Internal U.S. government communications reveal confusion and debate over the racial eligibility criteria for a controversial refugee program launched by President Donald Trump to assist South African Afrikaners. A diplomatic cable sent from the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria has exposed internal concerns over whether non-white minorities, such as mixed-race “coloured” South Africans and indigenous Khoisan people, can qualify under the initiative.
The Trump administration’s February executive order established the program to resettle “Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.” Afrikaners, descended primarily from Dutch settlers, are largely white and Afrikaans-speaking. However, the order’s narrow language left room for interpretation, particularly in a racially complex society like South Africa.
On July 8, David Greene, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in South Africa, sent a diplomatic cable to Washington seeking guidance. He asked whether the embassy could process refugee claims from other marginalized groups, including coloured South Africans (a term still in use for mixed-race people), indigenous Khoisan communities, and members of South Africa’s Jewish population, groups that may face discrimination but fall outside the traditional definition of “Afrikaner.”
A response came days later via email from Spencer Chretien, the senior-most official at the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. According to three sources familiar with its contents, Chretien stated that the program was intended for white people.
While Reuters was unable to independently verify the precise language in Chretien’s email, the implications sparked further debate. The State Department, when contacted on July 18, did not comment directly on the email or Greene’s cable. However, it maintained that the program is open to “Afrikaners and other racial minorities in South Africa,” echoing a May update on its website.
“Applicants must be of Afrikaner ethnicity or be a member of a racial minority in South Africa,” the online guidance states.
This discrepancy highlights a disconnect between official policy and internal communications, as well as growing concerns among U.S. diplomats over how to apply a politically sensitive directive in a diverse nation still grappling with the legacy of apartheid.
Since the program’s rollout, 88 South Africans have been resettled under its provisions, including an initial group of 59 in May. Another 15 are expected to arrive by the end of August, sources say. At least one coloured South African family has already entered the U.S. as refugees.
The policy, part of Trump’s broader immigration overhaul following his return to the White House, was framed as a response to “violence against racially disfavored landowners.” Critics, including the South African government, have rejected claims of widespread racial persecution against white South Africans, calling them unsubstantiated and inflammatory. The U.S.-based narrative of a so-called “white genocide” in South Africa has long circulated in far-right circles and has been echoed by Elon Musk, a South African-born U.S. citizen and former Trump adviser.
During a tense Oval Office meeting in May with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump presented a printed image from a Reuters video shot in the Democratic Republic of Congo, falsely claiming it showed mass killings of white South Africans. The incident was widely condemned and highlighted the growing strain in diplomatic relations between the two nations.
Trump has defended the program, saying in May:
“They happen to be white, but whether they are white or Black makes no difference to me.”
Yet, critics argue that the policy selectively frames white South Africans as victims while ignoring the complex socio-economic and racial dynamics of the country.
When asked for clarification, a White House official said the administration’s stance reflects the language of Trump’s executive order:
“We will prioritize refugee admissions for South African citizens, including Afrikaners and other racial minorities in South Africa, who have been targeted by the discriminatory laws of the South African government.”
Despite the controversy, interest in the program remains high. The South African Chamber of Commerce earlier this year reported that 67,000 people had expressed interest in applying.
The internal deliberations underscore not only the legal ambiguity of Trump’s directive but also the geopolitical tensions it has reignited. As U.S. diplomats continue to evaluate claims, questions remain about the fairness, scope, and long-term implications of a policy that some critics see as racially biased and ideologically driven.
Written By Rodney Mbua
