
South Africa's white farmers would be among victims if Trump ends growth bill
Summary
Africa trade deal AGOA key for some South African exports
Axing it could harm white farmers Trump claims to support
Some Republicans push to revoke country's AGOA benefits
JOHANNESBURG, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's axing of aid to South Africa, in response to land reform policies he says will harm its white minority, has raised fears a trade deal may be next, though any such move would hurt the same farmers the U.S. president says he wants to help.
Under the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act, South Africa gets tariff-free quotas on agricultural exports including wine, citrus, soybeans, sugar cane and beef. The Act makes up about a quarter of its $15 billion annual trade with the United States. That compares with under $440 million in U.S. aid, in 2023.
"It is not clear whether the exporters are Black or white; we don't record such data," said Wandile Sihlobo, chief economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa, but only a tenth of farm output is from Black farmers.
"The majority of white farmers (are) likely have a significant exposure into the U.S. market," he said.
Sihlobo said produce shipped to the United States makes up 4% of agricultural exports, equal to about $450 million a year, compared with 19% for the European Union and 38% to the rest of Africa.
But some producers, like those for citrus fruit and wine, are more exposed - the former made $134 million in 2022, 7% of the country's total, while the U.S. is its fourth largest wine market, Sihlobo said.
"It's not industry-ending ... but it's very unfortunate," said Justin Chadwick, Citrus Growers Association president, estimating U.S.-bound exports at 120,000 tonnes.
"We (would have) ... to find another home for that fruit ... and our other markets are pretty full."
'UNWISE'
The Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) is up for review in September. Some Republicans want to punish South Africa for land reform, its genocide case against Israel and other actions such as naval exercises with Russia and China.
The U.S. State Department did not respond to a request for comment.
"We urge you to revoke South Africa's preference benefits, under the Act, four congressmen wrote to Trump on Feb. 11, CNBC news reported.
"There's a real likelihood that South Africa is not going to be included in a renewed AGOA," Chatham House senior research fellow Chris Vandome, said. "It's position is really fragile".
Trump singled out a law that President Cyril Ramaphosa signed last month enabling land expropriation - in rare cases without compensation - after decades of voluntary purchases barely dented inequalities between a white minority who own 75% of freehold land and majority Blacks with 4%.
Some farmers say the law violates property rights. Groups defending Afrikaners, descendents of Dutch settlers who make up the largest white ethnic group and own much of privately held land, have lobbied Republican politicians for years.
"It was unwise. They're shooting themselves in the foot," Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola told Reuters in an interview on Monday. "If AGOA is cut, it's a cutting of white farmers."
But Ernst Roets, then-lobbyist for Afrikaner group Afriforum, who travelled to the States in 2018 and brought the land issue to Fox News and some Republican officials - the year Trump first took an interest in it - said he had "no regrets."
"We're hoping for pressure on the South African government to reconsider its destructive policy ideas," Roets, now part of a different lobby group, said.
Not all agribusiness will lose if the Act gets chopped.
Poultry farmers struggling to "compete with dumping" of subsidised U.S. chicken imports under the Act would benefit, said Marthinus Stander, a board member of the South African Poultry Association.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Herald Scotland
28 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.


