Afrikaner Refugee Resettlement in the United States (2025)

Introduction

In early 2025, reports emerged of an influx of white Afrikaner families from South Africa arriving in the United States under a new refugee program. As of May 2025, a State Department–chartered flight has brought the first group of approximately 50–60 Afrikaner refugees to U.S. soil. These families landed at Washington Dulles International Airport, where U.S. officials staged a brief welcoming ceremony before the refugees dispersed to resettlement locations in about ten different states.

This development is the result of a controversial initiative originally launched during Donald Trump’s presidency, premised on the claim that white Afrikaners face racially motivated persecution in South Africa.

The program’s debut has garnered intense scrutiny and polarized commentary in both the United States and South Africa, raising questions about its scale, purpose, eligibility criteria, and the broader political narratives surrounding it. This article provides a detailed overview of the Afrikaner resettlement program – including how many have arrived, the program’s origins and goals, whether it is exclusive to Afrikaners, and the varying perspectives from U.S. and South African sources – along with context on the social dynamics driving some Afrikaners to seek refuge abroad.

Scale of the Influx: How Many Afrikaners Have Arrived

Thus far the numbers remain relatively small. The first flight of refugees – which departed Johannesburg on May 11, 2025 – carried on the order of several dozen people. Initial reports said 49 Afrikaners (including men, women, and children in multiple families) were on board.

Upon arrival, U.S. officials indicated the total was 59 individuals, suggesting around four to six families in the inaugural cohort. (The discrepancy may be due to last-minute additions or differing definitions of who counted as “Afrikaners” on the manifest.) Regardless, the scale is modest: only a few dozen Afrikaners have actually landed in America so far. These newcomers were granted formal refugee status, giving them a legal pathway to eventual U.S. citizenship and access to initial assistance such as housing, food, and job placement support.

Part of Larger Effort by USA

American authorities signalled that this was just the beginning of a larger effort. Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff overseeing immigration policy, described the May flight as “the first in a much larger-scale relocation effort,” indicating that more chartered transports of South African refugees are planned. Indeed, interest among potential applicants in South Africa surged after the program was announced: by mid-March 2025, nearly 70,000 South Africans had registered on a website for more information about relocating to the U.S. under this scheme.

This tally – reported by a U.S.-based South African business group – suggests tens of thousands of individuals (mostly with Afrikaner or English surnames) have expressed interest, though only a tiny fraction have been approved and moved at this time. It remains to be seen how many of those will ultimately qualify and depart; U.S. officials have not released an exact cap, but the refugee designation is being fast-tracked for this group in a way not seen for other nationalities.

For perspective, no South African of any race had been deemed a refugee by the United Nations in recent years – underscoring how unusual this influx is within the broader U.S. refugee admissions program.

Program Origins and Goals

The Afrikaner refugee resettlement program traces back to an executive action taken under President Donald Trump. On February 7, 2025, shortly after returning to office, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa

” This order explicitly accused South Africa’s Black-led government of unjust, anti-white policies and laid the groundwork for two major U.S. responses: cutting off aid to South Africa, and promoting refugee resettlement for South African Afrikaners deemed to be victims of “government-sponsored race-based discrimination”.

The White House order claimed that a recently enacted South African law (the Expropriation Act 13 of 2024) would enable the seizure of Afrikaner-owned land without compensation, and it decried “countless” affirmative action measures and “hateful rhetoric” which it alleged were fuelLing violence against white farmers. It also tied South Africa’s internal policies to U.S. foreign policy interests, noting Pretoria’s moves to strengthen ties with Iran and to accuse Israel (a U.S. ally) of genocide in an international forum.

Under this order, the official U.S. policy became: (a) no aid or assistance to South Africa, and (b) prioritization of refugee admission for Afrikaners facing racial persecution. Trump’s directive instructed the State Department and Department of Homeland Security to come up with a plan for admitting and resettling eligible Afrikaners via the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. In effect, the Trump administration created a special refugee category for this population.

The goal, as stated, was humanitarian relief for an allegedly oppressed minority; but observers note that it also dovetailed with Trump’s political agenda of rebuking the South African government and its policies. Notably, Trump suspended most other refugee admissions around the same time – halting arrivals from war-torn countries like Afghanistan, Syria, and across Africa – even as he made an exception to welcome the white South Africans.

