Department Press Briefing – May 22, 2025

Department Press Briefing
Tammy Bruce, Department Spokesperson
Washington, D.C.
May 22, 2025

[Excerpted …]

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you very much. A couple of questions about South Africa and also Sudan, if you don’t mind. On South Africa, the State Department is empowered legally with deciding when a genocide exists. Has there been an investigation that supports any such contention? Because there is no credible evidence from any authority on the ground there, in their government, in NGOs, or elsewhere that we can find to support an allegation of genocide, that white farmers are at all as disadvantaged as the crime wave there that is a problem for – against blacks in much greater numbers and proportionally even greater numbers than whites?

The fact-checkers have shown that the white crosses were put up as a protest against the criminal movement and against the death of the farmers. The crosses and the burial were all part of a protest against the criminality, not as described. So what information was given to the White House, if any, by the State Department, by the experts in the field, to support what was described as an ambush widely around the world of a South African visitor who had a celebrated background as a leader of a biracial government and someone who was jailed with Mandela and who has been one of the civic leaders of a new South Africa, as troubled as their history has been, as troubled as their current situation?

MS BRUCE: Well, I would say that, as we all knew, of course, the President has been very vocal about his concern about the violence, the nature of what’s been transpiring in South Africa. The president did not come to the United States of America unaware of the position and the posture of the President and of the Secretary of State and of his administration. So I would argue against very much that there was some kind of an ambush. His – South Africa also has been facing a dynamic where there’s been regular criticism, ranging from not just the collapse, in some ways, when it comes to the violence in civil society, but then the referral of Israel with the ICJ for the issues of genocide while ignoring Hamas, cozying up to Iran, the general choices that they’ve made.

In the meantime, also, of passing a law that has allowed them to take the property, to possess property of white Afrikaner farmers with no reason. One element is equity. And so when you’re doing – when you’re passing laws like that that target a group – ostensibly sending a message to the population that these people are – have a price to pay, there’s something that they need to be doing, that they’re – that they deserve to have their land taken; combined with the chants of “Kill the Boer,” the massive rallies where encouragement of violence is prevalent and is at the core of it; in addition to the association South Africa and its president have chosen to make, like with Iran, and their actions against Israel – it creates a picture that is worthwhile having a conversation in the Oval Office. And that is, I think – it is the transparency of the President, certainly, both leaders aware of what the concerns have been and what the arguments have been.

So I don’t think that President Ramaphosa was somehow surprised or shocked at the fact that we have an honest man who’s in the White House, who’s spoken and continued to speak about the violence and the trajectory of South Africa.

QUESTION: Well, what I’m just suggesting is that the facts matter with the credibility of the President. And that the – as it was explained in the Oval Office and it has been explained elsewhere, that is a minority party, a protest party that is legally permissible. But that the white agricultural minister said in the Oval Office: that’s why we joined the coalition, to make sure that they didn’t get into the parliament, that they don’t have power. They’ve been – they’ve been opposed and —

MS BRUCE: Well – and the nature of the weeds of something like that, where that individual – you saw also the larger video of the thousands and thousands of individuals in a stadium framework. And I think that what Americans in the world and what South Africans see is a movement and an attitude that is not only not punished, but reinforced —

QUESTION: But it’s not a majority movement —

MS BRUCE: — but Andrea – reinforced with a law that says, oh, those people that you’re calling to have be killed, yeah, let’s take their land. Who does that? Who does that in the midst of that environment? And I think that when we think about – I’m not certainly going to get ahead of the President. President Trump is someone that the world knows says what he thinks and acts on what he thinks. But I think that it was very clear – and he’s been clear, as has the Secretary – about the problems with South Africa, the nature of the signals that it sends, the quality or lack thereof of life, the fact that we have taken in refugees, very basic standard of looking for asylum, they’ve met that standard, and it’s more than just complaining. It is about acting and finding –

QUESTION: Well, now that you’ve brought that up —

MS BRUCE: — an element that – where we can make a difference for those people.

QUESTION: Taking of the land, first of all, it’s with judicial review when it has happened.

….

MS BRUCE: Now let me – but let me correct you right there, Andrea, and then I’m going to move on. This particular law they tout has not even been implemented yet.

QUESTION: That’s correct.

MS BRUCE: This is – but – so it’s not about judicial review. The law – if you have a judicial review of a law that says there is no standard, well, then you’ll have judicial review of no standard.

QUESTION: But they have not taken land so —

MS BRUCE: All right. But this – and it is in part, I would argue, because of the global attention that has been placed on them because of President Donald Trump’s attitude, his comments, and bringing attention to that framework in general. That is why that hasn’t been acted on. And I – we’ll move on, but I think I’ve been clear.

…..

QUESTION: The U.S. sent some migrants to Djibouti, and I’m wondering are you in negotiations with Djibouti to accept these people or are you still trying to get them to South Sudan, who say they won’t take third-country nationals. What’s the State Department’s role in this?