The Herald Scotland
28 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Republican infighting fuels concern about Trump tax bill's chances
With Republicans holding the slimmest of majorities in both chambers of Congress and with Democrats showing no sign of wanting to help Trump notch a major win to begin his new administration, lawmakers from Trump's own party are sounding apprehensive about threading the needle before their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get something to the president's desk for signature into law. More: Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill "We're anxious to get to work on it," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters earlier in the week as Republicans and Musk started publicly airing their complaints about the effort. Adding to the challenge: Some of the very House GOP members who last month voted in favor of their 1,100-page version of Trump's tax and policy plan started finding faults of their own that they say meant they'd probably have been a 'no' if they had the chance to do it again. Presidents often aim high to start terms Presidents often try in their first year to build on the momentum of their elections to get major legislation approved. For Joe Biden, it was an infrastructure bill. For Barack Obama, it was overhauling healthcare insurance. For George W. Bush, it was overhauling public education. Trump leapt into action in 2025 with an unprecedented pace of executive orders: 157 through May 23. When he turned to legislation, he persuaded Republican congressional leaders to package all his priorities into one bill, rather than splitting taxes and border security into two different bills, to complete the debate in one fell swoop. More: Everything's an 'emergency': How Trump's executive order record pace is testing the courts Lawmakers often shy away from piling too much into one bill because each contentious provision spurs its own opposition. But faced with the prospect of unanimous Democratic opposition, Trump opted for a strategy that focuses on GOP priorities such as tax relief and border security while personally lobbying reluctant Republicans to stay in line. "Americans have given us a mandate for bold and profound change," Trump told Congress in a speech March 4. "I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY," he added in a social media post about three months later, on June 2. Musk opposition makes waves Trump's efforts worked in the Republican-led House, which after several days of negotiations and an all-night floor debate voted 215-214 in favor of a plan that had the full backing of the White House. Getting the measure through the Senate - even with the GOP in charge needing just a simple majority of 51 votes - is proving to be its own elusive challenge. Musk, the former head of Trump's bureaucracy-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, spent this past week unloading on the House-passed bill for spending too much money. He called the legislation "pork-filled" and a "disgusting abomination," and urged lawmakers to "KILL the BILL." More: The post-fight fallout from Trump-Musk battle could get even uglier While Musk's barrage ignited a war with Trump and left many Republicans cringing, deficit hawks in the GOP said they appreciated the world's richest man also pushing for deeper spending cuts from the U.S. government. "I welcome people like Elon Musk that try to hold our feet to the fire," said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Missouri. "We often disappoint our voters when we don't do the cuts that we campaign on, when we're not fiscally responsible." But Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, who served in the Air Force for 30 years, said the division between Trump and Musk wasn't a good look for his party, especially when it's trying to advance the primary piece of legislation on the president's agenda. "It's just not helpful," Bacon said. "When you have division, divided teams don't perform as well." 'The opposite of conservative': Sen. Paul on bill Several pockets of Republican senators have voiced concerns about the House-passed legislation. Each group has their issue that they want addressed, and each one presents a hurdle for Trump and GOP leaders like Thune as they try to cobble together a winning 51-vote coalition that can also make it back through the House for another final vote. The Senate factions include one group seeking to cut more spending because the Congressional Budget Office said the House-passed plan would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Others are worried about cutting Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for low-income families. And another handful of senators say they are worried about the House-passed bill rolling back renewable energy tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. "There are many of us who recognize that what came out of the House was pretty aggressive in how it seeks to wind down or phase out many of the energy tax credit provisions," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. "I happen to think that we've got tax policies that are working to help advance our energy initiatives around the country, as diverse and as varied as they are. Wouldn't we want to continue those investments? "This bill is the opposite of conservative, and we should not pass it," added Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in a June 4 social media post that raised concerns about the nation's debt limit. