Yesterday, Representatives Ronny Jackson of Texas and John James of Michigan tabled the U.S.-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025, to:

“require a full review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa and identify South African government officials and ANC leaders eligible for the imposition of sanctions, and for other purposes.”

Among the grievances listed in the preamble to the bilateral relations review bill include South Africa’s longstanding support for Hamas, spotlighted by statements from its foreign ministry and ANC leaders following the attack on Israel on the 7th of October; its military and financial ties with Russia, including the docking of the Lady R vessel in December 2022, the joint Operation Mosi II naval exercise in February 2023, and a $826,000 donation from oligarch Viktor Vekselberg in 2022; and its deepening engagement with China, evidenced by six Confucius Institutes, participation in the Belt and Road Initiative, and the presence of firms like Huawei, ZTE, and Hikvision.

Domestic issues, such as the mismanagement of Eskom, Transnet, cholera outbreaks and state capture, accompany complaints about the conduct of former ambassador Ebrahim Rasool.

The legislation mandates a presidential certification within 30 days of enactment, assessing whether South Africa’s foreign policy compromises American national security or broader diplomatic interests. A public report, potentially accompanied by a classified annex, is to follow. Within 120 days, a comprehensive review must be submitted, alongside a separate classified dossier identifying South African officials and African National Congress (ANC) figures for sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, complete with timelines and justifications for their alleged transgressions.

The Global Magnitsky Act authorizes the U.S. President to impose sanctions based on credible evidence of extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross human rights violations, as well as cases of significant corruption, such as bribery or embezzlement, by government officials or their associates. Sanctions include freezing assets and interests in property under American jurisdiction, revoking or denying visas and banning entry to the United States, as well as blocking economic transactions with American persons or entities.

These measures are enforced under 31 CFR Part 583 by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and the powers under the Act apply globally, targeting individuals rather than entire states. The act also has some provisions for activities like humanitarian aid or legal fees, and requires regular reports to Congress on designations and actions. These reports are made publicly available.

South Africa’s public responses have been somewhat muted, but President Ramaphosa has been hard at work to seek alternative sources of patronage as American aid dries up, and has been attempting to preserve trade privileges under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which has been largely voided under the recently introduced reciprocal tariff regime. Ramaphosa has also been pushing China and Europe for trade and aid, aiming to loosen its reliance on American markets.

AfriForum has welcomed the Act. CEO Kallie Kriel cites ANC corruption, exposed by the Zondo Commission, and human rights issues, including the “Kill the Boer” chant and the BELA Act targeting Afrikaans schools, as justification. However, AfriForum also worries the bill could endanger ordinary South Africans’ economic prospects, and urges the government to moderate its stance and seek more inclusive and responsible policies:

“The ANC leaders caused this crisis. They now have a responsibility to take South Africa and its people out of the crossfire through a clear change of direction in the country’s policies and actions. This change must include a comprehensive review of South Africa’s foreign policy as well as a new commitment to the protection of property rights and human rights – including those of minority communities,”

AfriForum has also welcomed the recent condemnation of the Constitutional Court’s prejudicical ruling on the genocidal black nationalist warcry Kill the Boer, which refused to hear the case on the basis that it “had no reasonable chance of success”.

These developments follow closely on the back of the introduction of the AFRIKANER Act (the Asylum for Farmers and Refugees in Crisis and Necessary Emigration Resettlement Act), introduced in by Representative Troy Nehls of Texas, which seeks to designate “Caucasian” South African residents as Priority 2 refugees under America’s resettlement framework.

Priority 2 refugees in the United States are specific groups identified by the U.S. Department of State as being of special humanitarian concern, eligible for the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP). Unlike Priority 1 refugees, who are referred individually by entities like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a U.S. embassy, or designated NGOs, Priority 2 refugees are designated as a group based on shared circumstances, such as ethnicity, religion, or nationality, that indicate a need for resettlement due to persecution or other humanitarian crises. Examples include certain Afghan nationals announced in August 2021, who assisted the U.S. but didn’t qualify for Special Immigrant Visas. Once designated, Priority 2 refugees undergo the same rigorous vetting process as other refugees, including security checks and interviews, but their group status streamlines initial access to the program.

The bill targets those persecuted, or fearing persecution, on grounds of race, ethnicity, or ancestry, extending eligibility to their spouses, children, and parents (barring non-South African citizen parents). Processing may occur in South Africa or a third country, with no denials permitted based on immediate relative status, other immigrant eligibility, or politically motivated actions tied to the specified traits.

‍