Yesterday, the United States government announced the imposition of a 30% tariff on South African goods. While many see this new policy as a continuation of tensions between the two countries, including cutting aid and several diplomatic confrontations, these tariffs form part of a broader reciprocal tariff policy aimed at addressing trade imbalances, and are independent from the bipartisan tensions which have emerged in recent months.

‍

"Nothing personal"

According to official statements, this new wave of tariffs are a reciprocal policy aimed at imposing the same tariffs on foreign trade partners as they impose on the United States. The executive order, titled "Regulating Imports with a Reciprocal Tariff to Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits" provides the legal framework for the tariffs.

The order specifies that South Africa will face a 30% tariff. This rate is described as a calculated adjustment based on alleged 60% tariffs imposed by South Africa on U.S. goods. An annex to the order lists affected countries and their respective tariff rates.

In a separate fact sheet titled "President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our Economy", they outline new regulations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). It details a 10% baseline tariff on all imports effective on the 5th of April, and higher reciprocal tariffs on specific countries, including a 30% tariff on South Africa effective from the 9th of April.

The tariff rates are presented as responses to perceived trade deficits with listed nations. As X user @orthonormalist showed using some basic calculations from the fact sheet, the tariffs are based on a rather simple formula: 

"It's trade deficit divided by their exports.
EU: exports 531.6, imports 333.4, deficit 198.2. 198.2/531.6 is 37, close to 39.
Israel: exports 22.2, imports 14.8, deficit 7.4. 7.4/22.2 is 33.
Vietnam exports 136.6, imports 13.1. deficit 123.5. that's exactly the 90% on the chart!"

Tariffs calculated under this method have subsequently been discounted by roughly a half in most cases, just as South Africa's, except for countries where the calculation results in a rate of 20% or lower, in which case the score bottoms out at a 10% minimum.

‍

Impact

South Africa has $13–15 billion in 2024 U.S. exports, 7.5% of our total. Agriculture (citrus, nuts, wines), car manufacturing ($2 billion), and mining (platinum $3.42 billion, gold) stand to be badly affected.

South Africa’s agricultural sector, previously benefiting from AGOA’s tariff-free access, may lose over 30,000 jobs due to reduced competitiveness, with citrus exports (9% of total) hit hard. Under Joe Biden,America entered an agricultural trade deficit for the first time in decades, characterised predominantly by high-value imports, including wines and spirits, seed oils, and other first-stage processed agricultural products. The Western Cape, where most high-value exports come from, stands to be hardest-hit.

Autos face a dual burden: the 30% reciprocal tariff plus a 25% Section 232 tariff on vehicles and parts, comprising 64% of AGOA exports and 0.99% of U.S. auto imports, potentially doubling costs. South Africa currently performs a large amount of vehicle assembly, predominantly Gauteng (BMW, Nissan, Ford, Iveco, BAW, MAN) KwaZulu Natal (Toyota, Mahindra, Volvo) and the Eastern Cape (VW, Isuzu, Mercedes Daimler, Mitsubishi).

Mining, over half of exports, may see revenue drops despite some inelastic U.S. demand. As a key employer, this sector could impact employment significantly. South Africa’s economy, with flatline growth and 1/3 to a 1/2 of the population unemployed (depending on the definition used), could face further strain, with lower export earnings weakening the rand and raising inflation.

Diversification to the rest of Africa (42% of 2024 agricultural exports), Asia (21%), and the EU (19%) is an option, but switching markets is challenging due to established trade ties, and the supply chain may have to endure significant shocks as they reorient their market position.

Trade Minister Parks Tau plans diplomatic engagement to mitigate effects, but this faces a severe uphill challenge.

‍

Diplomatic tensions so far

Many commentators have been linking these tariffs to earlier punitive diplomatic stances taken by the White House, in response to the passing Expropriation Act, and foreign stances, such as South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel and ties with Iran.

At present, these actions include aid suspension, climate project withdrawal, refugee resettlement, and diplomatic expulsions. The U.S. halted most foreign aid in February 2025 via Executive Order 14204, citing South Africa’s land policies as discriminatory against Afrikaners, with exceptions like Pepfar continuing. By March, aid disbursements paused. The U.S. also withdrew from the Just Energy Transition Partnership, canceling climate initiatives, several of which were swiftly replaced by EU and UK initiatives.

Additionally, the U.S. offered refugee status to Afrikaners. South Africa denounced these actions as propagandistic, and defended their racially discriminatory laws as being in the interests of racial redress.

In March, South Africa’s ambassador, Ebrahim Rasool, was declared persona non grata for calling the United States a white supremacist country, and celebrating the impending ethnic replacement of America’s white majority, during a webinar hosted by the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA) on March 14, 2025.

South Africa’s military attaché has also been expelled, and military ties have been severed. Marco Rubio labelling him “race-baiting”. The military attaché’s removal, tied to aid cuts, saw South African personnel sent back from U.S. training.

The recent selection for the American ambassador to South Africa has also been chosen from the hardline conservative faction, signalling a continued confrontational stance.

‍