US grants refugee status to white South Africans sparking controversy

the-white-house
© Matt H. Wade

The arrival of 59 white South African Afrikaners at Washington Dulles International Airport on May 12, 2025, under a controversial US refugee resettlement program has ignited a firestorm of debate, drawing sharp criticism from South African officials, refugee advocates, and even US lawmakers. 

The group, fast-tracked for refugee status by the Trump administration citing alleged racial persecution, marks a stark exception to the administration’s suspension of the broader US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), which has left thousands of refugees from war-torn and famine-stricken regions stranded. The move has strained US-South Africa relations and fueled accusations of racial bias in American immigration policy.

The Trump administration’s decision stems from a February 2025 executive order prioritizing Afrikaners, descendants of Dutch and other European settlers, for resettlement due to claims of ‘government-sponsored racial discrimination’ in South Africa. President Donald Trump has repeatedly alleged a ‘genocide’ against white farmers, pointing to South Africa’s Expropriation Act of 2024, which allows land redistribution without compensation in cases deemed ‘just and equitable’ to address apartheid-era inequalities. 

A State Department memo cited ‘extreme violence with a racial nexus,’ including home invasions and murders from up to 25 years ago, as justification for granting refugee status. However, South African police data from 2020-2024 reports 225 farm-related killings, with 101 victims being mostly Black farm workers and only 53 being farmers, typically white, somewhat undermining claims of targeted racial violence.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has vehemently rejected the US narrative, calling it ‘completely false’ and labeling the Afrikaners’ departure a ‘cowardly act.’ Speaking at an agricultural event in Free State on May 12, Ramaphosa emphasized South Africa’s resilience, stating, ‘We don’t run away from our problems. We stay and solve them.’ He noted that no land has been seized under the new law, which aims to address the fact that Black South Africans, over 80% of the population, own just 4% of private land, while white South Africans, at 7.3%, hold three-quarters of it. South Africa’s Foreign Ministry called the US policy ‘politically motivated’ and an attempt to undermine the country’s constitutional democracy.

The Afrikaners, greeted by Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Troy Edgar, were resettled across 10 states, including Idaho, Alabama, and Minnesota. Charl Kleinhaus, a 46-year-old farmer from Limpopo, told Reuters his life was threatened and his property targeted, though he provided no evidence. Mr. Landau likened the group to ‘quality seeds’ expected to ‘bloom’ in the US while emphasizing their assimilation. The group bypassed standard UNHCR vetting, arriving on a US-chartered flight after a three-month process, compared to the years-long wait faced by other refugees.

Critics have condemned the policy’s racial undertones. The Episcopal Church, a key resettlement partner, terminated its 40-year collaboration with the US government, with Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe citing the ‘preferential treatment’ of Afrikaners as a violation of racial justice principles. Senator Jeanne Shaheen called the move ‘baffling’ and ‘politically motivated,’ while Human Rights Watch’s Bill Frelick highlighted the irony of prioritizing a historically privileged group over refugees from conflict zones like Afghanistan and Congo. 

The controversy has strained bilateral ties, with the US expelling South Africa’s ambassador in March 2025 after accusations of ‘race-baiting.’ Mr. Trump’s decision to halt aid to South Africa and suspend cooperation with the G20 conference hosted by Pretoria further escalated tensions. As Mr. Ramaphosa prepares to meet President Trump on May 21, 2025, to discuss the issue, the resettlement of Afrikaners – potentially numbering 67,000 based on expressions of interest – continues to polarize, raising questions about fairness, historical context, and the future of US refugee policy.