#NNPA BlackPress

Experts Say Trump’s South African Land Stance Exposes a Deep Hypocrisy

NNPA NEWSWIRE — The hypocrisy is glaring. Trump, who has spent his political career demonizing Black and brown asylum seekers, now fashions himself a humanitarian for white South Africans.

Published

1 month ago

February 10, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

President Donald Trump’s latest maneuver, an executive order to cut U.S. aid to South Africa while extending refugee status to white South Africans, is yet another calculated exercise in race-baiting and historical revisionism. Trump claims that Afrikaners, the white descendants of Dutch and French settlers who own the vast majority of South Africa’s farmland, are victims of persecution under President Cyril Ramaphosa’s land reform efforts. Yet, the reality of land ownership in South Africa tells a different story, and Trump’s feigned concern for land rights is made even more absurd when compared to the systematic land dispossession endured by Black Americans in the United States. South Africa’s land reform efforts aim to redress the racial inequities created by apartheid, a regime that systematically transferred land from the Black majority to the white minority. Despite the official end of apartheid three decades ago, white South Africans still control between 70 to 80 percent of the country’s arable land. Ramaphosa’s African National Congress (ANC) government has introduced expropriation policies to correct this historic injustice, ensuring that land reform is in the public interest and within the constitutional framework. Yet, Trump has chosen to distort the issue, parroting the narrative pushed by AfriForum, an Afrikaner lobby group that claims white South Africans face racial discrimination.

Even AfriForum, however, does not accept Trump’s offer of refugee status. “Emigration only offers an opportunity for Afrikaners who are willing to risk potentially sacrificing their descendants’ cultural identity as Afrikaners. The price for that is simply too high,” said AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel. The hypocrisy of Trump’s sudden interest in land rights is stark when viewed against the backdrop of America’s history of racialized land theft. While Trump amplifies the supposed plight of white South Africans, his own country has a long and well-documented history of dispossessing Black Americans of their land through legal and extralegal means. According to Inequality.org, at the beginning of the 20th century, Black Americans owned at least 14 million acres of land. By the 21st century, 90 percent of that land had been taken through fraudulent legal schemes, intimidation, and outright theft. Today, African Americans own only 1.1 million acres of farmland and part-own another 1.07 million acres, a staggering loss of generational wealth that has never been addressed. Land theft from Black people in the United States was carried out through methods such as heirs’ property laws, tax sales, and the Torrens Act, which allowed white developers to seize Black-owned land under the guise of legal loopholes. Heirs’ property laws divided land among multiple descendants, making it difficult for families to retain ownership. Tax sales preyed on Black families with fixed incomes, forcing them to auction off land they had no intention of selling. The Torrens Act allowed land to be sold without notifying all co-owners, stripping Black families of their property without legal recourse.

The impact of this systematic theft is immeasurable. In Mississippi alone, between 1950 and 1964, nearly 800,000 acres of Black-owned land were stolen, amounting to a present-day valuation of up to $6.6 billion. The wealth lost through land dispossession remains one of the most enduring factors in the racial wealth gap, where the typical white family still has eight times the wealth of the typical Black family. Trump’s selective outrage over land redistribution in South Africa stands in direct contrast to his administration’s complete disregard for the historical theft of Black land in the U.S. His policies consistently benefited white landowners while neglecting the Black farmers and families who had been systematically robbed of their property for generations. His administration dismantled the civil rights division of the USDA, an agency long accused of discriminating against Black farmers and ignored efforts to provide restitution to those who had suffered under racist policies. The irony deepens when one considers Trump’s well-documented hostility toward refugees. His administration slashed refugee admissions to record lows, imposed draconian immigration bans, and separated children from their families at the border. But now, white South Africans—who remain the most economically privileged demographic in their country—are suddenly deemed worthy of asylum. Black and brown refugees fleeing war, famine, and persecution were demonized as threats under Trump’s watch, yet white Afrikaners are welcomed with open arms.

Ziyad Motala, writing in the Middle East Monitor, noted that Trump’s claim of white South African persecution “would be an amusing episode of alternate history if it were not so transparently false.” White South Africans continue to dominate the country’s economy, with the top earners and corporate executives overwhelmingly white. Motala further pointed out that Trump’s narrative is being bolstered by figures like Elon Musk, whose family directly benefited from apartheid’s racially engineered economic system. Musk’s political pivot toward white grievance politics aligns seamlessly with Trump’s latest efforts to manufacture a racial crisis where none exists. Moreover, South Africa’s judiciary, bound by constitutional supremacy, has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to legality and justice, something that Trump’s presidency consistently undermined. Unlike Trump, South Africa’s Constitutional Court has held former leaders accountable who openly flouted the rule of law and sought unchecked power. When former South African President Jacob Zuma ignored court orders, he was held in contempt and sentenced to prison. By contrast, Trump’s abuse of presidential pardons saw convicted war criminals and insurrectionists absolved simply for their loyalty.

Trump’s real motivation in targeting South Africa likely has little to do with land reform and everything to do with South Africa’s stance on international justice. The country’s decision to bring Israel before the International Court of Justice over its actions in Gaza has drawn Washington’s ire, and Trump, ever eager to shield Israel from scrutiny, has now concocted yet another race-based distraction. The hypocrisy is glaring. Trump, who has spent his political career demonizing Black and brown asylum seekers, now fashions himself a humanitarian for white South Africans. The same man who dismissed systemic racism in America and worked to dismantle civil rights protections now suddenly professes concern for racial discrimination—so long as the supposed victims are white. “For all the talk of ‘America First,’ Trump’s policies have never been about national interest but rather about the consolidation of power through fearmongering and race-baiting,” Motala observed. “South Africa, in its commitment to legal accountability, human rights, and constitutional integrity, exposes precisely what Trump and his enablers despise: a legal order where power is constrained, the rule of law prevails, and privilege is not an eternal birthright.”

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

Up Next

From the Classroom to the Living Room: Three Ways Families Can Help Children Build Early Literacy Skills

Don't Miss

Trump Black History Month

Stacy M. Brown

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

Published

3 days ago

March 21, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown

BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.

To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:

A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.

Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.

Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.

“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

Published

3 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”

However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.

Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Reaction to The Education EO

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

Published

3 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.

During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”

Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”