United States to Boycott G20 Foreign Ministers Meeting in South Africa

The United States has announced its decision to boycott the upcoming G20 foreign ministers meeting in Johannesburg, citing concerns over South Africa’s land reform policies and the summit’s thematic focus on climate action and diversity. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the decision on Wednesday, reinforcing Washington’s growing skepticism toward multilateral diplomatic engagements.

“I will NOT attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg. South Africa is expropriating private property and using the G20 platform to promote ‘solidarity, equality, & sustainability’—in other words, DEI and climate change,” Rubio stated on X (formerly Twitter). He further asserted that his priority was to advance U.S. national interests rather than “waste taxpayer money or coddle anti-Americanism.”

The U.S., which is part of the G20 troika as the next chair in 2025, has not yet clarified whether this boycott extends beyond the foreign ministers meeting to the broader G20 process under South Africa’s presidency. Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Chief Executive of the South African Institute of International Affairs, noted that while no final decision has been announced, the U.S.’s disengagement could signal a broader diplomatic shift. “It will be important to see whether Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attends the finance ministers meeting in Cape Town,” she said. Given former President Donald Trump’s history of embracing such global platforms, she added that his administration’s response would be telling.

Trump’s Criticism of South Africa’s Land Policies

Rubio’s remarks come in the wake of former President Trump’s recent comments on South Africa’s land reform policies. Writing on Truth Social, Trump alleged that “South Africa is confiscating land and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY. A massive human rights violation is happening for all to see. The United States won’t stand for it. We will act. Also, I will be cutting off all future funding to South Africa until a full investigation is completed!”

The controversy revolves around South Africa’s ongoing land reform efforts, which seek to address historical injustices stemming from apartheid-era land dispossession. Currently, white landowners—who make up approximately 7% of the population—hold around 70% of privately owned land. Recent legislation permits land expropriation without compensation when deemed “just, equitable, and in the public interest.” While critics argue this threatens property rights, South African officials maintain that the policy applies strictly to underutilized or undeveloped land and will not be arbitrarily enforced.

Musk’s Influence and Commercial Considerations

Elon Musk, a key Trump ally and South African-born entrepreneur, has also voiced strong opposition to the legislation, a stance widely believed to have influenced Trump’s reaction. Sidiropoulos highlighted the commercial dimension of the issue, pointing out that Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service has yet to enter the South African market due to regulations requiring foreign investors to allocate a portion of shareholding to Black-owned businesses.

“This is not just about advocating for white farmers or the broader white community,” she noted. “There is a real transactional dynamic at play.”

Geopolitical Implications and U.S. Diplomatic Strategy

The U.S. decision to boycott the G20 meeting follows a broader pattern of disengagement from global forums. Previous withdrawals include the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the UN Relief and Works Agency. Analysts suggest that Washington’s stance could provide China with an opportunity to expand its influence over global governance discussions, particularly in the G20 framework.

Despite tensions, Sidiropoulos emphasized that South Africa and the U.S. do not necessarily need to adopt an adversarial stance. “While the U.S. position challenges South Africa’s efforts to address historical injustices, diplomatic engagement remains crucial for both countries.”

As the geopolitical landscape continues to shift, the U.S.’s evolving approach to multilateralism—and its potential impact on global discourse—will be closely watched.