A United States policy granting limited refugee status to white South African farmers has reignited debate over whether race is influencing America’s humanitarian priorities — or if these families are genuinely escaping a rising tide of rural violence. 

The discussion reached a new pitch Wednesday, as President Trump hosted South Africa’s leader, President Ramaphosa, at the White House for a tense meeting that became centered on violence against white farmers. Mr. Trump shared graphic footage, including clips of opposition leader Julius Malema chanting the incendiary “Shoot the Boer” slogan, to argue that Afrikaner communities face targeted persecution. 

Some of that footage has since been dismissed as misleading as it showcased the war in Congo, not South Africa. Critics argue the refugee decision unfairly favors white applicants over longer-waiting asylum seekers from war-torn nations. 

Human Rights Watch claimed that the move reflects Mr. Trump’s “preoccupations and prejudices rather than an objective assessment of the need for refugee resettlement for the group in question,” highlighting cases of several others from Africa in desperate need for resettlement but refused.

Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church of the United States terminated its partnership with the federal government in protest, stating moral opposition to resettling white Afrikaners under the current policy.

“Afrikaners don’t fit any definition of refugee,” said the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Most Reverend Sean Rowe, adding that he spoke with Cape Town Archbishop Thabo Makgoba about the many Africans fleeing violence who were now pushed down the priority line.

The head of #AfghanEvac, Shawn VanDiver, criticized the policy as hypocritical, noting that Afghans who served alongside U.S. forces and now face Taliban reprisals meet every definition of a refugee, yet are being overlooked.

“Afghans who served alongside U.S. forces, who taught girls, who fought for democracy, and who now face Taliban reprisals, meet every definition of a refugee,” he stated. “Afghans risked their lives for us. That should matter.”

President of Church World Service, Rick Santos, also stressed that they are “concerned that the United States Government has chosen to fast-track the admission of Afrikaners, while actively fighting court orders to provide life-saving resettlement to other refugee populations who are in desperate need.”

The Trump administration — and some human rights advocates — however, argue the issue transcends race, pointing to evidence of systematic brutality and lawlessness in South Africa’s farmlands. 

Mr. Ramaphosa, visibly frustrated at the White House meeting, dismissed claims of racial targeting, responding that “the majority of people killed in our country are Black.” 

Still, with brutal attacks continuing and radical land reform fueling tensions, the question lingers: Are these farmers being prioritized for resettlement because they’re white — or because they’re truly in danger?

“It’s misleading to downplay the issue or inflate certain statistics to fit a narrative,” Managing Director of Nestpoint Associates, John Thomas, tells the New York Sun. “The reality is that violence is happening.”

One Story of Many

In 2016, Mariandra Heunis, heavily pregnant white farmer, was tucking in her child at their remote South African farm when Black intruders burst in with guns. Her husband, Johann, tried to calm them — but was shot five times. He later died in front of their six-year-old daughter. The attackers stole only phones. Days later, Mariandra gave birth to their fourth child.

“They took nothing but our phones,” Ms. Heunis recounted in a 2018 interview. 

One of the bullets narrowly missed their daughter, who tried to appease the gunmen with her piggy bank. As Johann tried to stand, they shot him execution-style.

Ms. Heunis’ harrowing account is not unique. Hundreds of South African farm families have endured similarly violent attacks in recent years. Most of the victims have been white Afrikaners — descendants of early European settlers whose agricultural roots in South Africa go back generations. As land ownership laws shift, so too do tensions — some of them deadly.

While the South African government insists these are random acts of violence in a country with soaring crime rates, many — including Trump and his allies — believe the patterns suggest something more deliberate. As critics cry racial favoritism over Washington’s new immigration policy, those on the other side say these families aren’t being chosen because they’re white — but because they’re in danger.

According to the Solidarity Research Institute, an advocacy oriented research group, the chances of a farmer being murdered on a farm in South Africa are four to six times higher than the average murder risk rate for the general population.