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is one of the outspoken Republicans taking issue with the House-passed bill's provisions that would cut nearly $800 billion during the next decade from Medicaid and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost 7.8 million people their health insurance. "I don't want to see rural hospitals close and I don't want to see any benefits cut in my state," Hawley said. Trump and his allies contend spending cuts of $1.6 trillion are the most ever approved in a House bill and that the tax cuts will spur economic growth to offset the costs. Trump got personal this week in calling Paul's ideas "crazy" in a social media post and said the people of Kentucky "can't stand him." More: Trump lashes out at Sen. Rand Paul over opposition to big tax bill House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally, told reporters June 4 that few people are going to like everything in an 1,100-page bill. But the Louisiana Republican said the measure he helped craft in the House was carefully calibrated to gain wide support. "I hope everybody will evaluate that - in both parties, and everybody - and recognize, 'Wow, the benefits of this far outweigh anything that I don't like out it,'" Johnson said. Senate dropping local tax deductions would be 'radioactive': Rep. Lalota Any changes made by the Senate will force another vote in the House before the bill can become law - and that's where the math can get tricky. Republican senators are talking about tinkering with a key compromise that Trump and Johnson signed off on in the House that raised the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 for people earning less than $500,000 per year. That provision is important to GOP lawmakers from high-tax states such as California, New York and New Jersey who supported the House bill that passed through the 435-seat chamber by only a one-vote margin. More: Senate Republicans plan to amend SALT tax deduction in Trump's sweeping bill The Senate aims to cut back that provision. But Rep. Nick Lalota, R-New York, told reporters on June 4 that revisiting the tax issue "would be like digging up safely-buried radioactive waste." House members scouring through the bill they voted on weeks ago are also finding unfamiliar provisions in the version that they say they would have opposed. For example, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said in a social media post June 3 that the Senate needs to strip out language she hadn't noticed earlier that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said he opposed a section that aims to hinder federal judges from enforcing their court orders. Trump sought the provision to prevent judges from blocking policies largely spelled out via his executive orders. Senate could drop contentious provisions House members risked supporting Even though Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the Senate could drop or fail to approve contentious parts that GOP House colleagues in competitive districts already went out on a limb to support. It's happened many times before - with sizable political consequences. The concept even has a name: Getting BTU'd. That refers to a 1993 House vote on a controversial energy tax during the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency based on British thermal units. House Democrats lost 54 seats in the 1994 election - and control of the chamber for the first time in 40 years - in part because of supporting the BTU tax that the Senate never debated. John Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, has said a book about such votes could be called "Profiles in Futility." Another example was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill which Obama supported as president that aimed to limit the emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, vehicles and other industrial sources. The Democrat-controlled House narrowly approved the measure 219-212 but the Senate never took it up. Critics said it would raise the cost of energy. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit libertarian think tank that opposed the measure, counted 28 House Democrats from coal states who lost their seats in the 2010 mid-term election after voting for the bill. Fast forward to 2025 and Republicans are the ones facing a similar dynamic. Musk, who contributed about $290 million of his personal fortune to help Republicans including Trump win last November, slammed House lawmakers who voted for the president's legislative package."Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong," Musk wrote June 3 on social media. But House Republicans who voted for the legislation, including some who also demanded deeper spending cuts when it was in their hands, said they're not worried about the package falling apart and coming back to haunt them. They say that's because they did fight for more budget cuts. "This wasn't a hard vote. It was hard going through the process to get more, and you can always do better," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-South Carolina. "But look at what Donald Trump's done, the great things that are contributing to cutting the deficit." Rep. David Schweikert, R-Arizona, who represents a competitive toss-up district, noted that he's introduced multiple bills to trim federal spending. "If Mr. Musk wants to be helpful, what he should do is start to understand that those of us in a 50-50 district who have shown up with actual policy solutions that offset every penny of this bill," he said. Leaving Washington for the weekend, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force Once on June 6 that he wasn't worried about Musk and that he remained confident he'd get "tremendous support" in the Senate to pass the bill. "I don't know of anybody who's going to vote against it," the president said, before adding: "Maybe Rand Paul." For his part, Johnson told reporters June 4 that he wasn't concerned about House Republicans losing seats in 2026. Predicting that the Senate would find the necessary votes on the president's tax bill, the speaker said he expects Americans will see the benefits of Trump's efforts before the next election. "Am I concerned about the effect of this on the midterms? I'm not," Johnson said. "I have no concern whatsoever. I am absolutely convinced that we are going to win the midterms and grow the House majority because we are delivering for the American majority and fulfilling our campaign promises." Contributing: Reuters


