Former US President Donald Trump recently made headlines for his vocal support of white South African farmers, claiming they face persecution and even authorizing a refugee resettlement program for Afrikaner farmers seeking safety in the United States.
This move was widely seen as a political gesture aimed at appealing to certain voter bases by highlighting alleged injustices in South Africa.
However, just months later, Trump’s trade policies have placed those very farmers in jeopardy.
Beginning 1 August 2025, a 30% tariff on key South African exports to the US, including citrus, wine, sugar cane, and beef, will come into effect.
This tariff effectively ends the duty-free access South Africa previously enjoyed under the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA).
The tariffs are part of a broader set of trade restrictions Trump imposed on South African goods in April 2025, which initially sparked significant backlash from business and government leaders in both countries.
Following this backlash, Trump paused the tariffs for 90 days to allow for negotiations and diplomatic efforts, including a visit by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to the White House.
Despite these efforts, no meaningful progress was made, and the tariffs are now set to be fully implemented.
This development places South African farmers, many of whom are white and were the focus of Trump’s earlier support, in a difficult and contradictory position.
Krisjan Mouton, a well-known citrus farmer from Citrusdal, expressed his frustration to Reuters, highlighting the irony of Trump welcoming some farmers into America while simultaneously imposing tariffs that punish those who remain behind.
Mouton warned that the tariffs would severely impact profitability and make exporting to the US market no longer viable for many growers.
South Africa is the world’s second-largest exporter of citrus after Spain, and the US market accounts for approximately $100 million in annual earnings for the industry.
Although the US only represents about 6% of South African citrus exports by volume, many farms have invested heavily in meeting America’s stringent size and phytosanitary standards.
These standards are specific and require tailored production and packaging processes, making it challenging to redirect exports to other countries without logistical complications.
Increasing shipments to alternative markets could also lead to oversupply, driving down prices and affecting farmers’ incomes.
Industry leaders have consistently argued that South African citrus does not compete directly with US-produced citrus but rather complements it by filling seasonal gaps.
Gerrit van der Merwe, chairperson of the Citrus Growers Association (CGA), emphasized that South African citrus helps sustain consumer interest and demand during periods when local US citrus is out of season.
This seasonal complementarity benefits both South African exporters and US growers by maintaining steady market engagement year-round.
The imposition of the 30% tariff removes South Africa’s favored trade status and places its citrus products at a significant disadvantage compared to competitors from South America and Australia, who continue to enjoy duty-free access.
The tariff’s impact extends beyond white-owned farms, which make up about three-quarters of South Africa’s freehold agricultural land.
Thousands of farmworkers, fruit packers, and related industry employees also face the threat of job losses due to reduced exports and shrinking market opportunities.
Boitshoko Ntshabele, CEO of the CGA, warned that the tariff would wreak havoc on entire communities that have long depended on the US market for their livelihoods.
In Citrusdal alone, the CGA estimates that up to 35,000 jobs could be at risk if the tariffs remain in place.
This potential job loss highlights the broader socio-economic consequences of the trade dispute, which could exacerbate unemployment and poverty in rural areas.
The contradiction between Trump’s political gestures and his trade policies illustrates the complexities and unintended consequences of international economic decisions.
While the refugee resettlement program for Afrikaner farmers garnered attention and sympathy, the tariffs undermine the economic foundations of many of those same farmers who remain in South Africa.
This clash raises questions about the coherence and consistency of US policy towards South Africa and the agricultural sector.
Moreover, the tariffs come at a time when South Africa is grappling with multiple economic challenges, including slow growth, high unemployment, and social unrest.
The loss of duty-free access to the US market adds another layer of difficulty for an industry that contributes significantly to export earnings and rural employment.
South African farmers have invested years and substantial resources in meeting US market requirements, including compliance with quality, safety, and packaging standards.
Suddenly losing preferential access disrupts these investments and forces producers to seek alternative markets, often at lower prices and with higher logistical costs.
This disruption not only threatens farm incomes but also the broader agricultural value chain, including transport, packaging, and export services.
The tariffs also send a negative signal to international investors and trade partners about the stability and predictability of US trade policy.
Such unpredictability can deter long-term investments and complicate bilateral relations beyond agriculture.
Critics argue that the tariffs are a form of economic retaliation unrelated to the actual trade balance or market dynamics but rather tied to broader geopolitical considerations and domestic political calculations.
The initial justification for the tariffs included concerns about trade imbalances and alleged unfair practices, but many experts view the measures as disproportionate and damaging to mutually beneficial trade.
Furthermore, the timing of the tariffs, coming shortly after Trump’s public support for South African farmers, has been described as hypocritical and counterproductive.
Many in the agricultural community and political circles have called for a reassessment of the tariffs to prevent further harm to a vital sector.
The South African government has expressed strong opposition to the tariffs and is exploring diplomatic and legal avenues to challenge the US decision.
Efforts include engaging with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and seeking negotiations to restore duty-free access or reduce tariff rates.
Meanwhile, South African farmers and industry bodies are looking for ways to diversify export markets and reduce dependence on the US.
This includes exploring opportunities in Asia, the Middle East, and within Africa itself through regional trade agreements.
However, developing new markets takes time and resources, and immediate losses from the US tariffs cannot be quickly offset.
The situation underscores the vulnerability of export-dependent sectors to sudden shifts in trade policy by major partners.
It also highlights the need for more resilient and diversified trade strategies that can withstand geopolitical uncertainties.
For many South African farmers, the tariffs represent not just a financial setback but a threat to their way of life and the communities they support.
The agricultural sector is a cornerstone of rural economies, providing employment and sustaining livelihoods across multiple generations.
Job losses and reduced incomes could lead to increased social tensions and migration pressures within South Africa.
The irony of Trump’s position—welcoming some farmers into the US while imposing tariffs that harm those who remain—has sparked debate about the real motivations behind US policy.
Some view the refugee program as symbolic and politically motivated rather than a genuine effort to support South African agriculture holistically.
Others worry that the tariffs could exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine long-term economic stability in the region.
As the tariffs take effect, the coming months will be critical in determining the extent of the damage and the prospects for recovery.
South African farmers will need support from their government, industry groups, and international partners to navigate this challenging period.
Advocacy for renewed trade agreements and tariff relief will be essential to safeguard the sector’s future.
Additionally, investing in innovation, value addition, and market diversification will be key strategies for resilience.
The story of Trump’s tariffs and their impact on South African farmers serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of global trade and the unintended consequences of protectionist policies.
It reminds policymakers and stakeholders of the importance of coherent, consistent, and fair trade practices that support sustainable development and shared prosperity.
In conclusion, while former President Trump publicly championed white South African farmers and even authorized refugee resettlement programs, his trade policies have placed those same farmers at risk.
The 30% tariffs on key agricultural exports threaten to undermine the economic viability of farms and the livelihoods of thousands of workers.
This contradiction highlights the challenges of balancing political rhetoric with practical economic policy.
The future of South African agriculture and its relationship with the US will depend on diplomatic efforts, market adaptation, and the ability to build more resilient trade partnerships.
As the world watches, the unfolding consequences of these tariffs will reveal much about the dynamics of international trade, political interests, and the human impact behind economic decisions.
