The Historical Context of Land Injustice in South Africa

The recent comments by former U.S. President Donald Trump criticizing South Africa’s new Expropriation Act have once again brought the issue of land reform to the forefront of international discourse. Trump’s remarks, which falsely framed the Act as a racially driven attack on the white minority, are not only misleading but also deeply ignorant of the historical context that has led to this legislation. South Africa’s land reform efforts are rooted in a painful history of dispossession and inequality that date back to colonialism and apartheid. The 1913 and 1936 Land Acts, for example, codified the theft of land from Black South Africans, reserving 87% of the country’s land for the white minority while forcing the Black majority into overcrowded and barren "homelands." These laws, coupled with decades of forced removals and racial oppression, left deep scars that persist to this day.

Today, despite making up 80% of the population, Black South Africans own only a fraction of the country’s agricultural land. White landowners, who constitute less than 8% of the population, still control the vast majority of the land. As a result, millions of Black South Africans remain landless, forced to live in informal settlements or overcrowded townships. The Expropriation Act is an attempt to address this historical injustice by providing a legal framework for land redistribution. It allows for the expropriation of land in specific cases, such as when the land is abandoned, unused, or was acquired through past racial privilege. Compensation is determined based on factors like historical acquisition, state subsidies, and public interest, and in some cases, land can be taken without compensation.

Trump’s Hypocrisy and Misunderstanding

Trump’s condemnation of South Africa’s Expropriation Act is not only misinformed but also hypocritical. The U.S. itself has a long history of expropriation under its Fifth Amendment, which allows the government to seize private property for public use, provided "just compensation" is offered. This principle is foundational to U.S. property law, and yet Trump feigns outrage when South Africa seeks to apply a similar framework to address its own historical injustices. Moreover, Trump’s remarks about "taking over" Gaza and making it "ours" after Israel’s destruction and genocide in Palestine reveal a staggering level of moral corruption. Expropriating land within one’s borders for public good is one thing, but advocating for ethnic cleansing and the annexation of foreign land is an entirely different—and deeply hypocritical—matter.

The irony is further compounded by the fact that the U.S. has historically engaged in far more aggressive land seizures, often without compensation. Indigenous lands were taken under the guise of expansionism, and entire communities, particularly poor and Black neighborhoods, have been displaced through eminent domain laws in the name of urban development. If the U.S. sees no contradiction in using expropriation for its own interests, why is South Africa vilified for doing the same? The answer lies in the racialized narratives that underpin these criticisms. Land justice for Black South Africans is treated as a threat, while land seizures that have historically benefitted white populations are normalized.

The Necessity of Land Reform for Economic Justice

Land reform is not just a moral imperative but also an economic necessity for South Africa. Without access to land, millions of Black South Africans remain locked out of economic opportunities. Land ownership is tied to the ability to farm, build homes, and access credit, all of which are critical for economic mobility. Yet, under the current system, the wealth of the country remains concentrated in the hands of a small elite. The economic argument against land reform—that it will scare away investors or destabilize the agricultural sector—is a flawed one. Countries like South Korea and Japan have demonstrated that land redistribution, when done strategically, can foster economic growth and reduce inequality.

The real danger lies not in expropriation but in maintaining the status quo, where land is hoarded by a small elite while millions remain landless. The Expropriation Act is a step toward restoring dignity and economic agency to those who were stripped of both. It is not an attack on white farmers but a necessary correction of a historical crime that robbed Black South Africans of their land, dignity, and economic future.

The Dangers of Foreign Interference

Trump’s comments did not emerge in a vacuum. They align closely with the narrative pushed by white nationalist groups in South Africa, who have long sought to portray land reform as an existential threat to white landowners. The "white genocide" myth, which falsely claims that white South Africans are being systematically targeted, has been thoroughly debunked. Yet it continues to resurface in right-wing circles, amplified by figures like Trump who thrive on stoking racial grievances.

The facts tell a different story. There is no widespread campaign to seize land arbitrarily, nor is the government engaged in racial persecution. The Expropriation Act does not grant the state unchecked power; it simply aligns South Africa’s land reform strategy with constitutional principles of justice and equity. However, Trump’s interference is dangerous because it risks inflaming tensions in a society still striving for justice. South Africa is still navigating its postcolonial identity, balancing reconciliation with restitution. Foreign leaders who recklessly insert themselves into this process—particularly those with no understanding of the country’s history—risk derailing genuine progress.

A Sovereign Nation’s Right to Self-Determination

South Africa’s land policies are not up for foreign negotiation. The country’s hard-won sovereignty cannot be dictated by a U.S. president whose track record on racial justice is abysmal. Trump may threaten to cut U.S. aid, but South Africa neither relies upon nor seeks such assistance. The country’s path to restitution will not be determined by outsiders but by the will of its people.

Land expropriation is not theft; it is the long-overdue correction of a historical crime that robbed Black South Africans of their land, their dignity, and their economic future. Trump’s comments are a reminder that the battle for justice will always be met with resistance—but South Africa’s future will be decided by South Africans alone.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.