This stark contrast suggests the Afrikaner program’s real origins were at least partly ideological. One U.S. official, speaking anonymously, went so far as to call the expedited Afrikaner refugee process “immigration fraud” driven by politics rather than genuine refugee criteria.

Visits by Lobby Groups

It’s worth noting that informal groundwork for Trump’s stance had been laid years earlier. During Trump’s first term in 2018, Afrikaner advocacy groups like AfriForum visited the U.S. to warn of “white genocide” in South Africa, gaining attention in right-wing media. Trump himself tweeted in 2018 about South African farm murders and land seizures after seeing such reports, though no policy resulted at that time.

Those lobbying efforts caught Trump’s attention and built a narrative he would later act upon. By 2025, with Trump back in office and influenced by advisors including South African-born billionaire Elon Musk, the White House was primed to make this refugee offer a reality. Musk – now an influential Trump adviser in charge of “government efficiency” – had publicly echoed claims that Afrikaner farmers face “genocide” and blasted South Africa’s “openly racist ownership laws,” aligning with AfriForum’s messaging.

In summary, the program began as a Trump administration initiative framed as a response to human-rights abuses, but it was deeply entwined with political grievances and a desire to champion a sympathetic conservative constituency abroad.

Eligibility and Exclusivity: Who the Program Covers

A striking aspect of this refugee program is its initial exclusive focus on South Africa’s Afrikaner minority (later adjusted to any minority group). The U.S. executive order explicitly references “Afrikaners in South Africa” as the beneficiaries, defined as those facing unjust racial discrimination. In practice, this has meant that only white, Afrikaans-speaking South Africans – largely descendants of Dutch/French settlers – are being offered refugee relocation. The Afrikaners make up roughly 2.7 million people (about 4.5% of South Africa’s population of 60+ million).

They are a subset of South Africa’s broader white minority (which also includes English-speaking whites of British descent, who are not Afrikaners). U.S. officials have confirmed that the program is limited to Afrikaners, despite the fact that not all white South Africans are Afrikaners by ethnicity. In other words, the refugee offer does not formally extend to Black, Coloured (mixed-race), Indian, or even English-speaking white South Africans – it singles out one ethnic-cultural group. This is highly unusual, as U.S. refugee admissions are typically based on individual persecution claims or broad nationality crises, not one specific ethnic minority from a democratic country.

Raced Based Persecution Claims

Trump administration figures have defended the narrow scope by arguing that Afrikaners uniquely fit the definition of a persecuted class.

Stephen Miller stated that “what’s happening in South Africa fits the textbook definition of … race-based persecution,” implicitly framing Afrikaners as the only group in South Africa meeting refugee criteria.

In March 2025, Trump even suggested broadening the pool to all farmers in South Africa (regardless of race) as eligible for U.S. refuge, but this appeared to be more rhetoric than reality – the actual processing has focused on white Afrikaner farmers. Indeed, UNHCR was not involved in this process at all, and normal refugee vetting steps (which usually take years) were bypassed to rush these Afrikaners through in a matter of months.

U.S. State Department memos indicate that the applicants selected so far cited incidents of violent crime with a racial element – e.g. home invasions or farm attacks – sometimes dating back decades, as evidence of “racially motivated” persecution. This suggests the criteria were interpreted loosely to encompass any Afrikaner who feels unsafe due to race, rather than requiring proof of targeted state-sponsored oppression (which South Africa’s government insists does not exist).

Importantly, the program’s exclusivity has drawn criticism that it is politically and racially motivated. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted it was “baffling” that white South Africans were being fast-tracked while thousands of refugees from war zones remained in limbo under an admission freeze. She and others argue the administration “put one group at the front of the line” for clearly political reasons. In response,

Trump Race View

Trump has maintained that race has “no difference to me” and that Afrikaners are simply deserving victims in this case. Nevertheless, the perception is that this is a unique carve-out driven by ideological affinity: the Afrikaners are predominantly Christian, conservative, and anti-communist, traits that align them symbolically with Trump’s base. No other minority group worldwide (nor other South African minorities) has been offered a similar express ticket to U.S. refuge by this administration. This exclusivity is a key point of contention in the debate over the program’s fairness and intent.