The Herald Scotland
28 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's new travel restrictions hit tourists, families
Trump's proclamation, signed on June 4, takes effect June 9. The administration cited security reasons for the bans on travelers from a dozen countries and restrictions on those from seven others. It prohibits entry into the U.S. of foreign nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Travel restrictions, including suspensions, will be placed on those from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Of the nearly 1.7 million visas issued to people from those countries between 2014 and 2023, almost half were from Venezuela. They reunited with family, shopped and visited Disney World and other theme parks and attractions, according to recent media and social media accounts. Venezuelans and Haitians speak out against the travel ban The proclamation suspends entry into the United States for Venezuelan nationals with temporary work, study and tourist visas. "Venezuela lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures," the proclamation said. It also mentioned the overstay rate on visas from the country is nearly 10%. A mother from Venezuela who moved to South Florida six years ago told CBS News she's unsure whether her adult son, who remains in the South American country, will be allowed to visit her. The announcement also prompted concern among bloggers who write about Disney parks in California and Florida, who questioned the impact the restrictions could have on the thousands who visit the parks each year from Venezuela. Members of South Florida's Haitian community also spoke out about the ban. More than 230,000 native Haitians live in the metropolitan area, roughly 4% of the region's population, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Marleine Bastien, who was born in Haiti and now serves on the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners, said she's "deeply disheartened" by the ban. In a statement, she called it "cruel and xenophobic" and a "blatant attempt to scapegoat an already suffering people." "This unjust policy will sow chaos in our communities, separating families, and disrupting lives," said Bastien, founder of Family Action Network Movement, a South Florida-based organization. The decision is a "betrayal of the values America claims to uphold - compassion, justice, and opportunity for all," she said. Haitians averaged 24,337 non-immigrant visas for the U.S. over a decade and Cubans averaged 12,464. Travel from the countries plunged during the pandemic but had begun to increase again by 2023. Haitians received 10,515 non-immigrant visas that year and Cubans received 6,146. Trump's proclamation stated he had directed the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and others to identify countries where the vetting and screening information is "so deficient as to warrant a full or partial suspension" of nationals of those countries into the U.S. and the group had found a number of countries deficient. Rubio, a South Florida native whose parents migrated from Cuba in 1956, shared on X a post from the White House, attributed to Trump: "We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen ... That is why today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, and numerous others." USA TODAY looked at how many visas were distributed to foreign nationals from the countries in question over the past decade. A nonimmigrant visa is a temporary document, issued for tourism, temporary work, medical care, study or business. How many visitor's visas were issued? Combined, foreign nationals in the countries now facing travel bans accounted for fewer than 63,000 non-immigrant visas in 2023, the most recent year for which statistics are available. At least two dozen other countries not included in the ban each accounted for more visitor visas that year. While Venezuela leads all the 19 recently restricted countries in visitors to the U.S., Iranians received 17,634 non-immigrant visas in 2023, more than any of the dozen countries facing total travel bans. Myanmar, which U.S. documents recognize as Burma, received the next-most with 13,284. Here are the number of non-immigrant visas granted to nationalities of the other countries facing bans: Sudan, 4,506 Yemen, 4,204 Afghanistan, 2,665 Libya, 2,259 Congo Republic, 2,175 Chad, 2,090 Equatorial Guinea, 1,534 Eritrea, 931 Somalia, 463 Looking at the decade overall, Haitians topped the list, receiving the most non-immigrant visas among the banned countries at 243,369. Iran was second with 162,356 and Burma/Myanmar was third with 115,520. Among the countries facing travel restrictions rather than bans, foreign nationals from five of those - Sierra Leone, Togo, Laos, Turkmenistan and Burundi - received fewer than 8,500 non immigrant visas combined in 2023. Which country's residents received the most non-immigrant visas? Mexico led the world at 2.3 million non-immigrant visas in 2023. The figure also includes border crossing cards, laminated cards that allow Mexicans to cross the border between the nations for periods of less than 30 days. More than 1.3 million people planning to visit the U.S. from India received non-immigrant visas in 2023 and 1.06 million from Brazil. Other countries whose nationalities received the most visiting visas in 2023 include: Colombia, 476,293 China, 417,008 Argentina, 291,892 Ecuador, 274,799 Philippines, 285,860 Israel, 190,415 Vietnam, 133,781 Dominican Republic, 130,360 Turkey, 130,168 Nigeria, 113,695 Peru, 111,851 Dinah Voyles Pulver, a national correspondent for USA TODAY, writes about climate change, violent weather and other news. Reach her at dpulver@ or @dinahvp on Bluesky or X or dinahvp.77 on Signal.