The plight of Afrikaner refugees has come under international scrutiny following US President Donald Trump’s February 2025 Executive Order offering refugee status to this white South African ethnic minority, historically linked to the apartheid era. Intended to address concerns over racial discrimination, farm attacks, and political alienation in South Africa, the program has seen limited uptake, with only 59 Afrikaners resettled in the US by May 12, 2025. However, a deeper investigation reveals a troubling pattern: key Afrikaans organizations—Solidariteit, AfriForum, and Maroela Media—along with prominent figures like Jaco Kleynhans, Kallie Kriel, and Ernst Roets, are selectively reporting on the refugee program, downplaying its benefits, and indirectly discouraging Afrikaners from leaving South Africa. This article examines the facts of the Afrikaner refugee situation, the lack of support and transparency from these groups, and argues that their consistent rhetoric reflects a deliberate agenda to keep Afrikaners in South Africa, potentially at the expense of those who might find safety through the program.
The Executive Order and the Afrikaner Refugee Program
On February 10, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order halting financial aid to South Africa, condemning its domestic and foreign policies, and initially offering refugee status specifically to Afrikaners.
This was later clarified to include disfavored minorities in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination and can articulate a past experience of persecution or fear of future persecution, as per the U.S. Embassy’s May 2025 notice (za.usembassy.gov).
Jaco Kleynhans, head of public relations at Solidariteit, detailed the order in a comprehensive X post, noting it stemmed from years of discussions with US advisors (X post by @JacoKleynhans). The Trump administration expressed concern over South Africa’s ties with nations like Iran, China, and Russia, as well as domestic issues including racial discrimination, the Bela Act, state capture, corruption, and farm attacks. The US recognized Afrikaners as a significant geopolitical group, marking a “huge breakthrough” in their global visibility.
The refugee status program targets “disfavored minorities” facing severe hardship, such as victims of violent crimes or those who have lost everything. However, the program is still being developed, with no applications possible until the plan is finalized. It is temporary, strictly regulated, and imposes limitations: refugees are placed in designated housing, face restricted work opportunities, cannot travel freely, and risk deportation if a future US administration cancels the program.
On May 12, 2025, the first group of 59 Afrikaner refugees arrived in the US, arriving at Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C., on a charter flight paid for by the U.S. government, through an expedited process. They were greeted by U.S. officials and supported by the refugee services office of the Catholic diocese of Virginia, which provided food and items for children (NPR: First Afrikaners arrive in U.S. under radically redrawn refugee program). The US Embassy in South Africa announced this cohort as the first of more to come, emphasizing America’s commitment to protecting victims of racial discrimination (The New York Times: Afrikaners Granted Refugee Status by Trump Arrive in U.S.). Yet, the broader US refugee program remains largely closed to others fleeing war and famine, underscoring the unique nature of this initiative.
Lack of Support and Selective Reporting by Afrikaans Organizations
Despite the potential lifeline this program offers to Afrikaners facing violence and discrimination, key Afrikaans organizations have been notably restrained in their support and reporting. Solidariteit, AfriForum, and Maroela Media—all part of the Solidariteit Beweging, a network dedicated to promoting Afrikaans culture and rights—have adopted a cautious stance, often emphasizing the limitations of the refugee program over its potential benefits.
Jaco Kleynhans’ Cautious Framing: In his February 10, 2025, X post, Kleynhans provided a detailed overview of the refugee status but focused heavily on its downsides: the temporary nature, strict regulations, and risk of deportation (X post by @JacoKleynhans). While acknowledging that the program could benefit a small subset of Afrikaners, he stressed that it’s not a solution for most, concluding, “The future of Afrikaners is in South Africa.” This framing downplays the potential for safety and stability that the program might offer, potentially discouraging eligible Afrikaners from applying.
Kallie Kriel’s Cultural Deterrent: AfriForum’s CEO, Kallie Kriel, added a cultural dimension to this narrative. On May 14, 2025, IOL reported Kriel stating, “Afrikaners cannot survive in US as a cultural community,” adding that he personally would stay in South Africa (IOL Headline). This absolute phrasing—“cannot survive”—introduces a fear of cultural loss, a powerful emotional deterrent for a community deeply tied to its language and heritage, which could dissuade Afrikaners from leaving.