South African Context: Why Some Afrikaners Seeking Refuge?

To understand why some Afrikaners are interested in refugee status – and why Trump portrayed them as persecuted – one must examine the social and political dynamics in South Africa. More than 30 years after the end of apartheid, South Africa remains a nation grappling with racial inequalities and historical injustices.

The white minority, including Afrikaners, still owns a hugely disproportionate share of land and wealth, a lasting legacy of colonialism and apartheid-era dispossession of Black South Africans. By recent estimates, whites (about 7–8% of the population) own roughly 70–75% of privately held farmland, and white households’ wealth is on average about 20 times that of Black households. At the same time, the Black majority suffers far higher poverty and unemployment rates (over one-third of Black South Africans are unemployed, versus under 10% of whites). These stark disparities have driven the post-apartheid government – led by the African National Congress (ANC) – to adopt aggressive policies aimed at economic redress.

Policies and Economic Regress

Two such policies lie at the heart of the recent controversy: land reform and affirmative action. In late 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act, a law that permits the state to seize land without compensation in certain limited cases (for instance, derelict or unused land), in order to advance equitable access to land.

The ANC stresses that the law requires “just and equitable” considerations and has not yet been used to forcefully confiscate anyone’s property. However, many white farmers are uneasy, fearing they could eventually lose farms that have been in their families for generations.

Separately, in 2023 Ramaphosa approved an amendment to labor laws empowering the government to set workforce racial quotas for companies – essentially strengthening Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) rules to correct workplace imbalances. Critics (including the main opposition party) call these measures racially discriminatory against whites and have challenged them in court as unconstitutional. AfriForum and similar Afrikaner interest groups argue that such policies amount to “reverse apartheid”, stripping Afrikaners of opportunities and property rights in retribution for the past.

Farm Attacks Narrative

Adding to this, South Africa has a high rate of violent crime, and farm attacks in rural areas have received intense media attention. While farmers of all races have been victims of robberies and murders, the narrative in some circles is that white Afrikaner farmers are being specifically targeted. In 2024, there were 44 murders recorded on South African farms (out of thousands of murders nationally), of which 8 victims were farmers.

Police do not track victims by race, and many farm murder victims have been Black farm workers, but the perception persists among some Afrikaners that they face a campaign of violence. AfriForum and even Elon Musk have amplified this by using the term “genocide” for farm killings – a claim widely discredited by researchers.

Nevertheless, stories of brutal farm invasions and murders (sometimes accompanied by racist brutality) have left many Afrikaner communities fearful. Some of the refugees arriving in the U.S. cited having “witnessed or experienced extreme violence with a racial nexus” – for example, a family member killed in a farm attack years ago – and expressed a fear that the government does not protect them adequately. They claim police often fail to solve crimes against Afrikaners, fostering a sense of helplessness.

The Expropriation Act

The government’s new Expropriation Act aims to address such disparities, but white farmers fear it could be used to seize their property. Many Afrikaners insist they are defending their heritage and rights, while others see them as holding onto an outsized share of resources.

It is within this context of economic grievances and security fears that a subset of Afrikaners are applying for refugee status. Most of these applicants are not destitute – on the contrary, Afrikaners as a group remain among the most privileged in South Africa, enjoying high incomes and political representation (Afrikaans is an official language, and Afrikaners serve in government, business, and academia).

But some feel beleaguered by what they view as a hostile environment: quotas limiting their prospects, political rhetoric (from fringe elements like the Economic Freedom Fighters) chanting “Kill the Boer”, and the spectre of losing land or being attacked. AfriForum alleges the government “refuses to condemn calls for violence” against Afrikaners and has “adopted racially discriminatory legislation and condoned land seizures,” painting a picture of a state abetting their decline. The South African government strenuously denies this narrative.

