Trump to NBC on Afrikaner Refugees: “That Is Truly Fake News — They Ask Pointed Questions, They’re Statements”; Trump on SA: “End of the Country If Not Resolved — Stadium with 100,000 People, That’s a Big Movement”

In a contentious May 2025 press interaction before his Oval Office meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, President Trump addressed both the Afrikaner refugee program and the U.S.-South Africa relationship. When an NBC reporter demanded an explanation for “welcoming white Afrikaners” while “Afghans, Haitians” had lost protected status, Trump dismissed: “This is a group — NBC — that is truly fake news. They ask a lot of questions in a very pointed way. They’re not questions, they’re statements. We’ve had tremendous complaints about Africa, about other countries too, from people.” On the relationship: “If the Afrikaner resettlement issue is resolved, it has to be resolved. It should be resolved. It will be the end of the country if it’s not resolved.” He cited stadium rallies: “When you see a stadium with 100,000 people in it, that means it’s more than just a little movement. It’s a pretty big movement in South Africa.” He was flanked by South African golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen: “They feel so strongly they wanted to be here on behalf of South Africa."

"Truly Fake News”

The NBC reporter’s framing was the kind of loaded question Trump regularly attacked.

“Can you explain to Americans why it’s appropriate to welcome white African hunters here,” the reporter began, “when other refugees like Afghans, Haitians, Venezuelans, Asians have all had their protected status grew up with?”

Trump’s response was direct: “This is a group NBC that is truly fake news. They ask a lot of questions in a very pointed way. They’re not questions, they’re statements.”

The pattern Trump identified was real. Reporters at some outlets had developed a style of combining multiple loaded premises into single questions, where the form was interrogative but the content was accusatory. The NBC question combined:

The premise that welcoming Afrikaners was racially preferential
The premise that other refugee groups had been unjustly denied protection
The implication that the Trump administration’s policy was discriminatory

Answering such a question required addressing multiple embedded claims rather than providing a simple factual response. Trump’s rejection of the question as a “statement” captured this dynamic.

The Substantive Response

Trump did provide substantive content despite dismissing the question’s framing.

“We’ve had tremendous complaints about Africa, about other countries too, from people,” Trump said. “They say there’s a lot of bad things going on in Africa and that’s what we’re going to be discussing today.”

He pivoted to a broader immigration frame: “When you say we don’t take others, all you have to do is take a look at the southern border. We let 21 million people come through our border. Totally unchecked, totally unvetted.”

He described who had come: “They came from all over the world. In many cases they’re criminals, they come from prisons, they come from mental institutions, they come from street gangs, they’re drug dealers.”

He described his administration’s actions: “So don’t say that we didn’t take them, we’re taking them, we’re trying to get them out as fast as we can.”

The “21 million” figure referred to cumulative Biden-era border crossings and encounters. The exact number was contested, with estimates varying based on methodology and time period. But it was clear that during the Biden administration, several million migrants had entered the United States without proper immigration processing.

Trump’s framing inverted the NBC premise. The United States had taken in enormous numbers of people from many countries — far more than could reasonably be called restrictive immigration policy. The Trump administration’s approach was to:

Secure the border against unauthorized entry
Deport those who had entered without authorization
Process legitimate refugee claims through proper channels
Welcome specific groups (like Afrikaners) who faced genuine persecution

This was not restrictive immigration policy. It was selective immigration policy that prioritized legal process and legitimate refugee claims.

The Venezuela Supreme Court Win

Trump mentioned a recent legal victory.

“We’re doing record business on that and we just want a big case where we’re allowed to send back hundreds of criminals to Venezuela,” Trump said. “Just won that today in the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court case (likely Vance v. ACLU or similar litigation) had addressed the administration’s authority to deport Venezuelan nationals, including those who had entered illegally and then engaged in criminal conduct. Venezuelan citizens had been difficult to deport during the Biden administration because Venezuela had frequently refused to accept returned nationals, and the Biden administration had been unwilling to apply pressure to achieve deportations.

The Trump administration had addressed this through multiple mechanisms:

Using CECOT in El Salvador as a deportation destination for gang members
Applying economic pressure on Venezuela to accept returns
Invoking the Alien Enemies Act where applicable
Litigating against court rulings that had blocked deportations

The Supreme Court ruling — allowing “hundreds of criminals” to be returned — was a specific legal victory for the administration’s deportation efforts.

”End of the Country If Not Resolved”

Stuart Rice, a broadcaster, asked the strategic question.

“If this Africa resetting and issue is resolved,” Rice asked, “what is the potential for the future looking relationship between the United States?”

Trump’s response was unusually blunt: “It’s got to be resolved. It should be resolved.”

He cited the scale of South African protests: “I mean, it’s a little bit bad when you see a stadium with 100,000 people in it because that means it’s more than just a little movement.”

He made the dire assessment: “It’s a pretty big movement in South Africa. So it has to be resolved. It’ll be the end of the country.”

