Is ‘White genocide' really taking place in South Africa? Fact-checking Donald Trump's bombshell claim
In recent months, Donald Trump has become fixated on South Africa due to claims that Afrikaners, a White ethnic minority, have been indiscriminately persecuted. In February, the US President issued an executive order to suspend foreign aid to South Africa due to allegations that the government led by Cyril Ramaphosa 'radically disfavored landowners.'
Earlier this month, the Trump administration received a plane with 49 Afrikaners who were granted refugee status, with President claiming that they are 'losing their land in South Africa and are targets of genocide.'
Considering the administration's broader suspension of the refugee program and immigration enforcement measures, the action deemed as a surprise.
In response to a reporter's question on May 12 about why he established a swift path for Afrikaners, Trump stated, 'Because they're being killed. And we don't want to see people be killed. But it's a genocide that's taking place that you people don't want to write about.'
'White farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa,' he added.
The South African government condemned Trump's executive order of February 7 regarding Afrikaner resettlement in the U.S.
'It is ironic that the executive order makes provision for refugee status in the US for a group in South Africa that remains amongst the most economically privileged, while vulnerable people in the US from other parts of the world are being deported and denied asylum despite real hardship,' the statement said.
Trump claimed that a genocide against White people was happening in South Africa, a statement that Ramaphosa and other South Africans have strongly refuted.
After journalists inquired about his assertions of genocide, Trump took a moment to showcase a series of video clips on a TV in the Oval office, which he contended substantiated his assertions.
In response to the montage featuring individuals discussing "cutting the throat" and shooting White people, Ramaphosa stated that these remarks do not represent government policy. Later, the minister of agriculture in South Africa stated that several individuals depicted in the montage belong to minority parties that are not included in the ruling coalition of the country.
'We have a multi-party democracy in South Africa that allows people to express themselves,' he asserted.
When asked if he condemned the language used in the video, Ramaphosa responded, 'Oh, yes.'
Last week, Ramaphosa shared a video clip on X, saying that 'We all know as South Africans, both Black and White, that there's no genocide here.'
'We are not genocidal. We are not committing any act of hatred, act of retribution or violence against anyone,' he added.
Also Read: Photos: Donald Trump mocked by Cyril Ramaphosa as WH meeting turns volatile; 'Sorry I don't have a plane to give you'
The White genocide is a theory rooted in White nationalism that posits that there is a calculated scheme to eliminate White people through forced assimilation, violent genocide, or mass immigration. It is referred to as the theories of White extinction, White replacement, and White genocide.
The Genocide Convention, an international treaty that criminalizes genocide, defines it as the killing of members of a group due to their race, religion, or national origin, exemplified by the Holocaust.
In South Africa, there have been murders of White farmers. However, these murders represent under 1% of the over 27,000 murders that occur annually across the country, PBS reported. According to experts, the number of deaths does not constitute genocide, and Trump provides misleading information regarding land confiscation.
Gareth Newham, director of a justice and violence prevention program at the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, called the notion of a 'White genocide' occurring in South Africa 'completely false'.
'As an independent Institute tracking violence and violent crime in South Africa, if there was any evidence of either a genocide or targeted violence taking place against any group based on their ethnicity this, we would be amongst the first to raise (the) alarm and provide the evidence to the world.'
In South Africa, there are approximately 2.7 million white Afrikaners, who trace their ancestry back to Dutch and French settlers. Roughly 80% of the population in South Africa consists of Black individuals. South Africa was under apartheid rule from 1948 to the early 1990s, a system of racial segregation that granted power exclusively to White people and mandated separate living for Black South Africans.
The White House did not supply any data when PBS requested for proof of Trump's statements. An official representative stated that Afrikaners informed American authorities of violent attacks, threats to life, vandalism, and racial insults directed at farmers.
Dr. de Jager, who leads the Southern African Agri Initiative, informed DW that the farm attacks do not constitute genocide and provide no justification for fleeing.
In South Africa, White individuals are not as likely to be murder victims compared to Black individuals. Genocide Watch has stated that although White people constitute 8% of the South African population, they account for only 2% of murder victims.
On May 9, the South African government stated that the South Africa Police Services statistics on farm-related crimes do not substantiate claims of violent crime aimed at farmers in general or any specific race.
According to Mandeep Tiwana, chief officer of evidence and engagement at the South Africa-based human rights advocacy organization CIVICUS, genocide is clearly defined, and the situation involving White South Africans in South Africa does not match that definition, as per USA Today.
'In fact, White South Africans are a privileged minority,' he added.

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


United News of India
23 minutes ago
- United News of India
US SC gives Trump admin's DOGE dept full authorisation to access social security data
Washington, June 7 (UNI) The US Supreme Court on Friday authorised officials from the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access Social Security Administration data, giving it complete access to all sensitive private data of American citizens. The Supreme Court issued the authorisation after allowing an emergency petition filed by the administration of President Donald Trump to ask for a lifting of an injunction issued by a district judge in Maryland, who stated that privacy must be safeguarded, reports said. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order. The order didn't, however, give the reasoning behind its ruling, which has become a very controversial issue. The order was also challenged by the court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all of whom dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The DOGE department, which was created by the Trump administration and was until recently headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, before his resignation following his spat with the POTUS, while not an official government department, was designed specifically to monitor data fraud and misinformation. The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions alleged that allowing broader access to personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no legitimate need to access the specific data in question, according to Xinhua. The 4th circuit court of appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Judge Hollander's decision, prompting the Trump administration to file an emergency request with the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued Friday in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted an additional request filed by the Trump administration, allowing it to shield DOGE from Freedom of Information Act requests for the time being. UNI ANV PRS


Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
Elon Musk deletes post claiming Trump appears in Epstein files amid ongoing feud
Elon Musk on Sunday deleted a controversial post in which he claimed that US President Donald Trump appears in the unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files, a move that may signal a cooling of tensions after days of public sparring between the two billionaires. 'Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Musk had posted on X, the platform he owns, on Thursday. In a follow-up, he urged followers to 'mark this post for the future' because 'the truth will come out.' Both posts have been deleted. The accusation marked a dramatic escalation in Musk's ongoing feud with Trump, which began over the president's support for a controversial bill dubbed the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk, who has slammed the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination,' claimed it was rushed through without proper scrutiny and accused the administration of betraying EV makers like Tesla. Trump, speaking at a press briefing, dismissed Musk's concerns and said: 'Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money… I can understand why he's upset.' The feud spiralled after Trump said he was 'disappointed' in Musk. Musk fired back, saying, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51–49 in the Senate… Such ingratitude.' Live Events But hours after the Epstein claim, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman publicly urged Musk to reconcile with Trump. Musk's short reply — 'You're not wrong' — coupled with the deletion of the post, has been interpreted by some as a sign of de-escalation. — elonmusk (@elonmusk) Though Trump's name has appeared in various documents related to Epstein, including flight logs and contact books, no charges have been brought against him. The White House reportedly called Musk's comments 'an unfortunate episode,' while Trump, in a call with Politico , played down the spat, saying, 'It's going very well, never done better.' Musk has not explained why he deleted the post, but the timing suggests an attempt to contain the fallout from a claim that could have far-reaching political consequences.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump's expanding use of emergency powers raises alarms among experts
Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's levelling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president, said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. The temptation is clear, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Programme and an expert in emergency powers. What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit, Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action. The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. In analysing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Centre for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-September 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges, said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act. Trump, Yoo said, has just elevated it to another level. Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. We believe and we're right that we are in an emergency, Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies, Vance said. I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain. Vance continued, These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a path toward autocracy and suppression.