On-the-Ground Reality

Farm attacks in South Africa have included victims being tortured, dragged behind vehicles, and hacked with machetes. Accurate statistics are difficult to confirm, but over the past three decades, violence against white commercial farmers in South Africa has been alarmingly high: the property rights group Transvaal Agricultural Union reports that over 1,000 have been murdered since 1990. In 2019 alone, there were 409 farm attacks and 56 farm murders. 

More recently, the Afrikaner minority rights-focused AfriForum’s 2023-2024 figures recorded 296 attacks and 49 murders — an average of nearly one killing per week. 

Meanwhile, official South African Police Service data logged just one farm murder between October and December 2024, a period in which AfriForum says eight occurred. These numbers underscore both the steady brutality of rural crime and the challenges of accurately documenting it.

Authorities argue these attacks are driven by economic desperation in a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world. Yet the brutality and targeting of isolated white-owned farms have prompted widespread fears that racially-motivated attacks may continue.

“Farm attacks in South Africa have been linked to systemic failures in law enforcement,” South African intelligence operator and CEO of international security firm MOSAIC, Tony Schiena, tells the New York Sun. “This has led many farming communities to establish their own self-defense networks.”

While Pretoria has responded with specialized police units and partnerships with farming communities, critics say more must be done. 

“The government officially supports land redistribution, but critics argue that benefits are disproportionately funneled to the Black elite rather than ordinary citizens,” Mr. Schiena said.

The Trump Administration’s Stance

In February, Trump signed an executive order slashing United States aid to South Africa, accusing its government of enabling “disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.” The order also opened a new immigration path for white South Africans. By May, 49 Afrikaner applicants had been granted refugee status under what Trump called “unjust racial discrimination.”

His administration says the measure is grounded in human rights and property protection — not racial preference.

“In South Africa, Mr. Trump’s stance resonated with conservative groups there who believe land redistribution is being used as a political tool rather than a genuine means of redress,” explained Mr. Schiena. 

Mr. Trump’s ally Elon Musk, himself born in South Africa, has echoed those views, accusing the Ramaphosa government of having “racist ownership laws” and failing to stop a so-called “genocide,” a characterization Mr. Trump frequently uses, against white farmers.

The South African government maintains that its new Expropriation Act — permitting land seizures without compensation — is not about race but justice. Mr. Ramaphosa has insisted that the law won’t be applied arbitrarily or without public interest.

While the government is yet to act on the legislation, many fear that what begins as policy reform could devolve into lawless confiscation — and more killings.

A Legacy of Inequality

Land ownership in South Africa remains one of the country’s most contentious issues, tracing back to the 1913 Native Land Act that barred Black South Africans from owning land in most of the country. That law, reinforced under apartheid, resulted in lasting racial disparities in property ownership. 

White South Africans, comprising approximately 7 percent of the population, still own most rural land.

Geopolitical expert David Otto tells the Sun that land redistribution efforts, while necessary to correct historical wrongs, have been slow and uneven. 

“The challenge lies in balancing the need for land reform with the rights of existing landowners and ensuring sustainable economic growth,” he said.

Trump’s supporters, however, contend that fairness isn’t being applied equally. White Afrikaner farmers, they say, are being left vulnerable to both legal and illegal attacks.

“This is fundamentally about property rights,” John Thomas, managing director of Nestpoint Associates, tells the Sun. “Trump believes individuals should have the right to their property; that includes white South African farmers. While there is a racial component, Trump sees it more as an issue of fairness.”

Race, Reality, and Refuge

To some, the refugee program smacks of racial favoritism. Why prioritize white South Africans when so many Black and brown asylum-seekers from other countries are targeted for deportation or refused entry?

To others, like Ms. Heunis, that debate misses the point.

Her story is not a political statement but a plea for survival. It reflects the painful reality of a country struggling to reconcile its past with its future. 

Mr. Trump’s controversial refugee policy — while racially divisive on its face — may reflect something more difficult and uncomfortable: that even those once seen as privileged from the outside can become targets.

“Farming communities have resorted to self-defense measures due to the government’s failures,” Mr. Schiena added. “The government’s failure to protect farmers from violent attacks, coupled with weak law enforcement, has led to rising tensions.”