The bill introduced in the United States Congress to review relations with South Africa and sanction some politicians has passed through the US Committee on Foreign Affairs with majority support.
The bill, known as the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 (H.R.2633), calls for a comprehensive review of the relationship between the US and South Africa.
It also seeks to identify South African government officials and ANC leaders eligible for sanctions.
This bill was introduced into Congress on April 3, 2025, by Republican Representative Ronny Jackson, marking the first stage of the legislative process toward becoming law.
It was then passed on to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary for debate.
According to Jackson, the foreign affairs committee has now cleared the bill, crossing the first hurdle to becoming law.
“Today, my bill to fully review America’s relationship with South Africa and give President Trump the tools necessary to hold their corrupt government accountable passed through committee,” he said.
“The days of allowing our so-called ‘allies’ to walk all over us are over. South Africa made its choice when it abandoned America and our allies and sided with communists and terrorists.”
Jackson has repeatedly called for South Africa to face consequences for its “ties with China, Russia, Iran, and Hamas”, saying the bill supports President Trump’s foreign policy.
During the committee meeting, pro-members enthusiastically supported the bill, saying it was an overdue response to South Africa’s “troubling shifts” in foreign policy.
Members raised issues with South Africa’s leanings towards “authoritarian regimes” in Russia and China, and repeatedly aligning with anti-American stances.
South Africa’s running joint military drills with China and recently downgrading its diplomatic ties with Taiwan, evidenced this.
Further concerns were raised about the ANC government’s direct engagements with Hamas leadership.
As expected, South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice was also flagged.
Proponents of the bill described it as a “pro-accountability” move, rather than an anti-South African one.
They said it required the US government to reset expectations for the relationship between the two nations after South Africa “abandoned America.”
Opponents of the bill were more reserved, arguing that differences between the United States and South Africa should be resolved through diplomatic channels, not punitive legislation.
They criticised the bill as being heavy-handed and duplicating processes that were already underway to address the United States’ concerns with South Africa—such as the annual AGOA review.
However, even opponents of the bill raised serious concerns with South Africa’s foreign policy positioning, but stressed that sanctions were disproportionate and unwarranted.
Opponents argued that the bill would push South Africa further away from the United States, undermining trade negotiations, bilateral relations, and efforts to restore the relationship with the most important economy in Africa.
The committee ultimately passed the bill with 34 members in favour and 16 against.
After being debated by committees, a bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the President to become law.
A similar bill, H.R.7256, was previously introduced by Jackson on many of the same grounds.
That bill passed the House in the previous Congress but failed in the Senate, highlighting a lack of broad, bipartisan support.
As it currently stands, the Trump administration’s Republican Party controls both the House and the Senate, but experts still doubt the bill’s chances of success.
Honorary Professor of International Relations at Wits University and former deputy director for policy planning in the office of the US Secretary of State, Professor John Stremlau, previously told BusinessTech that he does not see the bill going all the way.
He noted that, even if the bill passed the House like the previous version, there is “no prospect for the Senate to pass this bill which would be filibustered by the Democrats.”
He called the effort a “dead in the water undertaking.”
BUSINESS TECH