South African President Cyril Ramaphosa recently visited the United States and met President Donald Trump aiming to reset the US-South Africa relations. Ramaphosa discussed trade proposals and critical minerals deals, including possible LNG purchases, during his recent visit. The visit was seen as a step toward improving bilateral ties, despite lingering divergences and challenges, including the US decision to boycott this year’s G20 summit, which is being hosted under South Africa’s presidency. However, despite South Africa’s efforts to improve ties, Trump has so far indicated that he has no plans to attend this year’s summit. South Africa is the first African country to hold the presidency of the G20, and this year’s agenda focuses on inclusive economic growth, food security and AI-driven sustainable development while prioritizing Africa’s development within the Global South framework. Ahead of his meeting with Ramaphosa, Trump claimed that the G20 summit would be nothing without the United States. Trump’s decision to skip the summit could further strain US engagement with the forum and undermine the momentum of South Africa’s G20 presidency.
Ever since Trump returned, US-South Africa relations have faced various challenges and setbacks. This was evident during Ramaphosa’s recent visit, as during the press conference at the White House, Trump brought up claims of white genocide and land seizures in South Africa, which Ramaphosa rejected. In February, an executive order from Washington froze US aid to South Africa, marking a downturn in bilateral relations. The situation escalated in March when South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool was expelled from the United States. Moreover, South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice has drawn sharp criticism from the United States, contributing to the rift between the two countries. South Africa is widely viewed as representing the Global South’s perspective in opposition to the US position on the Gaza war. The recent developments in US-South Africa relations reflect the growing diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
It is in this context that Trump has decided to skip this year’s G20 Summit. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had skipped the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting. This was seen as unusual as the United States typically plays a leading role in G20 financial and monetary policy discussions. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also skipped the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg, and he recently reiterated that the United States would not participate in the G20 Summit scheduled to take place in November this year. Rubio has cited South Africa’s “anti-white” policies and “anti-American” agenda as the reasons for the US decision to skip the summit.
South Africa’s International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola described the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Johannesburg as a success, despite the absence of Rubio, which drew widespread attention. Lamola, along with Ramaphosa, rejected any notion that Rubio’s absence amounted to a US boycott of the summit. Ramaphosa’s government has downplayed the absence of Rubio primarily to project the G20 meeting as a diplomatic success and to downplay the tensions between both countries. Ramaphosa said, “It’s important that the United States should continue playing a key role…. I want to hand over the presidency of the G20 to President Trump in November, and I said he needs to be there. I don’t want to hand over the presidency of the G20 to an empty chair”. Opposition leaders like Julius Malema have criticized Ramaphosa for yielding to pressure and coercive tactics from Trump. Ramaphosa has said that this year’s summit will focus on enhancing the economic prospects for Africa and has framed South Africa’s presidency to leverage the country’s global status while addressing domestic criticisms.
South Africa’s diplomatic standing faces a critical test amid Trump’s potential boycott of the G20 summit. While the US absence from the summit could undermine the perceived legitimacy and influence, South Africa could alternatively utilize this moment to strengthen ties with the broader Global South by implicitly framing the US withdrawal as symptomatic of a wider Western retreat from multilateral engagement. However, so far, the Ramaphosa government has only tried to downplay Trump’s threats, framing these as premature in an attempt to keep diplomatic channels open and encourage Trump’s participation in the summit. Trump’s threat to not participate in the G20 summit is consistent with his style of diplomacy which has often favored personal, bilateral engagements over multilateral forums. His earlier decisions, including the withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reflect a broader skepticism toward international institutions and frameworks that do not align with his agenda. Such a move would not only weaken the efficacy of the G20 as a global governance platform but also signal a retreat of US leadership from key multilateral initiatives.
Trump’s withdrawal would also hinder collective efforts to address pressing global challenges, particularly at a time when multilateral cooperation is urgent amid increasing traditional and non-traditional threats and challenges. Consensus-building is extremely significant now amid shared global challenges such as climate change, public health crises and economic instability. These complex issues transcend national borders and demand coordinated responses coupled with shared responsibility. Trump’s decision to skip the summit would invariably undermine the consensus achieved during the summit — as without the United States on board, decisions would be less meaningful on the ground. This is all the more consequential considering the fact that the United States remains the world’s largest economy, a major source of foreign aid and investment and wields immense influence in global governance structures.
The recent developments reflect the widening rift in approaches to global challenges and the deepening geopolitical divide between the Global North and South. Such developments further polarize the international landscape, undermining the prospects for inclusive cooperation. At the same time, the absence of strong Western leadership may open the door for other powers like China, Russia, India and Brazil to expand their strategic influence. China has already criticized the US withdrawal from the WHO and skipping the G20 Summit as signs of unilateralism by the United States, and Beijing sees this as part of Washington’s broader attempt to reshape the global order around US priorities, rather than through inclusive cooperation. Moreover, at the recent G20 Finance Ministers meeting, China stressed dialogue over confrontation in trade disputes and warned against economic fragmentation. Beijing has leveraged its diplomatic clout and strong economic ties to counter US coercive policies, projecting itself as an alternate power that champions cooperation, stability, and institutional reform — strategically positioning itself within broader global narratives as a counterpoint to what it characterizes as the United States’ protectionist and unilateral approach.
In the current context, Trump’s threat to skip the G20 summit marks a potential inflection point. While the decision to boycott this year’s summit stems primarily from disagreements with South Africa, it nonetheless sends a broader message to the Global South and raises concerns about the US approach to forums like the G20. The agenda and priorities of the Global South will then be increasingly shaped by their own regional imperatives and collective interests, potentially leading to alternative frameworks of cooperation that challenge Western-dominated institutions and narratives.
