Trump Administration Suggested Funding Afrikaner Group in South Africa — ProPublica
ProPublica — 2026-08-07 04:00:00 — www.propublica.org
Trump Administration Redirects Foreign Aid, Promotes Disputed Claims on South Africa
Since returning to office, President Donald Trump’s administration has fundamentally changed the direction of U.S. foreign aid, slashing budgets for well-established programs and labeling them as “not aligned with American interests.” While Congress has continued to require funding for humanitarian, global health, and pro-democracy initiatives, the Trump administration has shifted the focus of these funds—often toward controversial right-wing groups in Europe and elsewhere.
Shift in Priorities: From HIV Aid to White Minority Focus
A major shift has been observed in U.S. policy toward South Africa. For decades, American aid was largely dedicated to supporting HIV care, saving countless lives and maintaining a vital diplomatic relationship. However, since Trump’s return to office, his administration has prioritized the concerns of the white Afrikaner minority in South Africa, a group historically responsible for apartheid. Trump has repeatedly argued that there is a “genocide” of white South Africans and has claimed that they are subject to disproportionate violence. These claims have been used to justify cutting off U.S. funding for HIV treatment and research in South Africa.
Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims
Extensive research, however, contradicts Trump’s assertions. Studies show that white South African farmers are not victims of crime at higher rates than other groups. Experts and former diplomats have expressed shock that the Trump administration would prioritize the victimization of whites in South Africa over more pressing human rights issues elsewhere on the continent. One former agency official called the idea “laughable,” pointing out that South Africa is plagued by violence affecting all communities.
Controversial Grants and Right-Wing Ties
The Trump administration has also considered funding groups with ties to right-wing and borderline white nationalist causes, both in South Africa and Europe. For example, officials suggested a grant for research on crimes against Afrikaners and considered supporting a British free-speech organization that opposes bans on “gay conversion therapy”—a practice widely discredited by medical experts. Some of these proposed grants have been dropped after pushback, but the administration’s overall direction remains clear.
Undermining Competitive Bidding and Oversight
Concerns have also been raised about the administration’s attempts to bypass federal requirements for competitive bidding on grants, potentially increasing the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead of open competition, millions are being steered toward handpicked organizations, according to sources and documents.
Conclusion: A Risky Redirection of U.S. Influence
By shifting foreign aid away from broad-based humanitarian and health programs to focus on narrow, controversial causes, the Trump administration risks undermining longstanding U.S. interests and relationships abroad. The administration’s promotion of disputed claims about white victimization in South Africa, in particular, has drawn criticism from experts and threatens to drive a wedge between the U.S. and key partners. As these policies continue to unfold, the consequences for America’s global standing and the people affected by these aid decisions remain to be seen.
Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-administration-afrikaner-south-africa-money