President Donald Trump announced Friday that South Africa will be excluded from the 2026 G20 Summit in Miami, with property seizure allegations forming a central part of his justification. The decision marks a significant deterioration in diplomatic relations.
Trump’s comprehensive social media statement outlined concerns about what he describes as systematic human rights violations against Afrikaners and other descendants of European settlers. The President’s characterization included explicit claims about violence and property confiscation targeting white farming communities. His statement suggested the South African government has failed to protect these populations or acknowledge the alleged abuses.
Last weekend’s G20 gathering in Johannesburg proceeded with robust international attendance, drawing leaders including India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi among many others. The United States, however, maintained a complete absence, with no official delegation participating in any proceedings. This boycott marked a clear diplomatic message about Washington’s position on South African domestic policies.
The situation grew more contentious when Trump accused South African authorities of mishandling the ceremonial transfer of G20 presidency responsibilities. Despite the presence of a US Embassy representative at the closing ceremony, Trump claimed the handover was deliberately mismanaged. South African officials explained that they followed appropriate diplomatic channels by completing the transfer at their international relations headquarters, given that no official US delegation attended the summit proper.
President Cyril Ramaphosa described the exclusion as unfortunate while reaffirming his government’s interest in constructive dialogue with Washington. Trump’s allegations about persecution and genocide of white farmers in South Africa echo claims he has made repeatedly, though these assertions have been thoroughly investigated and consistently discredited by the South African government, white leadership within the country, and independent fact-checkers. The disputed nature of these claims has not prevented them from continuing to influence diplomatic discourse.
