Department Press Briefing
\nTammy Bruce, Department Spokesperson
\nWashington, D.C.
\nMay 22, 2025<\/p>\n
[Excerpted …]\n
QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Hi. Thank you very much. A couple of questions about South Africa and also Sudan, if you don\u2019t 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 \u2013 against blacks in much greater numbers and proportionally even greater numbers than whites?<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, 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\u2019s 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 \u2013 South Africa also has been facing a dynamic where there\u2019s 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\u2019ve made.<\/p>\n 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\u2019re doing \u2013 when you\u2019re passing laws like that that target a group \u2013 ostensibly sending a message to the population that these people are \u2013 have a price to pay, there\u2019s something that they need to be doing, that they\u2019re \u2013 that they deserve to have their land taken; combined with the chants of \u201cKill the Boer,\u201d 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 \u2013 it creates a picture that is worthwhile having a conversation in the Oval Office. And that is, I think \u2013 it is the transparency of the President, certainly, both leaders aware of what the concerns have been and what the arguments have been.<\/p>\n So I don\u2019t think that President Ramaphosa was somehow surprised or shocked at the fact that we have an honest man who\u2019s in the White House, who\u2019s spoken and continued to speak about the violence and the trajectory of South Africa.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, what I\u2019m just suggesting is that the facts matter with the credibility of the President. And that the \u2013 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\u2019s why we joined the coalition, to make sure that they didn\u2019t get into the parliament, that they don\u2019t have power. They\u2019ve been \u2013 they\u2019ve been opposed and \u2014<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Well \u2013 and the nature of the weeds of something like that, where that individual \u2013 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 \u2014<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0But it\u2019s not a majority movement \u2014<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 but Andrea \u2013 reinforced with a law that says, oh, those people that you\u2019re calling to have be killed, yeah, let\u2019s take their land. Who does that? Who does that in the midst of that environment? And I think that when we think about \u2013 I\u2019m 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 \u2013 and he\u2019s been clear, as has the Secretary \u2013 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\u2019ve met that standard, and it\u2019s more than just complaining. It is about acting and finding \u2013<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, now that you\u2019ve brought that up \u2014<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 an element that \u2013 where we can make a difference for those people.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Taking of the land, first of all, it\u2019s with judicial review when it has happened.<\/p>\n \u2026.<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Now let me \u2013 but let me correct you right there, Andrea, and then I\u2019m going to move on. This particular law they tout has not even been implemented yet.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0That\u2019s correct.<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0This is \u2013 but \u2013 so it\u2019s not about judicial review. The law \u2013 if you have a judicial review of a law that says there is no standard, well, then you\u2019ll have judicial review of no standard.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0But they have not taken land so \u2014<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0All right. But this \u2013 and it is in part, I would argue, because of the global attention that has been placed on them because of President Donald Trump\u2019s attitude, his comments, and bringing attention to that framework in general. That is why that hasn\u2019t been acted on. And I \u2013 we\u2019ll move on, but I think I\u2019ve been clear.<\/p>\n …..<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0The U.S. sent some migrants to Djibouti, and I\u2019m 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\u2019t take third-country nationals. What\u2019s the State Department\u2019s role in this?<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, we know that, of course, the Secretary\u2019s 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\u2019s noted, that we remain unwavering in our commitment to end illegal and mass migration and bolster America\u2019s border security. I won\u2019t discuss the diplomatic conversations, which clearly is part of this framework, with specific countries here.<\/p>\n I would also point you to Karoline Leavitt\u2019s 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\u2019re currently \u2013 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\u2019t think that this situation \u2013 it\u2019s certainly in the courts, which I can\u2019t remark on. But we\u2019re familiar with having to make our arguments in a variety of arenas, and this is one of those times. And \u2013 but I know Karoline had more specifics.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0In South Sudan there was a dispute before with them for not taking somebody and you guys stopped issuing visas.<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Right.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Has that been resolved?<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah, 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\u2019re having a diplomatic negotiation with a country you\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n \u2026..<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0On South Africa, you said that the President was also influenced by what South Africa has done in terms of referring the \u2013 its role in the ICC.<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0I said we all have been. We all have been. Yes.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah, well, its role in the ICC.<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0The package. Yes.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Just to clarify that. So he was because South Africa referred Israel to the ICC?<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, it\u2019s \u2013 I did not say for a specific event, that that influenced him. I don\u2019t speak \u2013 I \u2014<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Right. I\u2019m just \u2014<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0President Trump is a very clear man.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Right. Okay.<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0It\u2019s \u2013 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\u2019s not \u2013 it\u2019s never just one thing, is it? It\u2019s a number of things.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0It\u2019s \u2014<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0I\u2019ll finish. I know you might not be liking my answer, but I\u2019ll finish.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0No, I \u2014<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Said, I \u2013 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\u2019re wondering about the nature of whether \u2013 why it matters that people are at a huge stadium shouting \u201ckill the Boer,\u201d which are the \u2013 for those at home, the Dutch descendants of the settlers of South Africa, and who are white farmers \u2013 combined, then, with a government that says, oh, we reject that, they\u2019re 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\u2019re white farmers.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n So you don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n \u2026.<\/p>\n QUESTION:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah \u2013 two quick questions \u2013 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 \u2013 President Ramaphosa of South Africa and President Trump \u2013 finally managed to overcome the difference and we will see United States and South Africa working together?<\/p>\n MS BRUCE:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, I\u2019ll answer that one first. I think the meeting with the South African president in the Oval Office speaks to President Trump\u2019s 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\u2019s President Trump means, of course, there\u2019s always hope. It means, of course, there\u2019ll always be something for the future.<\/p>\n And speaking of the DRC and Rwanda, another very good example of something that has been a generational issue that we are \u2013 again, it\u2019s a long process, but they are taking the steps that we\u2019ve asked of them to take, and that\u2019s 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 \u2013 sometimes, though, people forget and don\u2019t continue to ask \u2013 and I appreciate that you did \u2013 because there isn\u2019t any drama, because there \u2013 that things are changing for the better. So it causes less news, right? It \u2013 there\u2019s less interest. But it\u2019s worth following up as we watch these particular issues resolve, as of course the news is taken up by other issues.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n