Marco Rubio boycotts G20 meeting over South Africa's anti-Americanism and land reform policies

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s latest comments regarding South Africa have stirred diplomatic tensions between the two nations. Rubio, representing the Trump administration, made a public declaration on social media platform X, accusing South Africa of engaging in “anti-Americanism.” He went on to repeat unfounded claims originally made by President Trump about the country’s controversial land expropriation policies. Rubio alleged that South Africa was "expropriating private property" and using the G20 summit to push for divisive agendas around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as well as climate change.

The remarks reflect an increasing sourness in U.S.-South Africa relations under the current U.S. administration, which has been critical of South Africa’s stance on issues like the Russia-Ukraine war and its leadership in the BRICS bloc. Rubio’s decision to snub the G20 summit in Johannesburg—set for later this month—further intensifies the growing discord. The G20 summit is pivotal, as South Africa is currently holding its presidency, and the nation continues to assert its influence on the global stage.


The heart of the dispute centers around South Africa’s controversial land expropriation law, which allows for the confiscation of land without compensation under certain conditions. This law was signed into effect by President Cyril Ramaphosa, a move that sparked criticism from both domestic and international figures, including the Trump administration. Rubio echoed Trump’s claim that South Africa was “confiscating land,” which he said warranted a halt to U.S. funding pending an investigation.

South Africa’s government, however, has been adamant that the land reforms are not arbitrary and align with international practices. South Africa’s foreign minister, Ronald Lamola, took to social media to assert that the country’s actions are not an example of land “dispossession,” but part of a broader effort to address historical inequalities. He clarified that South Africa’s G20 agenda includes equitable treatment for nations of the Global South, and emphasized the country's commitment to engaging the U.S. despite the tensions.


Marco Rubio’s comments highlight a deeper ideological divide between the U.S. and South Africa, particularly on issues of international governance and global justice. While South Africa seeks to promote "solidarity, equality, and sustainability" at the G20, Rubio criticized these goals, calling them part of a global agenda that undermines U.S. interests. He argued that the G20’s focus on climate change and DEI was a waste of taxpayer money and an example of countries pushing anti-American rhetoric.

South Africa’s role in the G20 and its leadership within BRICS—an economic bloc composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has made it a crucial player in the geopolitics of the Global South. With the U.S. criticizing South Africa’s refusal to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as its vocal support for Palestine in international forums, these tensions reflect the complexities of balancing national interests with broader global coalitions.


Billionaire Elon Musk, a South African-born entrepreneur with strong ties to the Trump administration, has weighed in on the dispute, accusing South Africa of having "openly racist laws." Musk’s criticism centers on South Africa’s policy requiring foreign telecom investors to cede 30% of equity to Black shareholders in order to operate in the country. Musk, whose company Starlink operates in numerous African nations, has not yet launched the service in South Africa due to these investment restrictions, underscoring the tensions over economic access and regulatory policies.

Musk’s public stance and his influence on American economic policies add an extra layer to the diplomatic discord between the two nations. His remarks, alongside Trump’s broader criticism of South Africa’s governance, have amplified tensions, especially as the U.S. seeks to protect its economic and political interests in Africa. South Africa, on the other hand, remains firm in its stance on land reform and equity, maintaining that these policies are essential for addressing the long-standing injustices of apartheid.


The diplomatic row between the U.S. and South Africa is not only a bilateral issue but also reflects broader geopolitical shifts. South Africa’s growing influence within the G20 and BRICS—two powerful economic groupings—has made it a key player in shaping global economic and environmental policies. Its policies on land reform, climate change, and international relations will likely continue to impact its standing on the world stage.

The friction also brings into focus the complexities of international relations, where national interests, historical contexts, and ideological differences often collide. The U.S. under the Trump administration appears determined to challenge countries like South Africa that pursue independent foreign policies, particularly those that do not align with American interests. As tensions escalate, the international community will be watching closely to see how the U.S. and South Africa navigate their differences in the coming months, especially within the high-stakes forum of the G20.