MS BRUCE: Well, we know that, of course, the Secretary’s been very open about the fact that we are negotiating with a number of countries to facilitate the deportation of people who are here in this country illegally. I can say also, as the Secretary’s noted, that we remain unwavering in our commitment to end illegal and mass migration and bolster America’s border security. I won’t discuss the diplomatic conversations, which clearly is part of this framework, with specific countries here.

I would also point you to Karoline Leavitt’s remarks the hour before my briefing here, where she noted a court order required the flight to go to Djibouti. And I know the White House has more details on the framework involving that. So we’re currently – just in the sense of handling this in a immigration posture, certainly, it is a reflection of our continued attitude and position, and I don’t think that this situation – it’s certainly in the courts, which I can’t remark on. But we’re familiar with having to make our arguments in a variety of arenas, and this is one of those times. And – but I know Karoline had more specifics.

QUESTION: In South Sudan there was a dispute before with them for not taking somebody and you guys stopped issuing visas.

MS BRUCE: Right.

QUESTION: Has that been resolved?

MS BRUCE: Yeah, the visa situation remains the same. Yes, we reacted in that regard because they had confirmed that this one particular person was a citizen, prepared to take him back, and then that did not happen at the last moment, and so our response was when you’re having a diplomatic negotiation with a country you’re going to respond to certain situations. We can say that in the midst of that, in the aftermath, our posture on visas and all of that has not changed, and we have noted, of course, regularly that we monitor their behavior, their attitudes, which of course continues to matter to us. But we also, though, are currently accepting certain diplomatic and official visa applications if eligibility is determined in that regard, and we do that as always on a case-by-case basis. So at this point I have nothing more to report on that except that it is still in place.

…..

QUESTION: On South Africa, you said that the President was also influenced by what South Africa has done in terms of referring the – its role in the ICC.

MS BRUCE: I said we all have been. We all have been. Yes.

QUESTION: Yeah, well, its role in the ICC.

MS BRUCE: The package. Yes.

QUESTION: Just to clarify that. So he was because South Africa referred Israel to the ICC?

MS BRUCE: Well, it’s – I did not say for a specific event, that that influenced him. I don’t speak – I —

QUESTION: Right. I’m just —

MS BRUCE: President Trump is a very clear man.

QUESTION: Right. Okay.

MS BRUCE: It’s – no one has to wonder his position. But I think for all of us who have been looking at the condition of South Africa, it’s not – it’s never just one thing, is it? It’s a number of things.

QUESTION: It’s —

MS BRUCE: I’ll finish. I know you might not be liking my answer, but I’ll finish.

QUESTION: No, I —

MS BRUCE: Said, I – it is a series of things that point to the intention of an administration or of a regime, and it is usually consistent. So if you’re wondering about the nature of whether – why it matters that people are at a huge stadium shouting “kill the Boer,” which are the – for those at home, the Dutch descendants of the settlers of South Africa, and who are white farmers – combined, then, with a government that says, oh, we reject that, they’re not part of our government, but then pass a law that allows the government to take the property of those very same people simply because they’re white farmers.

So that speaks to the intention of a regime, in addition to their behavior with other nations, their foreign policy, how they would view the victims of October 7th, the Jews, as those who should be referred to a criminal court versus Hamas, in addition to having a rather cozy relationship with Iran.

So you don’t need to be in a seminar at Stanford to understand and to recognize the trajectory of South Africa. That is the argument, for those who are looking at that. Again, beyond one issue. And I think those issues speak quite loudly.

….

QUESTION: Yeah – two quick questions – two quick. Do you have any update on the peace deal agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, when we will see this peace deal signed? And also can you tell us if both presidents – President Ramaphosa of South Africa and President Trump – finally managed to overcome the difference and we will see United States and South Africa working together?

MS BRUCE: Well, I’ll answer that one first. I think the meeting with the South African president in the Oval Office speaks to President Trump’s generosity, and the fact that any leader feels comfortable going to meet him, even with difficult conversations and sometimes the problems that happen between two nations with different attitudes. So the fact that it’s President Trump means, of course, there’s always hope. It means, of course, there’ll always be something for the future.

And speaking of the DRC and Rwanda, another very good example of something that has been a generational issue that we are – again, it’s a long process, but they are taking the steps that we’ve asked of them to take, and that’s also very promising. We can look for an update when it comes to what the new dates are and what else is expected. But what I can tell you is is that that continues. Another great change in dynamic – sometimes, though, people forget and don’t continue to ask – and I appreciate that you did – because there isn’t any drama, because there – that things are changing for the better. So it causes less news, right? It – there’s less interest. But it’s worth following up as we watch these particular issues resolve, as of course the news is taken up by other issues.

But this administration is committed across the board to peace and prosperity, and it seems the world is giving them a lot of chances to act on that.

For full text of briefing, please follow this link.

Source: MyPR International