Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa's socialist president, ratified legislation on Jan. 25 enabling the government to seize land without compensation. With white farmers still possessing a great deal of land, the ruling coalition apparently figures the new law for a means of redistributing property to members of a state-preferred racial group.

Citing the Expropriation Act of 2024 as cause, President Donald Trump noted on Truth Social Sunday that he "will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation of this situation has been completed!"

Last year, the U.S. reportedly committed to over $323 million in foreign assistance to South Africa. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump appears poised to shutter, directed the bulk of the funding. In 2023, America poured over $439 million into funding for the African nation.

"South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY," wrote Trump. "It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn't want to so much as mention. A massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum, is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it, we will act."

Under the controversial law, which abrogates the Expropriation Act of 1975, the state can seize land in the name of the "public interest," which is defined to include "the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources in order to redress the results of past racial discriminatory laws or practices," or in the name of "public purpose," which is a flexible term effectively meaning any purpose the state could suggest is "for the benefit of the public."

Although the state could compensate an owner for expropriated property under the law, the state is permitted to pay "nil" if it determines doing so is "just and equitable." When stealing property from landowners, the state must indicate that it has attempted without success to reach an agreement for the acquisition of the property on terms it deems "reasonable."

'Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?'

From the time landowners are informed their property is being stolen to the time they lose possession, they "must take all reasonable steps to maintain the property." Failing to do so, the landowner set to lose their property could also end up on the hook for the perceived amount of the loss in value.

Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, a professor at South Africa's Stellenbosch University, recently hinted that the law will be a tool wielded in a racist manner, stating:

In South Africa's colonial and apartheid past, land distribution was grossly unequal on the basis of race. The country is still suffering the effects of this. So expropriation of property is a potential tool to reduce land inequality. This has become a matter of increasing urgency. South Africans have expressed impatience with the slow pace of land reform.

While South Africa's Marxist-Leninist political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters — whose leader and members routinely chant about murdering white farmers — suggested the law does not go far enough to redistribute land from white farmers to black citizens, other political parties said an earlier draft of the legislation was unconstitutional, reported Bloomberg.

Ramaphosa noted in a statement early Monday, "The recently adopted Expropriation Act is not a confiscation instrument, but a constitutionally mandated legal process that ensures public access to land in an equitable and just manner as guided by the constitution."

Responding to Trump's threat, the socialist added, "The US remains a key strategic political and trade partner for South Africa. With the exception of PEPFAR Aid, which constitutes 17% of South Africa's HIVAids programme, there is no other funding that is received by South Africa from the United States."

Elon Musk, who was born and raised in South Africa, subsequently asked Ramaphosa, "Why do you have openly racist ownership laws?"

The Free Market Foundation, a libertarian think tank based in Johannesburg, is among the groups critical of the law. Martin van Staden, head of policy at the think tank, noted Monday, "The patriotic thing for South Africans to do is to oppose the government's attempts to implement expropriation without compensation, not to get upset when foreign actors point it out."

"Concealing the absence of compensation in appeals to 'nil' compensation does not cure the Expropriation Act of its confiscatory nature or unconstitutionality," added van Staden.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!