Embracing Changes

Officials note that no land has actually been expropriated under the new law and that whites continue to hold the vast majority of farmland and wealth. They emphasize that post-apartheid policies like BEE are intended to prevent another kind of racial domination, not to persecute whites. From Pretoria’s perspective, those Afrikaners choosing to emigrate are largely people unwilling to “embrace the changes” of a democratic South Africa – as President Ramaphosa put it, they “are not being hounded” or oppressed, but rather oppose transformation and have “the wrong end of the stick” regarding policy aims.

In sum, the push factors for Afrikaner emigration include: fear of future land confiscation, frustration with affirmative action and loss of privileged status, high crime rates and notable farm attacks, and a feeling (among some) of cultural decline or insecurity under majority rule. The pull factor now is the U.S. offer of refuge, which is perceived as a chance to maintain one’s safety, property rights and way of life elsewhere. However, it must be stressed that not all Afrikaners see themselves as refugees – in fact, many reject that label and remain committed to staying in South Africa, as discussed next.

Political and Media Reactions

The Afrikaner refugee scheme has ignited intense political commentary and media coverage in both countries, with sharply divergent viewpoints.

South African Government and Mainstream Opinion: 

The official response from Pretoria has been one of outrage and ridicule. Government spokesmen have bluntly called the U.S. program based on a “false narrative” with “no factual basis in international law”. South Africa’s Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola dismissed the notion of Afrikaner persecution, stating “there is no persecution of white Afrikaner South Africans” and police reports debunk Trump’s claims.

Another official said allegations of discrimination “do not meet the threshold of persecution” under refugee law. President Ramaphosa, speaking from an African Union meeting, diplomatically said the U.S. had “got the wrong end of the stick” and promised to continue dialogue, but he hinted that those leaving simply did not like policies remedying apartheid’s legacy.

Privately, officials are less restrained: Vincent Magwenya, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, accused Washington of undermining South African sovereignty and remarked that the people emigrating are doing so “under a false narrative”. The entire episode is seen by South African leaders as a political stunt – a way for Trump to antagonize them and score points domestically, rather than a response to any genuine humanitarian crisis.

Among the broader South African public (across racial lines), the refugee airlift has been met largely with incredulity or scorn. Media outlets point out that the departing families are leaving one of Africa’s wealthiest countries for refugee status in the U.S. based on claims many find absurd.

On social media, South Africans have jokingly “bid farewell” to the émigrés, posting memes that mock the idea of privileged whites claiming to be oppressed – for example, quipping that those leaving will sorely miss their “domestic workers and beach holidays” once in the American heartland. Prominent voices like veteran Afrikaner journalist Max du Preez called the persecution narrative “a total absurdity” based on nothing, saying South Africans are “stunned” and see this as driven by U.S. internal politics, not reality.

Even some of the intended beneficiaries have distanced themselves: the Solidarity Movement (an umbrella including AfriForum) stated that while individuals may emigrate, “repatriation of Afrikaners as refugees is not a solution for us,” emphasizing they love South Africa despite disagreements with the ANC. The town of Orania – an all-Afrikaner self-governing enclave – pointedly declined Trump’s offer, saying “Afrikaners do not want to be refugees. We are committed to our homeland.”. These reactions underline that many Afrikaners themselves reject the refugee narrative; they would rather stay and fight for their rights at home than be labeled refugees abroad.

At the same time, Afrikaner rights groups have tried to leverage the situation to shame the South African government.

AfriForum’s CEO Kallie Kriel hailed the U.S. resettlement as an indictment of the ANC, claiming it “proves our government has failed to protect Afrikaners”. In a statement, AfriForum argued the South African state “refused to condemn calls for violence against [Afrikaners], adopted racially discriminatory legislation and condoned land seizures,” and vowed to “use every possible mechanism, including international pressure, to bring about change” in South Africa.

In essence, while AfriForum says it is “not taking up the [refugee] offer” or encouraging mass emigration (fearing a loss of Afrikaner identity if people leave), it is certainly publicizing the fact that some are now fleeing. The group’s aim appears to be to embarrass the government and buttress their argument that policies like land reform and BEE are harming minorities. This has put AfriForum in a controversial light; one South African minister accused it of colluding with foreign powers to undermine the country, and critics call the organization “white supremacists in suits” for lobbying overseas while professing patriotism.

