Human rights according to Trump: From the South African myth to the Gaza catastrophe

In a world where humanitarian and political crises are spreading with unprecedented speed and intensity, human rights concepts have increasingly become political tools in the hands of global powers. Donald Trump, the current President of the United States, is a prime example of this political exploitation. On one hand, he has revived undocumented and controversial narratives about a “white genocide” in South Africa to attract public attention, while on the other, he unconditionally supports Israel’s extensive attacks on the Gaza Strip, which have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the destruction of vital infrastructure. Trump’s selective approach to human rights issues is not motivated by humanitarian concern but by advancing political interests and securing the support of specific electoral bases.

This duality not only reflects the instrumentalisation of ethical values but is part of a broader pattern of politicising human rights on a global scale. In a world facing challenges such as poverty, displacement, and widespread violence, such approaches primarily undermine trust in the human rights discourse. Moreover, using human rights concepts for political objectives neither helps resolve crises nor reduces tensions; instead, it can exacerbate social and political conflicts.

The controversial South African narrative: A political myth

In recent years, Trump has repeatedly referred to the issue of “white genocide” in South Africa, presenting it as a human rights crisis. This claim is rooted in an old and discredited theory alleging that white farmers (Afrikaners) in South Africa are systematically targeted by the Black majority for violence and murder. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, this narrative has been promoted by certain groups as part of a “white victimization” discourse in right-wing circles. During a diplomatic meeting with the South African president, Trump presented images as evidence of this “genocide,” which were later proven to be fake and originated from mass graves in the Democratic Republic of Congo, unrelated to South Africa.

READ: Israel kills 80 Palestinians in Gaza on Wednesday; most were seeking food

Of the six reported farm murders in the first quarter of 2025, five victims were Black and only one was white. These statistics clearly contradict claims of systematic targeting of whites. South Africa continues to grapple with the legacies of apartheid, including deep economic and social inequalities. Land reform efforts, designed to redistribute agricultural lands to the Black majority, aim to address these disparities. However, these reforms have often been exploited as a pretext for “genocide” claims.

This narrative aligns with white supremacist groups’ agendas and is supported by influential figures seeking to encourage Afrikaner migration to the United States. The focus on South Africa is part of a political strategy to distort the complex social and political realities of the country. South Africa faces challenges such as widespread poverty, high unemployment, and social tensions arising from historic inequalities. False claims of “white genocide” ignore these issues and fuel racial and political tensions. This approach has succeeded in attracting the attention of far-right groups in America, who use the narrative to bolster racist discourses and instill fear in their electoral bases.

Position on Gaza: Supporting a humanitarian disaster

In contrast, Trump’s stance on the Gaza crisis is completely different and contradicts his South African claims. Following the intensification of Israel’s attacks on Gaza in 2023, continuing into 2025, he proposed a controversial plan for direct US control of the territory. He called Gaza the “Riviera of the Middle East,” claiming that major investments could transform it into an economic hub. The plan involved forcibly relocating more than two million Palestinians from Gaza, an act widely condemned as a violation of international law, including human rights conventions.

This plan is not only unrealistic but also a form of neo-colonialism that seeks to cement Israeli dominance over Gaza under the guise of economic development. By June 2025, over 50,000 Palestinians had been killed in Israeli attacks, and more than 80 percent of Gaza’s infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, and homes—had been destroyed. These attacks have caused imminent famine, massive displacement, and the deaths of thousands of children. Yet, Trump has ignored these catastrophes and expressed unwavering support for Israel’s military policies. He has not even acknowledged the humanitarian disaster in his statements, instead emphasizing the need to strengthen the strategic alliance with Israel.

This double standard—where a fictional crisis in South Africa is headline news while documented atrocities in Gaza are ignored—is a blatant example of political selectivity in human rights issues. This choice not only reflects geopolitical priorities but also reveals disregard for fundamental human rights principles, such as the right to life and security, in regions that do not align with certain political interests. Such selectivity has intensified global distrust in human rights discourse and weakened the international community’s ability to respond to real crises.

Politicising human rights: Instrumentalisation and consequences

Trump’s contradictory approach is not accidental but part of a calculated strategy to politically exploit human rights concepts. His approach to human rights is less about ethical values and more about domestic political mobilization and securing support from his right-wing base. In this framework, South Africa has become a symbolic stage for the “white victimisation” narrative, while Gaza, due to its strategic alliance with Israel, is effectively marginalised.

READ: UN says Israel rejected 11 of its 18 humanitarian coordination requests in Gaza

By highlighting a fabricated crisis in South Africa, Trump not only diverts public attention from the human catastrophe in Gaza but also reinforces racist discourses within the US This approach, by instilling fear of a “threat to whites” among his voters, has consolidated support among conservative and far-right groups. Conversely, ignoring Gaza’s tragedy prioritizes geopolitical interests and alliances over any human rights considerations.

This instrumental use of human rights has widespread consequences. In South Africa, excessive emphasis on false narratives like “white genocide” fuels political instability and undermines efforts for just land reforms. These narratives distort the country’s social and economic realities and hinder constructive dialogue on its real challenges. In Gaza, unconditional support for Israeli military policies perpetuates cycles of violence and human rights violations, reducing prospects for lasting peace.

Furthermore, this approach has long-term implications for international relations. When human rights concepts are selectively employed for political motives, the global community’s ability to build consensus on human rights issues diminishes. This can reduce international cooperation in areas like humanitarian aid, international criminal justice, and conflict resolution. Ultimately, such strategies weaken global human rights values and increase skepticism toward international institutions.

Donald Trump’s approach to human rights in South Africa and Gaza is a glaring example of contradiction and instrumentalisation of ethical concepts. By exaggerating a fictitious crisis in South Africa, lacking credible evidence, he diverts public attention from well-documented, widespread atrocities in Gaza. This duality stems not from ignorance but from a political calculation aimed at securing support from specific groups and advancing geopolitical interests.

His claims about South Africa are rooted in distorted realities, while the human disasters in Gaza are clearly documented. This selective approach not only damages America’s credibility in defending human rights but also fuels global distrust in human rights discourse. In a world facing complex humanitarian challenges, principled and impartial approaches are more necessary than ever—approaches that Trump’s current stance fundamentally contradicts.

OPINION: How humanitarian aid became a tool to empty Gaza

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.