Why Trump's 30% blow to South Africa is a wake-up call for a new economic order
Image: File
On August 1, 2025, South African exporters will wake up to a 30% tariff on all goods entering the United States, a decision announced by the administration of President Donald Trump. This is not a sector-specific sanction, nor the outcome of any formal trade dispute. It is a sweeping penalty imposed on all products, citing trade imbalances and regulatory barriers imposed by South Africa. But this is not the end of trade. It is the beginning of South Africa's trade adolescence, the moment we decide to grow up or continue being disciplined by our 'partners.'
The justification provided by the US administration rests on the claim that South Africa runs a trade surplus with the United States. In truth, South Africa exported around R170 billion worth of goods to the US in 2023 (Stats SA, 2024), largely in automotive components, citrus and minerals, while importing just over R100 billion in return. The surplus exists but it is relatively small in the context of overall bilateral trade. Trade imbalances are also not inherently unfair; the US itself enjoys surpluses with many countries.
What this tariff reveals is not a fiscal grievance but a display of geopolitical leverage, an assertion of economic power with limited regard for multilateral process. The tariff appears partly aimed at appeasing domestic political interests ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, particularly in states where trade unions are concerned about foreign competition.
However, the consequences for South Africa's economy will be profound and immediate. South Africa is already under pressure to reindustrialise and this penalty could not come at a worse time.
The automotive industry alone accounts for over 4% of GDP and more than 110 000 jobs (Naamsa and Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, 2024). With the US as a key destination for vehicle parts and assembled models, this tariff will deal a serious blow to sectoral stability. Reports indicate that companies relocating production to the US may receive expedited regulatory approvals. In effect, this risks incentivising capital flight and weakening local value chains. This policy shift is taking place while South Africa holds the presidency of the G20 (G20 Secretariat, 2025). That irony is difficult to ignore.
We are presiding over a global forum committed to equitable development while being subjected to unilateral economic pressure by one of its most powerful members. This is more than a diplomatic discomfort; it is a direct challenge to the credibility of multilateralism. If the G20 cannot protect developing economies from arbitrary market exclusion, it must ask itself what kind of influence it truly holds. While this move falls outside the scope of Agoa, it nonetheless underscores how preferential trade access can shift at the stroke of a pen.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Past threats to South Africa's participation in Agoa, such as the poultry trade dispute of 2015 (USTR, 2016), highlight how even codified benefits remain vulnerable to political shifts. Critics of South Africa's trade policy may point to the use of technical regulations and local content rules. However, these are allowed under World Trade Organisation (WTO) guidelines, as outlined in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (WTO, 2020).
Developing countries are within their rights to protect and promote industrial growth through policy instruments that stimulate domestic value addition. The United States also protects its own industries through farm subsidies, defence procurement and steel tariffs. To frame South Africa's approach as uniquely restrictive is not only unfair; it reflects a double standard embedded in the global trade architecture.
This situation reflects a deeper structural issue in South Africa's trade exposure. Our economy remains disproportionately dependent on the EU, the US and China. Even beyond the US, our exposure to external shocks is growing from the EU's carbon border taxes to shifting Chinese demand. Diversification must be structural, not just diplomatic.
There is also a domestic reckoning to be had. South Africa's industrial policy remains constrained by loadshedding, underinvestment in ports and rail and persistent skills mismatches. If we are to reposition ourselves globally, these internal constraints must be addressed with equal urgency. A resilient economy cannot rely solely on favourable trade preferences beyond its control. It must be built on a foundation of functional infrastructure, competitive inputs and policy certainty.
South Africa faces a choice. It can wait out the Trump presidency in the hope that future leadership will reverse course or it can act decisively now. This is not a call for isolationism. South Africa should not abandon global trade nor retaliate blindly. However, we must negotiate from a position of design rather than deference. We must ensure that this is the last time our national strategy is disrupted by external political cycles. Our trade strategy must pivot.