United States Reactions: 

In the U.S., the policy has deepened partisan and moral divides over immigration. The Trump administration and its supporters defend the move as a morally righteous exception. They claim that ignoring the plight of white farmers would be hypocritical, and they liken Afrikaners to other persecuted groups deserving asylum (invoking the principle of refugee protection for those facing race-based threats).

At a White House press event, Trump repeated lurid assertions of “a genocide… taking place” in South Africa and accused the media of covering it up. “White farmers are being brutally killed, and their land is being confiscated,” Trump told reporters, insisting “whether they’re white or black makes no difference, [this is] race-based persecution.”.

Those on the American right wing who have long circulated the “white genocide in South Africa” trope see validation in these actions. Conservative commentators note that Trump is fulfilling a promise to protect a group that shares “Western values,” and some have contrasted it with Europe’s intake of Middle Eastern refugees, implying these Afrikaners will be more culturally compatible immigrants (a stance entwined with racial undertones). Trump’s allies also frame South Africa’s ANC as a Marxist or anti-Western regime, so rescuing its “victims” aligns with broader geopolitical rhetoric.

On the other hand, humanitarian organizations, Democrats, and many immigration experts have condemned the Afrikaner resettlement as blatantly inequitable.

They point out that Trump had “ground U.S. refugee admissions to a halt” for almost all other groups – thousands of vetted refugees from Afghanistan, Syria, Africa, and Latin America have been left stranded by his suspension. To then airlift a few dozen white South Africans strikes them as a cynical ploy.

Refugee resettlement agencies in the U.S. are in disarray due to funding cuts imposed by the administration (some faith-based agencies even withdrew in protest when asked to resettle the Afrikaners). For example, the Episcopal Church announced it was ending its partnership with the government on refugee work, citing moral opposition to “resettling the Afrikaner refugees” at the expense of more urgent cases.

The Church pointedly reminded congregants that one of its revered leaders was Archbishop Desmond Tutu – a hero against apartheid – underscoring the painful irony of facilitating white South Africans’ escape from a democratic South Africa.

Meanwhile, a federal judge recently ordered the administration to resume processing 12,000 other refugees whose arrivals were halted, a rebuke that casts doubt on the legality of effectively running a one-group refugee program. Opposition politicians like Senator Shaheen argue the administration is “rewriting history” and peddling an unsubstantiated narrative of white victimhood for political gain. Major U.S. media outlets (NPR, BBC, Washington Post, etc.) have generally highlighted the lack of evidence for Trump’s claims and noted that the UN found zero South African refugees in need of resettlement last year. Several have run fact-checks or explainers emphasising that South Africa’s reforms are aimed at equality, not persecution, and that the “white genocide” theme is a long-running right-wing conspiracy theory.

In U.S. domestic politics, the plight of Afrikaners has also been seized upon by the far-right as a cultural talking point.

Influential figures like Tucker Carlson had earlier fueled it, and now Elon Musk’s vocal support (he tweeted about “the genocide of white people” in SA and lambasted its affirmative action laws) gives the issue high visibility. Musk, notably, has a personal angle – he was born in South Africa and has sparred with its government recently over the rollout of his company’s Starlink internet service, which South Africa insisted meet Black empowerment shareholding rules.

Musk and others cast South Africa’s race-conscious laws as antithetical to merit and Western investment, essentially globalizing the U.S. culture war against “woke” policies. The Guardian reported that Musk, now inside Trump’s circle, and other South African-born tech elites (the so-called “PayPal mafia”) have amplified Afrikaner grievances in Washington.

This conflation of issues – tech business interests, anti-BEE sentiment, and refugee rhetoric – shows how complex and politicized the narrative has become. On the U.S. far-right fringe, white nationalist groups even openly cheer the resettlement as aligning with their belief in defending the “European heritage” of settlers. More mainstream critics, however, warn that giving preferential treatment to white refugees undermines the integrity of humanitarian programs and could be interpreted as an endorsement of a distorted, apartheid-apologist view of South Africa’s situation.

