Ramaphosa’s Composure Under Fire: South African President Faces Unexpected Confrontation In Washington

 

President Cyril Ramaphosa is earning widespread praise across South Africa for his calm and composed demeanor during a tense and unexpected exchange with former U.S. President Donald Trump. The encounter, which unfolded in front of the global press, saw Trump launch into a multimedia barrage of disinformation, claiming that a “White genocide” is taking place in South Africa.

Despite the charged atmosphere, Ramaphosa kept his voice even and remained composed, showcasing the negotiation skills he honed over decades—including his central role in the talks that helped end apartheid.

“What else could Cyril have done?” asked veteran journalist Milton Nkosi. “You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I think they were caught completely unawares. How on earth could you have planned for that?” Nkosi, now a senior research fellow at the Africa Asia Dialogues think tank, added.

On social media and in news coverage back home, many South Africans felt Ramaphosa handled the situation with grace. “Calm, collected and humble in the face of bigotry and lies,” posted one user on X. Another added: “You were a leader today. Went to build not to fight.”

Joining Ramaphosa at the meeting was luxury goods magnate Johan Rupert, who made a point of telling Trump that crime affects all South Africans, regardless of race. Rupert emphasized the need for better policing tools, such as drones and Starlink internet access in rural stations. His attempt to insert facts into the discussion seemed to have little impact.

Rupert’s comments did not sit well with some critics back home. One White South African called him a traitor to Afrikaners on social media.

John Steenhuisen, South Africa’s agriculture minister and a prominent White political figure, also pushed back against Trump’s claims during the meeting, insisting the U.S. president had been misinformed.

The encounter reached its most dramatic point when Trump dimmed the lights and played a four-and-a-half-minute video montage that purported to show evidence of a White genocide. The footage included clips of far-left leader Julius Malema singing “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer”—a chant originating from the apartheid era. Although controversial, South African courts have ruled that the song is a historical protest anthem and not a literal call for violence.

In 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that a “reasonably well-informed person” would understand the song as a symbolic expression of political defiance, not incitement to murder.

Trump demanded to know why Malema had not been arrested. Malema, now the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters party and long estranged from the ruling ANC, responded dismissively on X: “A group of older men meet in Washington to gossip about me.” He rejected the genocide claims outright and reaffirmed his party’s commitment to land expropriation without compensation.

Much of the information Trump presented has already been thoroughly debunked. Several South Africans identified it as propaganda from AfriForum, a lobby group often criticized for promoting a White nationalist agenda.

Despite the lack of evidence, the group’s chief executive, Kallie Kriel, expressed satisfaction with the attention the meeting drew, saying it proved South Africa’s leadership couldn’t ignore the country's real problems.

Official data from South African police shows no evidence of any coordinated targeting of White farmers. One video shown by Trump appeared to depict a mass grave, but Ramaphosa denied recognizing the footage and disputed its interpretation.

For Ramaphosa, the encounter marked one of his most difficult public tests yet as a statesman.

“It is absolutely absurd to sit and watch the president of the most powerful country in the world telling the man who negotiated to end apartheid, who was locked up in solitary confinement, that there’s White genocide in South Africa, which is a lie. That is crazy,” said Nkosi.

While the meeting blindsided the South African delegation, many at home saw Ramaphosa’s response as a dignified rebuttal to a hostile and misinformed attack—one that revealed more about the accuser than the accused.