Listen to the article
In an unprecedented diplomatic move, the Trump administration announced Friday it will boycott the upcoming G20 Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, in protest of alleged discrimination against White Afrikaners in the country.
“The lives and property of Afrikaners have been endangered by politicians who incite race-based violence against them, threaten to confiscate their farms without compensation, and prop up a corrupt race-based scoring system that discriminates against Afrikaners in employment,” State Department Deputy Principal spokesperson Tommy Piggott told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement.
Piggott demanded immediate action from the South African government, stating, “South Africa must immediately end all government-sponsored discrimination against Afrikaners and condemn those who seek to ignite racial violence against them.”
President Trump reinforced the administration’s position on his Truth Social platform, calling it a “total disgrace” that the G20 Summit, scheduled for November 22-23, would be held in South Africa.
“Afrikaners (People who are descended from Dutch settlers, and also French and German immigrants) are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated,” Trump wrote. He concluded by stating, “No U.S. Government Official will attend as long as these Human Rights abuses continue,” while also noting his anticipation of hosting the 2026 G20 Summit in Miami, Florida.
At the center of this diplomatic rift is South Africa’s Expropriation Act of 2024, which allows the government to acquire land for public use—in some cases without compensation. While South African officials maintain the legislation aims to address historical racial inequities in land ownership dating back to the apartheid era, critics argue it disproportionately affects White Afrikaner farmers who own significant agricultural land.
This decision marks a significant escalation in tensions that became public in May when Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa during a meeting at the White House. During that encounter, Trump pressed Ramaphosa on what he termed “White genocide” and played a video showing white crosses along a highway, which he claimed represented burial sites of White farmers.
Ramaphosa vehemently denied these allegations during their meeting. “There is just no genocide in South Africa,” he stated. “We cannot equate what is alleged to be genocide to what we went through in the struggle because people were killed because of the oppression that was taking place in our country. So you cannot equate that.”
When shown the video of crosses, Ramaphosa questioned its authenticity, asking, “Have they told you where that is, Mr. President? I’d like to know where that is, because this I’ve never seen.”
The boycott represents an unusual approach to G20 diplomacy, as major powers typically maintain participation in such forums regardless of bilateral disputes. The G20 brings together leaders from the world’s largest economies to discuss global economic and financial stability.
In a related development, a senior State Department official revealed that the Trump administration has set a refugee cap of 7,500 for fiscal year 2026, with a majority of slots reserved for Afrikaners allegedly fleeing “government-sponsored race-based discrimination in South Africa.”
This policy stance has raised questions among international relations experts about the future of U.S.-South Africa relations, which have historically been complicated but cooperative on issues including trade and regional security. South Africa, the continent’s most industrialized economy, has traditionally been an important U.S. partner in Africa.
As the November summit approaches, it remains to be seen whether other nations might join the U.S. boycott or if diplomatic efforts might yet resolve this growing dispute between the two countries.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


15 Comments
This is a delicate issue that deserves a nuanced approach. While I understand the US wanting to take a stand, a boycott may do more harm than good. I hope both sides can engage in good-faith negotiations to address any human rights concerns and find a peaceful solution.
The treatment of minority groups is always a sensitive and complex issue. I appreciate the US taking a stance, but hope they can find a way to engage constructively with the South African government rather than resorting to a boycott. Diplomacy and open dialogue are often the best path forward.
Tensions between nations over minority rights issues are always concerning. While I appreciate the US taking a stance, a boycott may not be the most effective way to drive positive change. I hope the parties involved can engage in meaningful dialogue to find a mutually acceptable solution.
The treatment of minority groups is a sensitive and nuanced issue. While I understand the US wanting to take a stand, a boycott may do more harm than good. I hope both sides can engage in good-faith negotiations to address any human rights concerns and find a peaceful solution that protects the rights of all South African citizens.
This is a concerning situation if the allegations of discrimination against Afrikaners are accurate. The US government should address human rights issues diplomatically, but boycotting the G20 seems like an extreme measure. I hope both sides can work towards a peaceful resolution that protects all citizens.
It’s a delicate situation that deserves careful consideration. While I understand the US wanting to take a stand, a boycott may do more harm than good. I hope all parties can approach this with nuance and a genuine commitment to protecting the rights of all South African citizens.
Allegations of discrimination against any group are troubling and deserve attention. However, a boycott of the G20 summit may not be the most effective way to drive positive change. I hope the US and South Africa can find a constructive path forward through open and respectful dialogue.
This is a concerning situation that requires careful consideration. While the US may have valid concerns, a boycott could escalate tensions rather than resolve them. I hope both sides can approach this issue with empathy, nuance, and a genuine commitment to protecting the rights of all South African citizens.
Allegations of discrimination against any group are concerning and warrant serious attention. However, a boycott of the G20 summit seems like an extreme measure that could escalate tensions rather than resolve them. I hope the US and South Africa can find a constructive path forward through open dialogue.
This is a complex geopolitical issue with a lot of historical context. I’m curious to learn more about the specific allegations of discrimination and how the South African government is responding. A diplomatic resolution should be the priority over confrontational actions.
I agree, more information is needed to fully understand the dynamics at play here. A measured, fact-based approach is essential when dealing with sensitive issues of race and minority rights. Hopefully the two governments can find a way to constructively address any concerns.
This is a complex geopolitical issue with a lot of historical baggage. I’m curious to learn more about the specific allegations and how the South African government is responding. A diplomatic resolution focused on protecting the rights of all citizens should be the priority.
This is a complex geopolitical issue with a lot of historical context. I’m curious to learn more about the specific allegations and how the South African government is responding. A diplomatic resolution focused on protecting the rights of all citizens should be the priority over confrontational actions.
The treatment of minority groups is always a sensitive and complex issue. I appreciate the US taking a stance, but hope they can find a constructive way to engage with the South African government on this matter rather than resorting to a boycott. Diplomacy and dialogue are often the best path forward.
I agree, diplomacy is crucial here. A boycott could escalate tensions rather than resolve them. Both sides should focus on finding common ground and addressing any human rights concerns through open and respectful dialogue.