Already, trade with BRICS+ partners has rivalled that of individual Western blocs in recent quarters, accounting for more than 22% of South Africa's exports in 2024 (SARB, Q4 2024). This is a foundation we can build upon. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) remains our continent's most ambitious economic project. While its infrastructure is still maturing, its potential cannot be deferred any longer. Trade corridors, payment systems and regulatory alignment must be fast-tracked in practice, not just policy.
The World Bank estimates AfCFTA could lift 30 million people out of poverty by 2035 (World Bank, 2020). Parliament and the economic cluster must now take this seriously not as a trade spat but as a strategic inflection point for the country's long-term development path. The legality of this tariff under WTO rules remains debatable, especially given its blanket nature and lack of arbitration. However, legality aside, the message it sends is unmistakable. The global playing field remains unequal and South Africa must protect itself accordingly.
This is not an argument for withdrawal. It is an argument for resilience. We cannot afford to build a 21st-century economy on the hope that global goodwill will prevail. We must design for volatility, prepare for shocks and root our trade agenda in real production, regional depth and economic clarity.
US President Donald Trump may eventually give way to a different leader but the conditions that made this tariff possible are not tied to any single administration. The unpredictability of external markets, the asymmetry of trade power and the fragility of our supply chains are structural issues. They will not be resolved with the next election. The tariffs may be American but the decision before us is South African. Do we keep asking permission to grow or do we take the blows and build something of our own?
Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa.
Image: Supplied
Nomvula Zeldah Mabuza is a Risk Governance and Compliance Specialist with extensive experience in strategic risk and industrial operations. She holds a Diploma in Business Management (Accounting) from Brunel University, UK, and is an MBA candidate at Henley Business School, South Africa.
*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Controversial US bill targeting ANC leaders likely to pass, says former ambassador
Former South African ambassador to Portugal, Dr Kingsley Makhubela, believes the controversial bill sanctioning ANC leaders will pass in the United States. Image: AFP A former South African ambassador and seasoned diplomat believes the controversial bill introduced in the United States Congress, seeking to review relations with South Africa and to impose sanctions on some leaders of the African National Congress, will pass. IOL reported on Wednesday that a bill which seeks to re-evaluate the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa, and identify government leaders who should be subject to sanctions, was passed by a US House Committee on Foreign Affairs this week. The US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 was introduced in April by Ronny Jackson, a congressman from Texas. The bill, to become a law, will need to be approved by the House and Senate before being signed by President Donald Trump. The bill accuses South Africa of undermining the United States' interests by maintaining close relationships with the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, nations that are Pretoria's strong allies and key trading partners. Former South African ambassador to Portugal, Dr Kingsley Makhubela, on Thursday told Newzroom Afrika that the Democrats have the numbers, and they might even get support from some Republicans. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading "Quite honestly, this bill is likely to pass. If you look at the numbers, both in the House and in the Senate, currently, the House consists of about 435 members and the Republicans are having 219, and I think the Democrats have 217, so it is likely to pass. This time last year, when this bill was first discussed during the (Joe) Biden administration, 61 Democrats voted for the bill to go through, which has similarities with what we are seeing now. "The only thing that you see now is that there have been added issues on this bill. For instance, there are questions of the relations with Taiwan playing its role, the question of the tension that arose because of Rasool's (former South African ambassador to the United States Ebrahim Rasool) expulsion, it plays into this bill. So this bill is likely to pass," he said. Makhubela said the bill is also framed around the United States' national security, and Americans often close ranks across the political divide once concerns about their national security are raised. Dr Kingsley Makhubela Image: File Earlier, Ernst van Zyl, head of public relations at AfriForum, said the ANC's "years of reckless and extremist diplomatic actions and rhetoric" are now bearing bitter fruit. 