He clarified the alternative: “That is the potential for the relationship moving forward.”

The “end of the country” framing was striking. Trump was stating that if the South African government did not address the issues regarding white farmers and the land expropriation policies, the country itself would collapse. This was not diplomatic language; it was direct challenge to Ramaphosa about the trajectory South Africa was on.

The “stadium with 100,000 people” reference was to Julius Malema’s EFF rallies, which had drawn enormous crowds. These rallies featured the “Kill the Boer” chants and related rhetoric that the Trump administration considered systematic incitement against white South Africans. The fact that this rhetoric could fill stadiums demonstrated that it had mass political appeal rather than being a fringe position.

Trump’s argument was that:

South Africa was headed toward civil conflict
The EFF’s mass appeal showed that the political center was shifting toward violence
The ANC government was unable or unwilling to contain the radical elements
Absent fundamental change, the country would collapse economically and politically
The consequence would be failed state conditions affecting the entire region

This was a darker assessment of South Africa than typically heard from American presidents. Previous administrations had generally been optimistic about South African democracy despite various challenges. Trump was signaling that absent immediate correction, South Africa’s trajectory was toward collapse rather than continued democratic consolidation.

Ernie Els and Retief Goosen

Trump then introduced the South African delegation members.

“I hope so. That’s why I’m here. I’m not here for my health,” Trump said. “I’m here to see what you do.”

He identified his guests: “I have friends. I can tell you, Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, they feel so strongly they wanted to be here on behalf of South Africa, not on behalf of me.”

Trump personally greeted them: “Nice to see you, man. Nice to see you, Vincent Trucker.”

The presence of Els and Goosen at the Oval Office meeting was significant. Both were:

Ernie Els: One of the most successful golfers in South African history, with four major championship victories (two U.S. Opens, two British Opens). Els was known as “The Big Easy” for his smooth, powerful swing and calm demeanor.

Retief Goosen: Another major championship winner, with two U.S. Open victories. Goosen was known for being one of the most mentally tough players of his generation.

Both men were white South Africans. Both had deep roots in South African culture. Both had significant international profiles. Their presence at a meeting where Trump was challenging Ramaphosa on farm violence represented white South Africans willing to publicly support the American concerns.

The “on behalf of South Africa, not on behalf of me” framing was important. Trump was emphasizing that Els and Goosen were not American proxies or Trump supporters. They were South Africans who had come to Washington because they shared concerns about their country’s direction. Their presence lent credibility to the Trump administration’s framing that the concerns were legitimate rather than invented.

Golf and the Pope

Trump pivoted to personal topics briefly.

“Is that you? It’s Colonel Trump already feeling some of your beautiful builds there.”

And about recent events: “Ernie, we’re doing very well. It’s very close. How was your day with the Pope, brother?”

Els apparently responded: “Great. He’s a fantastic guy.”

Trump: “Thank you very much.”

The Pope reference indicated that Els and Goosen had met with Pope Leo XIV during their European travels before coming to Washington. This fit with broader diplomatic patterns — Pope Leo XIV had been meeting with various figures from countries where religious persecution or civil conflict was occurring, and South African representatives would fit this pattern.

The personal interactions between Trump and the golfers humanized an otherwise confrontational diplomatic meeting. Trump’s ability to mix geopolitical seriousness with casual friendliness toward friends and sports figures was a characteristic of his governing style.

The Underlying Issue Framing

Beyond the specific exchanges, the meeting represented a significant diplomatic moment. Several dynamics were at play:

American refugee program: The Trump administration had specifically granted refugee status to Afrikaners, the first group of which had arrived weeks earlier. This was a specific foreign policy choice with significant implications for U.S.-South Africa relations.

South African political tensions: South Africa was facing major political challenges, including the ANC’s loss of majority in 2024 elections, the rise of the EFF and other radical parties, and continued economic stagnation. The farm murder issue was only one element of broader political deterioration.

International attention: Trump’s personal engagement on the issue had internationalized what South Africa wanted to keep domestic. Ramaphosa’s government preferred to address (or not address) these issues without international pressure. Trump was making that impossible.

Diplomatic precedent: Using the Oval Office to play videos of domestic political conflicts in another country was unusual diplomatic practice. It represented Trump’s willingness to abandon normal diplomatic forms when he considered the substance important enough.

Key Takeaways

Trump to NBC: “Truly fake news. They ask pointed questions — they’re not questions, they’re statements.”
Trump on SA: “It will be the end of the country if it’s not resolved. Stadium with 100,000 people — big movement.”
Trump used immigration pivot: “21 million came through border unvetted — criminals, prisons, mental institutions, gangs. We’re taking them out fast.”
Just won Supreme Court case allowing deportation of “hundreds of criminals” to Venezuela.
South African golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen present: “Feel so strongly they wanted to be here on behalf of South Africa.”