A bipartisan group in the US House of Representatives has introduced a bill proposing sanctions on South African officials and a review of bilateral aid, citing concerns over Pretoria’s recent foreign policy moves.
The proposed “Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025″ aims to suspend direct aid to South Africa, excluding humanitarian and public health funding. It would also empower the president to impose targeted sanctions on leaders deemed responsible for alleged anti-Israel statements, legal action at the International Court of Justice, and closer ties with Iran and Hamas.
Representative Greg Steube, a Republican sponsor, accused South African leaders of using international platforms to wage “lawfare” against Israel. He described their conduct as overtly hostile to US interests, reinforcing the measure’s intent to impose “serious consequences.”
Under the draft legislation, Washington would require Pretoria to cease formal support for ICJ proceedings against Israel, implement reforms to combat corruption, and demonstrate improved cooperation with the US. Failure to meet these conditions could trigger aid suspensions and sanctions.
While the bill reflects growing Republican-led criticism in Congress, experts warn its legislative future is uncertain. Any aid suspension would also have trade implications, potentially spanning AGOA—a program granting South African exports duty-free access to US markets.
Political analysts emphasize that the bill’s success hinges on gaining traction in both chambers. Although the Republican majority may lend initial momentum, internal fractures and procedural hurdles such as filibuster risk in the Senate could stall its progress.
In Pretoria, South African officials are monitoring developments closely. A spokesperson from the foreign ministry reaffirmed the country’s commitment to an independent, non-aligned foreign policy rooted in international law, and acknowledged ongoing diplomatic engagement with Washington. The government maintains that its ICJ case reflects a principled response to alleged violations of the Genocide Convention.
As negotiations over the bill’s fate continue, many businesses and analysts at home and abroad are watching closely, given the stakes tied to aid flows, trade access, and diplomatic relations between the two nations.
