Keypoints:
- US bill responds to SA’s ICJ case against Israel
- Seeks to cut aid and sanction South African officials
- Pretoria says its foreign policy is rules-based
A PROPOSED bill in the United States Congress seeks to sever direct aid to South Africa and impose targeted sanctions on its political leaders, citing Pretoria’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and growing diplomatic ties with Iran and Hamas.
The draft legislation, introduced by Republican Representative Greg Steube on June 17, is titled the Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025. It accuses South Africa of waging ‘lawfare’ against Israel and promoting what it terms an ‘antisemitic narrative under the guise of international law.’
‘It is clear as day that the Government of South Africa is unfairly targeting the State of Israel and inciting hostility towards the United States and our allies,’ Steube said in a statement.
Sanctions and aid freeze proposed
The bill proposes an immediate suspension of all direct US assistance to South Africa—excluding humanitarian and public health support—unless the government halts support for legal actions targeting Israel, reforms its institutions to combat corruption, and strengthens diplomatic cooperation with the United States.
The legislation also grants the US president authority to impose sanctions, under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on any South African official determined to have promoted antisemitic policies or misused international legal bodies to undermine Israel.
Steube argued the bill was a direct response to South Africa’s legal actions at the ICJ, its hosting of Hamas officials following the October 7 attacks, and its new economic cooperation agreements with Iran, particularly in the oil sector.
Analysts warn of serious consequences
Political analyst Siseko Maposa, director at Surgetower Associates, said the bill’s passage is uncertain, but warned that its symbolic and diplomatic significance is substantial.
‘This bill exemplifies President Trump and the Republican faction’s continued efforts to punish South Africa for its principled positions on international justice – particularly regarding Israel,’ he said.
‘What distinguishes this initiative from prior attempts, however, is its heavy enforcement mechanisms, which would inflict tangible consequences for South Africa if enacted.’
Maposa noted that between 2012 and 2021, South Africa received an estimated $6bn in US foreign direct investment and significant development aid channelled through US agencies. He added that Republican divisions could hinder the bill’s passage, particularly after recent party setbacks such as the failed vote on the so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’.
‘South Africa’s best chance may lie in lobbying moderate Republicans to oppose this draconian overreach,’ he said.
Pretoria monitoring developments
The South African government had not issued a formal response by the time of publication. However, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) confirmed it is tracking the legislation through official diplomatic channels.
DIRCO spokesperson Chrispin Phiri acknowledged the sovereignty of US legislative processes and said South Africa’s embassy in Washington D.C. is monitoring developments.
On lobbying efforts in the US, Phiri noted that public information links some of the bill’s sponsors to support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which funds candidates based on their backing for the US-Israel relationship.
‘There is public information indicating that some House Representatives who have introduced bills may fall within this category of politicians,’ he said.
Phiri reiterated that South Africa’s foreign policy remains non-aligned and grounded in constitutional and international legal principles.
‘We reemphasise that our foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism, multilateralism, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of a just and equitable world order. These are universal values, not ideological preferences,’ he said.
Israel-Palestine case remains key fault line
Phiri added that South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel was not ideologically driven but reflected its commitment to a rules-based international order and to holding all states—powerful or not—accountable under international law.
He said the decision to bring the case stemmed from a desire to protect vulnerable populations and uphold legal standards, not from any alignment with Hamas or Iran.
As the bill makes its way through Congress, Pretoria faces a narrowing window to rally support within the US political system. With ANC and Democratic Alliance leaders unavailable for comment, much of the diplomatic burden appears to fall to DIRCO.
‘This internal Republican division may be its sole reprieve – one Pretoria must seize by urgently lobbying moderate Republican legislators to oppose the bill outright,’ warned Maposa.