Ernst Roets’ Dismissive Rhetoric: Ernst Roets, an Afrikaner activist and founder of the Pioneer Initiative, recently stated in a video on his YouTube channel that he “doesn’t personally know any Afrikaners who want to take up the refugee offer.” Roets, who holds a Doctorate in legal philosophy and is known for his documentary films and book Kill the Boer (Pioneer Initiative), echoes the rhetoric of Kleynhans and Kriel. His statement minimizes the program’s relevance, suggesting a lack of interest among Afrikaners, which could further discourage others from considering it. This dismissive tone aligns with the broader narrative of downplaying the program’s appeal.
Maroela Media’s Selective Reporting: Maroela Media, the leading Afrikaans digital news platform owned by Maroela Media (PTY) Ltd. and funded by Solidariteit, AfriForum, Helpende Hand, and the Dagbreek Trust, has also been selective in its coverage. On May 13, 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa, speaking at the NAMPO Harvest Festival, called Afrikaner refugees “cowards,” labeling their departure a “cowardly act” (BBC News; Daily Maverick). This inflammatory statement, which sparked outrage among Afrikaner communities, was absent from Maroela Media’s coverage of NAMPO (Maroela Media NAMPO article). Recent X posts by @maroelamedia from May 13 to May 15, 2025, also failed to mention the insult, though they reported on the refugees’ arrival in the US (X post by @maroelamedia).
This omission is significant. Ramaphosa’s statement could have galvanized more Afrikaners to consider the refugee program, especially those feeling alienated by the South African government. By not reporting it, Maroela Media avoided amplifying a narrative that might encourage emigration, instead focusing on neutral aspects of Afrikaner life, such as community events at NAMPO. Furthermore, Maroela Media’s coverage of the refugee program has been limited, lacking discussion of its potential benefits or success stories that might inspire others to apply.
A Consistent Narrative to Discourage Emigration
The rhetoric from Kleynhans, Kriel, and Roets, combined with Maroela Media’s selective reporting, suggests a coordinated narrative within the Solidariteit Beweging to discourage Afrikaners from fleeing South Africa under the Refugee Program. Several factors support this interpretation:
- Consistent Messaging Across Leaders:
- Kleynhans’ Focus on Limitations: Kleynhans’ post emphasizes the risks of the refugee program—temporary status, strict regulations, and potential deportation—over its benefits, framing it as a limited option and concluding that Afrikaners’ future is in South Africa (X post by @JacoKleynhans).
- Kriel’s Cultural Fear: Kriel’s statement that Afrikaners “cannot survive” culturally in the US introduces a fear of identity loss, a potent deterrent for a community rooted in its heritage (IOL Headline).
- Roets’ Dismissal: Roets’ claim that he doesn’t know any Afrikaners interested in the refugee offer minimizes its relevance, aligning with the narrative that emigration is neither necessary nor desirable. This consistency across key figures within the Solidariteit Beweging suggests a unified approach to downplay the program’s appeal.
- Emphasis on Staying in South Africa:
- Solidariteit and AfriForum consistently frame the future of Afrikaners as being in South Africa. Kleynhans concludes, “We are here to stay,” advocating for a future where Afrikaners address challenges locally (X post by @JacoKleynhans). AfriForum’s focus on farm safety and advocacy, as seen in recent X posts about farm attacks and community resilience (X post by @afriforum), encourages Afrikaners to stay and fight for their rights rather than leave.
- Roets’ Pioneer Initiative similarly promotes a vision for Afrikaners within South Africa, focusing on a “viable political dispensation” for the country’s peoples (Pioneer Initiative).
- Downplaying the Benefits of Refugee Status:
- Kleynhans’ post, while factual, emphasizes the program’s limitations over its potential benefits, such as safety and stability for those in danger. Maroela Media’s coverage of the refugees’ arrival in the US (X post by @maroelamedia) was neutral, lacking discussion of the program’s broader implications or success stories.
- Roets’ statement further diminishes the program’s appeal by suggesting a lack of interest among Afrikaners, which could discourage others from exploring it.
- Omission of Government Criticism:
- Maroela Media’s failure to report on Ramaphosa’s “cowards” statement avoids highlighting government hostility that might push Afrikaners to leave out of frustration or fear of alienation. This omission aligns with the broader narrative of encouraging Afrikaners to stay and address challenges within South Africa.
- Organizational Interests:
- Solidariteit and AfriForum rely on a strong Afrikaner community in South Africa for their membership and influence. Solidariteit represents hundreds of thousands of Afrikaners, and AfriForum mobilizes for civil rights initiatives (Solidarity Movement – Who We Are). A mass exodus could weaken their base, reduce their resources, and diminish their ability to advocate for Afrikaans rights.
