South Africa summons US Ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III on Tuesday for the third time in nine months, accusing him of “undiplomatic conduct” as a widening dispute between Pretoria and Washington spills increasingly into public statements and diplomatic protests.
The latest demarche came on September 29, the same day Bozell published an opinion piece arguing that the United States had lost patience with South Africa after months of talks over a series of unresolved disagreements. The ambassador has also criticised the South African government in recent interviews with local media.
A senior official in South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation confirmed that Bozell had been called in to explain his conduct. The official did not identify the specific remarks or actions that prompted the latest summons, but described it as the third formal diplomatic protest against the ambassador since he began his duties nine months ago.
Bozell, a conservative writer and activist appointed during Donald Trump’s second administration, arrived in Pretoria in February 2026 as relations between the two countries were already under considerable strain. The disputes have ranged from South Africa’s legal case against Israel at the International Court of Justice to US concerns over land reform, racial inequality policies and the treatment of white Afrikaners.
The Trump administration has repeatedly accused South Africa of failing to protect white farmers and has promoted claims of “white genocide”, a description firmly rejected by the South African government. Pretoria has argued that such claims distort the country’s post-apartheid reality and ignore the broader social and economic inequalities that remain more than three decades after apartheid ended.
Land policy has become another major point of contention. Washington has objected to South Africa’s approach to land reform and has raised concerns about the possibility of land being expropriated without compensation. Pretoria, however, maintains that its policies are governed by South African law and that questions surrounding land ownership are matters for the country’s own democratic and constitutional institutions.
The disagreement has also extended to South Africa’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment policies, which seek to address economic inequalities created by apartheid. The United States has pressed Pretoria to provide alternatives to ownership requirements affecting sectors including telecommunications and mining.
On September 15, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a new visa restriction policy targeting foreign nationals whom Washington says are responsible for or involved in policies enabling uncompensated land seizures, race-based discrimination or the incitement of imminent violence against minority ethnic or racial groups in South Africa.
The move added another layer to an already difficult relationship. The Trump administration has also cut US assistance to South Africa and previously expelled South Africa’s ambassador to Washington. At the same time, Washington has established a programme allowing white Afrikaners who claim to face persecution or violence in South Africa to seek resettlement in the United States, a policy Pretoria has strongly criticised.
Bozell has now made clear that Washington’s patience with negotiations is wearing thin. In his September 29 opinion article, he argued that the two governments had spent months discussing what the United States considers a small number of specific demands without securing the response Washington wanted.
Among those demands is a call for President Cyril Ramaphosa and other senior officials to condemn the anti-apartheid chant “Kill the Boer”, which Washington says amounts to incitement against white South Africans. The chant remains deeply contested in South Africa, where its meaning and use have been examined in the context of the country’s history and political struggle.
Bozell has also called for rural crime to be formally designated a priority and for South Africa to create alternatives to black ownership requirements under its economic empowerment framework.
The ambassador said Washington had reached a point where it no longer considered open-ended discussions productive. He argued that the South African government had not adequately addressed the remaining US demands and accused Pretoria of failing to pursue a constructive relationship with Washington.
South Africa has taken a different position. Officials have continued to say that discussions with Washington are ongoing and that Pretoria remains committed to resolving outstanding issues through engagement. Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said recently that South Africa remained open to further talks despite the new US visa restrictions.
The disagreement therefore goes beyond individual statements by diplomats. At its core is a clash over how much influence one government should have over another country’s domestic policies, particularly on land, racial inequality and economic transformation.
For Pretoria, those policies are closely tied to the unfinished economic legacy of apartheid and fall within South Africa’s sovereign decision-making process. For Washington, the same policies have become part of a broader argument about discrimination, investment conditions, rural security and the protection of minority groups.
The repeated summons of the US ambassador illustrates how far the relationship has deteriorated since the beginning of Trump’s second term. Yet neither government has formally abandoned engagement, leaving diplomacy open even as public criticism and policy measures continue to put pressure on bilateral ties.
For now, South Africa says it remains prepared to talk. Washington, through Bozell’s latest intervention, is signalling that it expects concrete responses rather than another round of prolonged negotiations. The gap between those positions is becoming increasingly difficult to overlook.