Conclusion

The nascent program to resettle South African Afrikaners in the United States under refugee status is a highly unusual and polarizing endeavour. By the numbers, it has so far involved a limited influx – on the order of dozens of people – but its symbolic impact is outsized. It represents the first time the U.S. has granted refugee recognition to citizens of post-apartheid South Africa, a country that, by most measures, does not produce refugees in the traditional sense.

The origins of the program lie in a confluence of ideological alignment and international provocation: launched by the Trump administration to advance a narrative of “reverse racism” in South Africa and to rebuke that nation’s policies on the world stage. The stated goal is to protect a vulnerable minority, yet the exclusivity of the offer (limited to white Afrikaners) and the concurrent shutdown of other refugee admissions suggest the goal is as much political as humanitarian.

Reactions have cleaved sharply.

Supporters of the program argue that the U.S. is finally recognizing a long-ignored plight and extending refuge to people who share its values and faced racial injustice. They point to testimonies of Afrikaner farmers who have endured horrific crimes and feel abandoned by their government – a grievance they believe the U.S. should not ignore.

Critics, however, contend that the premise of state-sponsored persecution of whites in South Africa is not supported by facts – Afrikaners remain among the country’s most affluent and powerful communities. They view the refugee offer as a politically motivated favor to a constituency that aligns with Trump’s worldview, executed at the expense of far more desperate refugee populations. South African officials and many citizens (including some Afrikaners) see it as bordering on farce: a situation wherein members of a once-dominant group claim “refugee” status largely because the playing field at home is slowly becoming more equal.

Moving forward, key points to watch will be: How many Afrikaners ultimately take up the offer? AfriForum’s public stance is discouraging emigration, and pride may keep many families in South Africa. Those who left on the first flight even kept a low profile, “leaving in silence, without fanfare,” according to local media reports, perhaps mindful of criticism.

Will the U.S. expand or curtail the program? 

Legal challenges are underway domestically to restart broader refugee admissions, which could either slow the Afrikaner intake or conversely force the administration to justify it within a normal quota.

Diplomatic fallout also bears mention: relations between Washington and Pretoria have hit their lowest point in years. South Africa has already seen its ambassador expelled by the U.S. amid this row (accused of “race-baiting” after he criticized the program), and Trump has threatened to boycott international summits in South Africa if the “situation” isn’t resolved to his liking. This situation exemplifies how immigration policy can be wielded as a geopolitical tool – in this case, elevating the plight of one group to chastise a foreign government.

Ultimately a Test

Ultimately, the story of Afrikaner “refugees” in America is a Rorschach test: some see persecuted people finally finding sanctuary, others see privileged emigrants gaming the system. As one bemused onlooker in Cape Town put it, “I don’t believe in running away from problems… we’ve got a lovely country and we make it work”.

For those who have chosen to run – the families now starting new lives in Idaho, Minnesota, Texas, and beyond – the coming years will reveal whether their claims of persecution hold up in their adjustment to American life, and whether the U.S. public accepts them as bona fide refugees or regards them with equal incredulity.

What is certain is that this episode has added a new layer to the complex tapestry of U.S.–South African relations, and to the debate over what constitutes a “real” refugee in the 21st century.

---

Sources

• NPR News – “White South African Afrikaner refugees arrive in U.S.” (12 May 2025)

• BBC News – “First group of white South Africans lands in US under Trump refugee plan” (12 May 2025)

• BBC News – “Almost 70,000 South Africans interested in US asylum” (19 Mar 2025)

• AP News – “First group of white South Africans leaves for US under Trump refugee plan” (12 May 2025)

• AP News – “Trump is bringing white South Africans to the US as refugees, but what persecution are they facing?” (Explainer, May 2025)

• Reuters – “First white South Africans arrive in US as Trump claims they face ‘genocide’” (12 May 2025)

• The Washington Post – “Trump shut out refugees but is making White South Africans an exception” (9 May 2025)

• Bloomberg News – “Ramaphosa pans Trump’s Afrikaner refugee program” (12 May 2025)

• The Guardian – “‘White supremacists in suits and ties’: the rightwing Afrikaner group in Trump’s ear” (Chris McGreal, 14 Feb 2025)

• Al Jazeera / Reuters – “‘No thanks’: White South Africans turn down Trump’s US immigration offer” (9 Feb 2025)