South Africa Cannot Have It Both Ways

Commentary by Cameron Hudson

Published April 2, 2025

The Africa Program recently published a Critical Questions on the expulsion last month of South African Ambassador to the United States Ebrahim Rasool. This was a significant moment in U.S.-South Africa relations that marked a new low not seen since apartheid. As relations sour, South Africa has dispatched a series of official and unofficial delegations to Washington to test whether relations have hit their nadir or whether more punitive actions might be expected. In evaluating the state of the relationship, it is clear that Washington and Pretoria view their diplomatic and trade ties in fundamentally different ways. This essay explores Washington's perspective and argues that the state of relations was not as strong as South Africa assumed. Part two examines the perspective from Pretoria and offers suggestions for ways that South Africa could minimize the long-term damage to the relationship.

The rapid deterioration of U.S.-South Africa relations under the Trump administration has elicited surprise and consternation in Pretoria, but this reaction betrays a fundamental misreading of the relationship's underlying fragility that predates the current administration. South Africa's foreign policy choices-particularly its alignment with actors hostile to U.S. interests-have long strained bilateral ties, even under administrations more sympathetic to Pretoria's painful history of racial apartheid and its role as an influential leader within the global south. But as the Trump administration pursues a far tougher stance against friends and foes alike, South Africa must confront the cumulative consequences of its decisions, recognize the broader geopolitical dynamics currently at play, and chart a pragmatic path forward to mitigate the economic and diplomatic fallout that it is likely to experience over the next four years, and perhaps beyond.

A Relationship Long in Decline

South African officials are wrong when they contend that U.S.-South Africa relations were robust until this year. While the Trump administration has accelerated this downward trajectory, the cracks were evident long before. Last February, bipartisan legislation in the U.S. Congress was on the table to reassess the bilateral relationship, reflecting growing frustration with Pretoria's foreign policy to "align with malign actors" against U.S. interests. Going back to 2023, members of the U.S. Senate expressed disappointment at the Biden administration's decision to host a trade summit in South Africa in light of "South Africa's continued actions that subvert U.S. national security and foreign policy interests." Then Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor responded to these broadsides penning an op-ed in the Financial Times that extolled the virtues of the economic and trade relationship-a relationship that benefits South Africa far more than it registers on the U.S. side-while only offering a gentle nod to the policy differences that continue to rile U.S. officials on both sides of the aisle.

Pretoria's support for rogue states and actors-Russia, Cuba, Libya, Iran, and non-state groups like Hamas-has been a persistent irritant. While South Africa frames these relationships as both a demonstration of its nonalignment and a principled stand against imperialism, rooted in the support it received during its anti-apartheid struggle, the United States today looks at these choices through a contemporary geopolitical lens and sees them as a threatening alignment with adversaries. This divergence has today created a structural tension that no amount of economic benefit or two-way trade can fully bridge. And with Trump's return, there is a newfound willingness to speak publicly about issues that previous administrations may have only groused about privately.

The Pitfalls of Blaming Others

South Africa's instinct to blame external actors, such as tech moguls Elon Musk and Peter Thiel-who they dismiss as simply "former South Africans"-for the downturn in relations is also a fraught choice. While these figures, both of whom have ties to South Africa and immeasurable influence within Trump's circle, have certainly played a role in shaping the administration's views on issues like land reform and racial equity, their impact is difficult to fully measure. More critically, scapegoating these administration insiders allows South Africa to avoid the difficult introspection required to address the root causes of the rift that it may be responsible for. The cumulative effect of Pretoria's foreign policy choices-its alignment with U.S. adversaries and its hypocritical defense of its positions-has eroded most of the goodwill of the post-apartheid period and erased the halo effect that Nelson Mandela brought to bilateral relations. Blaming Musk and Thiel sidesteps the need for South Africa to reckon with its own decisions and their consequences.

