What could the US do next as tensions with South Africa escalate? - IOL

The US has imposed targeted visa restrictions on South African officials over alleged race-based discrimination and land reform policies.

Tensions between the United States (US) and South Africa are intensifying as the US continues to place restrictions on the country in response to what it calls race-based discrimination, uncompensated land seizures and incitement of violence.

South Africa has rejected these allegations.

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa will defend its sovereignty while continuing to engage Washington.

“We are quite willing and prepared to continue engaging with the United States as we engage with all other countries in the world. Where there are challenges, we will go in with our dignity, with our sovereignty, to engage with those countries without bowing our heads and treating those nations respectfully and expecting them to treat us also respectfully. The United States is an important market for us,” Ramaphosa said. 

The US has previously taken several actions against South Africa - but the big question is 'What could the US do next?'

US–South Africa relations have grown increasingly strained, and Washington has already taken several concrete measures.

On September 15, the US announced visa restrictions against certain South Africans whom it accused of being involved in or supporting policies concerning racial discrimination, uncompensated land seizures and incitement of violence.

Then in March 2025, the US paused and cut development assistance to South Africa, including funding linked to HIV/AIDS programmes. In addition, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expelled South Africa’s ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool.

The Trump administration also previously introduced a 30% tariff on South African goods and offered refugee status to some Afrikaners as claims about racial discrimination in South Africa surfaced. It also pressured Pretoria over its foreign-policy positions, including its relationship with Iran.

South Africa has rejected the US characterisation of its policies and defended its sovereign right to determine its domestic and foreign policy.

So after breaking down what actions were already implemented, we look at what actions could be taken.

Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced visa restrictions against those linked to South African laws or policies that, according to Washington, enable racial discrimination, uncompensated land seizures or incitement of violence. The US has not publicly named the people affected. 

The US ambassador described the restrictions as “only the first step in a series of escalatory measures”, indicating that additional individuals could potentially be targeted. 

That could mean more officials being denied US visas; restrictions being extended to people involved in particular policies; and potentially broader immigration measures.

The US already imposed a 30% tariff on South African imports, and Washington has separately investigated South Africa under Section 301 of the US Trade Act.

This move, implemented in July, specifically included South Africa among 60 economies investigated over alleged failures to prohibit and effectively enforce bans on goods produced with forced labour. 

While not guaranteed, another possible escalation would be additional or targeted tariffs, depending on the outcome of the trade process.

The Trump administration has already cut US assistance to South Africa, including HIV-related funding, amid the wider dispute.

Further reductions or restrictions on bilateral programmes are therefore another possible avenue.

The effects would depend heavily on which programmes were targeted. For instance, cutting diplomatic or administrative programmes is very different from reducing health or humanitarian assistance.

Isolation already happened to an extent when South Africa was excluded from the G20 summit in Miami, despite being a G20 member.

Washington could potentially go further by reducing high-level diplomatic engagement; excluding South African officials from selected US-led meetings; downgrading cooperation in particular areas; or encouraging closer alignment among US partners on specific issues involving Pretoria.

It is worth noting that this doesn't necessarily mean breaking diplomatic relations.

Washington has objected to South Africa's relationship with countries such as Iran and to its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

Pretoria has rejected demands to cut its relationship with Iran or abandon the ICJ case, arguing that it should determine its foreign policy independently.

So the US could continue using trade, visas and diplomatic relations as leverage to push Pretoria on these foreign-policy questions.

The US cannot order South Africa to change its laws. South Africa is a sovereign state, and Pretoria has already made clear that it regards issues such as land reform, employment equity and its foreign-policy positions as matters for its own government and Parliament.

And there's another interesting development: the two countries are still negotiating.

Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau said last week that South African and US officials were due to meet to discuss trade, despite the new visa restrictions.