their party did not secure a majority victory in the last national elections and must now share governmental authority for the first time since the end of the apartheid era in 1994.
Concerns surrounding the law have arisen among various groups in South Africa, particularly those advocating for Afrikaners, who represent a significant portion of the agricultural sector and own many commercial farms. Some of these groups have sought international attention in the U.S. regarding the law while it was still a proposed bill.
Trump’s decision to penalize South Africa has been accompanied by numerous misleading assertions. He alleged that land was actively being seized, despite the main farmers’ union indicating that no such confiscations have taken place. Trump has also claimed that the South African government is allowing violent acts against white farming communities—narratives that have circulated among conservative commentators for years and have recently gained traction due to Trump adviser Elon Musk.
While incidents of violence against some white farmers have occurred, the government has condemned these acts, noting that they represent a minimal fraction of the overall high crime rates in South Africa. Experts have dismissed claims that there are systematic attacks targeting white farmers.
Trump’s executive order against South Africa extends beyond just the land reform law. It also criticized the country for its perceived anti-American sentiment in its foreign policy, particularly regarding its accusations against U.S. ally Israel concerning its actions in Gaza, ongoing discussions at the United Nations’ highest court, and its relationships with nations such as Russia, China, and Iran, alongside accusations of support for the Palestinian militant organization Hamas.