It's Not All About South Africa

South Africa must also distinguish between policies targeting it specifically and broader U.S. actions that, while not aimed at Pretoria, will nonetheless cause significant harm. The Trump administration's decision to shutter the United States Agency for International Development, for instance, is already impacting South Africa's health budget, particularly its efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, a sector that receives nearly 20 percent of its budget from U.S. support. Similarly, the imposition of a global 25 percent tariff on automobiles and other products is likely to immediately impact South Africa's manufacturing sector, but these measures are not exclusive to Pretoria-they will also affect close U.S. allies like Canada and Mexico. Understanding this broader context is critical for South Africa to avoid overpersonalizing the Trump administration's policies and knowing which challenges might be within its power alone to address.

Even South Africa's sympathy for Hamas, long a flashpoint in U.S.-South Africa relations, and its International Court of Justice case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza must be seen through a wider frame. The Trump administration has taken a hardline stance against Hamas domestically, targeting U.S. college students protesting the group's actions by deporting them and suspending hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds from elite universities, including the president's own alma mater. If the Trump administration is willing to take such aggressive measures against its own citizens and institutions, it stands to reason that countries openly supportive of Hamas-like South Africa has been-would face similar penalties.

South Africa's Contradictory Stance

At the heart of the U.S.-South Africa rift lies a fundamental contradiction in Pretoria's approach: The African National Congress (ANC) leadership wants to reap the financial benefits that come from having an economic foot in the wealthy, Western globalized world while maintaining what it contends is an "actively non-aligned approach" by keeping a political foot in an anti-imperial, anti-American coalition. This includes, but is by no means limited to, what many Western leaders see as South Africa's role to expand and position the BRICS alliance as a counterweight to Western political and economic hegemony. But this duality is increasingly untenable in today's geopolitical environment and even more so under a Trump administration vowing to put "America First."

This contradiction is particularly stark in South Africa's stance on genocide. Pretoria has been vocal in accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), yet it remains silent on the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan, where more than 13 million people have been displaced and famine threatens millions. Even more glaringly, South Africa has hosted Sudanese leaders accused of genocide in Darfur, a move that U.S. officials argue undercuts its moral authority on the issue and exposes South Africa's true intentions to punish Israel. Again, South Africa has found it increasingly difficult to have it both ways-championing justice in one context while ignoring or enabling atrocities in another. This disconnect has not gone unnoticed in Washington and is now making Pretoria pay the price for its positions.

A Path Forward

Navigating the Trump administration will require South Africa to make difficult choices. One approach, modeled on the strategies of closer U.S. allies like Canada and Mexico, would involve painful concessions that align more closely with Trump's priorities. This could include dropping the ICJ case against Israel, withdrawing from BRICS, severing ties with Hamas, and repealing domestic legislation perceived in Washington as antibusiness or antiwhite. However, such moves would likely be seen as a betrayal of the ANC's core values, making them politically unpalatable for Pretoria.

A more feasible path forward lies in an inside-outside strategy that takes a page from Trump's own playbook by flooding the zone. South Africa could launch a full-scale public lobbying campaign in the United States, saturating Washington's airwaves and metro stations as other countries routinely do, with messaging about the importance of the U.S.-South Africa relationship. South Africa's embassy in Washington, newly without an Ambassador, could start sponsoring study trips for congressional staff and think tankers to visit South Africa and gain a deeper understanding of its unique racial history and politics. Ironically, here South Africa has much to learn from Israel, which has used these tactics for decades to build iron-clad relations in the United States. Simultaneously, Pretoria should leverage private channels, enlisting friends of both South Africa and the United States to act as bridge builders and seek ways to de-escalate tensions. This dual approach-public advocacy paired with private diplomacy-might be the last best approach to reset the relationship without forcing South Africa to abandon its principles entirely.

Ultimately, South Africa and the ANC cannot have it both ways-it must decide where its priorities truly lie and act accordingly to safeguard its interests in a rapidly evolving bilateral and geopolitical landscape.

Cameron Hudson is a senior fellow in the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Programs & Projects