Trump’s ‘Opposite of Apartheid’ Stunt Starkly Contrasts with Reagan’s Strategy on South Africa

Khoshnaw Rahmani, JadeTimes Staff

K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering Culture.

---

Image Source: Mark Ashlanasy

In a jarring Oval Office encounter on Wednesday, President Donald Trump confronted South African

President Cyril Ramaphosa with unverified claims of “genocide” against White South Africans—a

dramatic moment that marked a stark departure from President Ronald Reagan’s more restrained, if

flawed, approach to apartheid-era diplomacy four decades ago.

Trump accused Ramaphosa of failing to protect South Africa’s White minority, particularly farmers,

referencing materials sourced largely from right-wing media. The U.S. president even lowered the lights

in the Oval Office to play a video showing South Africa’s radical political opposition, flanked by Elon

Musk, two pro golfers, and controversial printouts.

“This is sort of the opposite of apartheid,” Trump said, casting himself as a defender of White South

Africans, though his message relied on discredited narratives.

Reagan and Tutu: A Quiet Clash

The contrast could not be more stark. In 1984, Reagan met with anti-apartheid icon Archbishop

Desmond Tutu in a calm, private Oval Office meeting. Reagan rejected Tutu’s calls for sanctions against

South Africa’s apartheid regime, instead favoring a strategy of "constructive engagement." Tutu, who had

just won the Nobel Peace Prize, later called Reagan’s policy “immoral” and labeled his resistance to

sanctions racist.

In his diary, Reagan wrote that Tutu was “naive” and argued that apartheid was more about tribal

tensions than racial injustice—an argument widely discredited then and now.

Congress disagreed with Reagan. In 1986, lawmakers overwhelmingly overrode his veto and imposed

sanctions on South Africa. Then-freshman Senator Mitch McConnell said at the time: “Because I have

chosen to stand with those who struggle for freedom, I must stand apart from my president.”

Trump’s Crude Reversal of History

Now, decades later, Trump appears to reverse that historic moment, accusing a post-apartheid Black-led

government of neglecting White citizens, despite little to no evidence of targeted violence.

Trump claimed White South African farmers are facing persecution and has encouraged their emigration

to the U.S. He has also slashed aid to South Africa, doubling down on accusations while sidestepping

broader diplomatic discussions, including trade.

Former U.S. Ambassador to South Africa, Patrick Gaspard, condemned the episode, calling it a “crass

appeal to the worst elements in society.” Gaspard dismissed the genocide claims as baseless, pointing

out that White farmers represent a minority of crime victims in the country and continue to hold

disproportionate land and wealth.

Expert Reaction: ‘Dog-Whistle Politics at Its Most Ridiculous’

Historian Max Boot, author of Reagan: His Life and Legend, reacted to the Trump-Ramaphosa meeting by

calling Trump’s rhetoric “dog-whistle politics at its most ridiculous.”

“South Africa has long been a mirror for America’s own racial tensions,” Boot wrote. “Yet when apartheid

ended, it gave rise not to chaos but to a democratic, multi-ethnic society—one where the White minority

still holds substantial economic power.”

More Than a Media Moment

While some interpreted Trump’s dramatic confrontation as an effort to distract from stalled domestic

legislation, others noted how prepared he appeared—with video, guests, and talking points—suggesting

a deeper political motive.

The episode also reflects how the Republican Party’s stance on race, foreign policy, and trade has

evolved—or fractured. While Reagan believed economic engagement could help dismantle apartheid,

Trump used the Oval Office to amplify conspiracy theories and publicly pressure a democratic ally.

Ramaphosa, for his part, signed legislation this year allowing land seizures in the public interest—similar

to U.S. eminent domain laws. Trump condemned the law, framing it as anti-White, even though it aims

to address long-standing land inequities rooted in apartheid.

From Reagan’s Quiet Diplomacy to Trump’s Televised Grievance Politics

In the end, the shift is not merely between two presidents, but between two political eras. Reagan’s

resistance to confronting apartheid may have aged poorly, but Trump’s embrace of fringe narratives

represents a more overt and destabilizing approach.

As former Ambassador Gaspard noted: “This isn’t just about Reagan and Trump. It’s about the young

Mitch McConnell who stood for principle—and the party he now leads that has seemingly lost both its

voice and its spine.”