'From AfriForum's side, I do not see why punishing corrupt politicians is going to destroy a country's economy. That is going to be left to the ANC to explain how those politicians who are pushing destructive laws, when they are punished for the human rights abuses or corruption. How is that going to destroy the South African economy or going to affect negatively the average man on the street?" Van Zyl also told broadcaster Newzroom Afrika. According to a report by IOL earlier this year, the bill mandates a comprehensive review to identify South African government officials and leaders of the African National Congress who may be subject to sanctions for their alleged support of American adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran. Commenting on X about the committee's approval of the bill, Jackson said: 'South Africa made its choice when they abandoned America and our allies and sided with communists and terrorists. Today, my bill to fully review America's relationship with South Africa and give President Trump the tools necessary to hold their corrupt government accountable passed through committee. The days of allowing our so-called 'allies' to walk all over us are over!' The bill will now be debated and amended in the House of Representatives before a vote is held on it. The House of Representatives will then submit the approved bill to the Senate for final consideration. IOL News
The South African
an hour ago
- The South African
Lasizwe 'haunted' by R2m student donation scandal
Lasizwe has revisited the pain of the R2 million student fee crowdfunding initiative he was accused of pocketing several years ago. In 2021, the influencer started the #R10GoesALongWay initiative to help students around South Africa pay their registration and tuition fees. On his X platform, Lasizwe once again addressed accusations he pocketed R2 million he had raised to aid South African students. He posted: 'Four years ago, I was dragged through the mud over claims that I stole R2 million yama students, which was false and it's lies. Till this day, that accusation still haunts me. He continued, ' I'm seeing people joking about it now, but you don't understand the damage it caused. I've spent four years trying to clear my name from something I didn't do.' In 2022, Lasiwe attempted to clear the confusion on the money he had raised. He told TshisaLive: 'This has been popping up, I've been ignoring it. It was long overdue for me to respond and say what happened because people were terrorising me on social media and saying I ate the 2 million. I didn't even see a cent of that 2 million. 'Everything was transferred to the Fundi organisation and they handled the proceedings'. In March 2021, Lasizwe, along with fellow stars Sibu Mabena, Takkies Dinwiddy, and King Aya, started the #R10GoesALongWay initiative to raise funds to assist students during the 'Fees Must Fall' protests around the country. In just a few days, Lasizwe and co. raised R1 million and were matched with another R1 million in a pledge made by Standard Bank. However, there was no word on the cash until August of that year when Lasizwe claimed that whilst over R2 million had been raised, they had only received half the money due to red tape delays. He told the media, 'Some companies that pledged to the initiative had to get tax clearances. And it's been a long process. Fundi [Bursary fund FundiFund] has its own protocols it needs to adhere to.' According to Fundi Fun's website, the money has been used to assist students. It said: 'Over three years, over 480 students were funded for their registration within the various accredited institutions to the value of R2.2million'. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Australia lifts trade barriers on US beef
CANBERRA - Australia said it would lift trade barriers on beef from the United States, removing a major point of friction between Canberra and the Trump administration. US President Donald Trump singled out Australia as he unveiled his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April, accusing the close ally of banning American meat while cashing in on exports to the United States. Australia's stringent biosecurity rules block imports of cattle slaughtered in the United States, but born in Canada or Mexico. Threatened with 10 percent tariffs on beef shipped to the United States, one of its largest red meat markets, Australia has now dropped these barriers. Agriculture minister Julie Collins said the United States had adopted new quality controls that soothed Australia's worries. "The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is satisfied the strengthened control measures put in place by the US effectively manage biosecurity risks," she said in a statement. "Australia stands for open and fair trade -- our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this." Australia suspended US beef imports in 2003 after an outbreak of mad cow disease, a fatal and infectious condition that slowly eats away at the nervous system of cattle. Most of these restrictions were lifted in 2019, although some barriers remained on cattle slaughtered in American abattoirs but born elsewhere. Trump said Australians were "wonderful people" but accused them of banning US beef while exporting billions of dollars worth of meat to America. "They don't take any of our beef," he complained in April. Almost five percent of all the beef eaten in America is Australian, and that largely goes into burgers. In the first three weeks of July, Australia shipped almost 25,000 tonnes of beef and veal to the United States, official figures show.
