A proposed bill in the United States Congress is calling for sanctions against South Africa, a move that could seriously impact relations between the two countries. The bill aims to cut off direct aid and impose penalties on South African leaders over what US lawmakers view as a hostile stance toward Israel and growing alignment with Iran and Hamas.
The legislation was introduced by Republican Congressman Greg Steube. He accuses South Africa of using international legal platforms to attack Israel and claims the country’s foreign policy has taken an aggressive turn, targeting US allies and supporting groups considered by the US to be terrorist organizations.
Steube directly tied the bill to South Africa’s recent legal case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which accused the country of genocide in its military actions in Gaza. He also criticized South Africa for hosting Hamas delegations and signing an oil-related cooperation agreement with Iran.
If passed, the bill would stop most forms of direct US aid to South Africa—except for humanitarian and public health assistance—until Pretoria meets several conditions. These include halting all legal efforts against Israel, reforming its political institutions to address corruption, and strengthening cooperation with the US.
The proposed legislation also allows the US president to impose personal sanctions on South African officials who are seen as promoting antisemitic policies or misusing international courts for political purposes.
Some observers believe the bill is unlikely to pass in its current form, but they warn that it could still have real diplomatic consequences. According to political analyst Siseko Maposa, this bill represents a significant escalation in pressure on South Africa, particularly from the US political right.
Maposa highlighted South Africa’s long-standing ties with the US, noting that the country received around $6 billion in American investment between 2012 and 2021, in addition to substantial development assistance.
He also pointed out the political dynamics in the US, where internal divisions among Republicans might make it difficult to pass such a sweeping bill. Moderate lawmakers may be less inclined to support it, especially if they view the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism as an attack on free speech.
South Africa has not yet issued a formal government response to the bill. However, officials have consistently defended the ICJ case, saying it reflects the country’s legal and moral obligations under international law. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has repeatedly stressed that South Africa’s actions are motivated by a desire for justice and accountability, especially in light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The bill paints a different picture, accusing South Africa of turning a blind eye to violence committed by Hamas and Iran while growing closer to authoritarian regimes. It also criticizes South Africa’s ruling party, the ANC, for what it calls legitimizing extremist actors.
The country’s main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, is expected to comment on the potential fallout. In the past, the party has argued that the ANC’s foreign policy approach is alienating important Western allies.
Officials from South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation have confirmed that they are closely monitoring the bill. They emphasized that while every country has the right to legislate independently, South Africa is engaging through diplomatic channels to track developments in Washington.
Regarding lobbying and influence in the US, officials acknowledged the role of political pressure from groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is known for funding candidates who support strong US-Israel relations.
South African authorities insist that their foreign policy is non-aligned and rooted in national interest. Justice Minister Ronald Lamola has affirmed that the country’s approach is not driven by hostility toward any nation, but by a firm commitment to international law and human rights.
South Africa’s relationship with Iran, for instance, has been framed as part of a broader strategy of global engagement. Officials say the country supports peaceful nuclear development and remains committed to preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
They also reiterated that the ICJ case is not politically motivated. Rather, it reflects South Africa’s belief in a rules-based global system where all countries—regardless of size or power—must be held accountable under international law.
At this stage, it remains uncertain whether the US Congress will move forward with the bill. But tensions are clearly growing between Washington and Pretoria, with broader geopolitical implications, especially as South Africa continues to play a key role in alliances like BRICS and maintain relationships with countries the US considers adversarial.
No official comment has yet been received from either the ANC or the DA. However, diplomatic and political responses are expected in the days ahead as South Africa weighs how best to respond to this potential challenge to its sovereignty and international stance.