Worst Case Scenario: What US Tensions Mean for SA Jobs

When a foreign minister tells citizens to prepare for a “worst case scenario”, the question stops being one of diplomatic protocol. It becomes a question of livelihoods: jobs tied to exports, tourists and the spending they bring, farmers who depend on markets, and the investment that sustains employment. The recent US visa arrangements, followed by the ambassador’s belligerent remarks, have pushed the SA/US relationship back into the spotlight, and the stakes for ordinary South Africans are considerable.

Writing in March, analyst JP Landman noted the starkly contrasting ways the US and China treat South Africa, the capture of US policy towards Pretoria by the “Afrikaner genocide” narrative, and the five demands Washington has put to Pretoria, which the South African government cannot agree to. His conclusion then was deadlock. Developments since have only reinforced it. Relations, he observes, are now more frigid than they were in March.

What matters for the public is whether this can be turned around, particularly with the appointment of Roelf Meyer as ambassador to the US and the evident willingness of the Americans to receive him. Landman sets out three scenarios, and each carries different consequences for citizens.

The first is continuation of the deadlock and further deterioration. Foreign minister Ronald Lamola, attending the UN in New York, has said as much, warning South Africans to prepare for a “worst case scenario”. The driving logics are clear: Trump’s disdain for South Africa, re-confirmed in his exclusion of the country from G20 proceedings, which Landman describes as vindictive and petty; the US’s five demands, which the government cannot realistically accept; and the ambassador’s threats of more punitive measures. On this path, relations keep deteriorating, and the public should be under no illusion about the direction of travel.

The second scenario is what Landman calls the “joker in the pack”: critical minerals. Access to minerals is a high priority for the US, and South Africa has several of them. About 60% of South African exports to the US are exempt from Trump’s tariffs, mostly minerals and mineral products. The US clearly wants them. As early as May, the Financial Times reported on a meeting in Johannesburg attended by twenty-five officials from both countries and businesspeople, focused on rare earths. Rare earth projects are now being developed in South Africa. Could a transactional Washington drop its insistence on the five demands in exchange for access? If so, the deadlock could end and ties improve. The obstacle is that South Africa has already signed a critical minerals agreement with the EU, a long-time reliable and trustworthy partner. Divvying up the rare earths cake between the US and the EU will be challenging.

By contrast, the third scenario is the one Meyer and investment envoy Alister Ruiters describe as “partnership beyond politics”. On the political level there is arrogance, belligerence and threats; on another level, business and tourism relationships keep expanding. In the six months since March, five more US companies have announced investment and expansion decisions in South Africa totalling about R13 billion, with several more billions invested by US companies buying South African companies to expand their operations here. The most prominent was Alcoa’s purchase of the Hillside and Bayside aluminium smelters, part of Alcoa’s deal to buy South32’s global aluminium assets. Two things stand out: the list of more than 500 US companies operating in South Africa is expanding, not shrinking; and neither BEE requirements nor the “Afrikaner genocide” narrative is keeping new entrants out.

Many US companies enjoy level 1 and 2 BEE status, and multinationals can secure their status through “equity equivalent investments”, or EEIPs. Amazon, for example, has committed over multiple years to buy 1.95 million tonnes of carbon removal credits from a spekboom project in the Eastern Cape. The project has already created 1,600 jobs, aims to restore thousands of hectares of spekboom vegetation, and creates an extra income stream for farmers and game reserves on whose land the spekboom is planted.

Tourism tells a similar story. In May and June this year, more than 40,000 US tourists came to South Africa each month, comfortably more than 1,000 arrivals per day. Although not the largest group by numbers, US tourists spend more here than visitors from any other country. As Trump might put it: politics ugly, investment and tourism beautiful.

Meanwhile, the agricultural data for 2025 shows what deterioration actually costs, and how it can be countered. Exports to the US plunged by 3% in the first half of the year, by 11% in the third quarter and a full 39% in the fourth, with Trump’s tariffs taking full effect from August. Yet overall agricultural exports are up 10%, thanks to new consignments to Africa, the EU and the BRICS+ countries. On 8 September, agricultural minister Willie Aucamp signed an access protocol for South African fresh cherries to China. As Landman puts it, the farmers are showing the way.

China’s engagement continues on other fronts too. In August, at a South Africa-China Electricity and Energy Investment Conference, a memorandum of understanding was signed on radioactive waste disposal; six Chinese companies committed to manufacturing transformers, wires, pylons and batteries in South Africa; and work started on a SA-China energy investment partnership.

The takeaways, then, are these. The likely scenario for SA/US relations is continued deadlock and political deterioration, while investment and tourism continue. Access to critical minerals may yet produce a more constructive relationship, but that remains up in the air. Agriculture demonstrates that export diversification can succeed. And the contrast between how China and the US treat South Africa has become even starker than it was in March. For South Africans, the practical lesson is that while governments quarrel, the work of jobs, trade and tourism goes on, and diversification is the surest protection against a relationship that may yet get worse before it gets better.