Why This Article Was Flagged for Fact-Checking
A recent article published by The New York Times reported that the Trump administration is preparing to receive the first white Afrikaners as refugees from South Africa. While the piece outlines alleged discrimination faced by Afrikaners and U.S. efforts to prioritize their resettlement, it raised user concerns about whether Afrikaners are truly being oppressed and ignored by South Africa’s government—despite their economic contributions. Our fact-check unpacks the key claims and the broader context to assess the accuracy of this narrative.
Historical Background on Afrikaners and Land Reform
Afrikaners are a white, Dutch-descended minority group in South Africa. Under apartheid, which officially ended in 1994, they were part of the ruling elite that controlled politics, economy, and land—while Black South Africans were brutally dispossessed. After the end of apartheid, South Africa instituted land reform to rectify past injustices, but progress has been slow. Recent debates over land expropriation without compensation—intended to address inequality—have triggered international controversy. These proposals are supported within South Africa as a tool for justice, but have been denounced by some foreign actors as discriminatory against white landowners.
Examining the Claims
Claim 1: “Many Afrikaners say they are denied jobs, targeted by criminals and ignored by the government because of their race.”
While anecdotal reports exist of Afrikaners expressing social and economic insecurity, broader data does not support widespread racial discrimination against Afrikaners by the South African government. According to Statistics South Africa, white South Africans—including Afrikaners—still rank highest in income and employment opportunities compared to Black, Colored, and Indian groups. White households earned over five times more than Black households on average in 2023. Additionally, affirmative action policies do exist, but these are aimed at correcting centuries of exclusion rather than imposing systematic bias. Experts say concerns about crime impact all communities in South Africa, not just white minority groups.
Source: Stats SA 2023 Income & Employment Report.
Claim 2: “The Trump administration identified 100 Afrikaners who potentially could be approved… focusing on white Afrikaner farmers.”
This claim holds up against available information. According to internal memos cited by The New York Times and confirmed via U.S. State Department refugee operations, preliminary screenings of South African cases began in early 2025. While refugee status is typically granted based on persecution due to race, religion, nationality, or political opinion, prioritizing a group based primarily on race—white Afrikaners in this case—is unprecedented in U.S. refugee protocol. Critics have warned that this policy appears to use racial metrics to justify repopulating refugee slots that had been frozen during Trump’s earlier terms. Nonetheless, the 100-person figure is an accurate reflection of pilot-phase deliberations.
Source: U.S. State Department – Refugee Admissions Program.
Claim 3: “The government passed a law allowing land seizure from private owners without providing compensation.”
This statement is misleading. As of May 2025, no national law has passed in South Africa that legalizes land seizure without compensation across the board. What has occurred is an amendment process to Section 25 of the South African Constitution, which has been debated in Parliament since 2018. The process either stalled or evolved with strict limitations built in. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has reiterated that land reform would proceed by legal and constitutional means, and private ownership would be respected. The phrase “no compensation” is legally complex and would only apply in exceptional cases.
Source: Parliament of South Africa.
Claim 4: “Trump suspended the refugee resettlement program upon taking office.”
This claim is mostly true. During his first term, President Trump sharply curtailed refugee admissions, issuing executive orders that temporarily halted the program and reduced the annual refugee cap to historic lows—from 110,000 under Obama in 2017 to under 18,000 by 2020. However, the infrastructure was not entirely shut down. Funding to some State Department-linked organizations was frozen, which led to reliance on alternate programs such as those operated under the Department of Health and Human Services. It is accurate that HHS now plays a more significant role in this administration’s new refugee efforts for Afrikaners.
Source: Migration Policy Institute.
Final Verdict on This Article
The New York Times article blends factual developments with misleading framing. While it is true that the Trump administration has initiated steps to grant refugee status to a limited number of white Afrikaners, the article repeatedly implies that Afrikaners are broadly disadvantaged and neglected due to race—yet national data suggests they remain among the most economically advantaged demographics. Moreover, the article omits important legal context around South Africa’s land reform policies. Though the reporting itself draws from verifiable documents, some claims lack critical nuance. Overall, the piece contains partially accurate reporting with missing context and selective emphasis that could mislead readers regarding the broader situation in South Africa.
Help Combat Misinformation Today
Don’t let headlines mislead you—get the facts straight. Download the free DBUNK app to explore verified truth behind major news stories, or follow us on social media to stay ahead of misinformation.
Read the Original Article
You can view the full article that we fact-checked by visiting this link:
Original New York Times Article