- Maroela Media, as a media arm of the Solidariteit Beweging, benefits from maintaining a large, engaged Afrikaans readership. Encouraging emigration could reduce their audience and impact, especially since their primary revenue likely comes from funding by Solidariteit and AfriForum, supplemented by ads (Maroela Media – Wikipedia).
Joost Strydom and the Orania Beweging: Echoing Concerns of Discouraging Afrikaner Emigration
Joost Strydom’s discussion on the Orania Beweging’s Radio Orania program on May 15, 2025, mirrors the concerns raised about Solidariteit, AfriForum, and their affiliates’ narrative to discourage Afrikaners from taking up the US refugee offer. Strydom expresses a deep emotional conflict about the 59 Afrikaner refugees who left South Africa for the US, describing the term “Afrikaner refugee” as “almost tragic” and highlighting the difficult emotions it evokes (Radio Orania Transcript, 00:58). While acknowledging that Afrikaners should not be denied a safer future in the US if South Africa cannot guarantee one, the Orania Beweging’s stance, as articulated by Strydom, emphasizes “geographic concentration” and self-determination within South Africa—specifically in Orania—as a preferable alternative (Transcript, 01:26). This rhetoric aligns with the messaging of Jaco Kleynhans, who stressed that “the future of Afrikaners is in South Africa”, and Kallie Kriel, who claimed Afrikaners “cannot survive in US as a cultural community”. Strydom further reinforces this by suggesting that building Afrikaner institutions in Orania offers similar benefits to resettlement, such as safety and economic growth, but with the added value of fulfilling a “freedom dream” that can only be realized in South Africa (Transcript, 01:54–02:23). The program’s guest, Burger Lambrechts from the Orania Town Council, underscores this by citing a community survey showing that the primary motivation for living in Orania is self-determination and freedom, not safety, which contrasts with the likely motivations of Afrikaners seeking refuge in the US, such as safety and economic stability (Transcript, 08:28–10:23). Like Solidariteit and AfriForum, the Orania Beweging’s focus on a localized vision of freedom downplays the refugee program’s potential benefits, potentially deterring Afrikaners from exploring emigration as a viable option despite the real threats they face, such as farm attacks and political alienation. This consistent narrative across these groups suggests a broader agenda to prioritize Afrikaner presence in South Africa over individual safety and opportunities abroad.
The Impact on Afrikaner Refugees
The lack of support and forthcoming reporting has significant consequences for Afrikaners who might benefit from the refugee program. Those facing farm attacks, racial discrimination, or economic hardship may not fully understand the program’s potential to offer safety and a fresh start. The first 59 Afrikaner refugees who arrived in the US on May 12, 2025, supported by the refugee services office of the Catholic diocese of Virginia, which provided food and items for children upon arrival (NPR). Yet, without clear, balanced reporting from trusted Afrikaans sources like Maroela Media, many Afrikaners may remain unaware of these opportunities or be deterred by the narrative of cultural loss and practical challenges.
Farm attacks remain a pressing concern, as highlighted by AfriForum’s posts (X post by @JacquesBroodryk). For those who have experienced such violence, the refugee program could be a lifeline, yet the messaging from Solidariteit, AfriForum, and their leaders prioritizes local resilience over exploring all options. This leaves vulnerable Afrikaners potentially in harm’s way, with limited access to information that could help them make informed decisions about their safety.
A Fair Perspective: Balancing Organizational Goals with Individual Needs
To be fair, Solidariteit, AfriForum, and their affiliates have a legitimate mission to preserve Afrikaans culture and advocate for Afrikaner rights within South Africa. Their focus on local issues, such as farm safety and government policies, reflects a genuine commitment to improving conditions for Afrikaners (AfriForum – Solidariteit Beweging). Kleynhans’ post, while cautious, does not outright reject the refugee program and acknowledges that it may be suitable for some (X post by @JacoKleynhans). Kriel’s statement about cultural survival, while potentially fear-inducing, raises a valid concern about the challenges of maintaining identity abroad. Roets’ comment, though dismissive, might reflect his personal observations within his network, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.
However, this focus comes at a cost. By downplaying the benefits of the refugee program, omitting key government criticisms like Ramaphosa’s “cowards” statement, and consistently framing emigration as undesirable, these organizations are not providing Afrikaners with the full picture. This selective narrative prioritizes organizational goals—maintaining a strong community in South Africa—over the individual needs of those who might find safety and stability through the refugee program. For a community facing real threats, this lack of balanced reporting and support is a disservice, potentially leaving vulnerable Afrikaners in danger.
Conclusion: A Call for Transparency and Support
The Afrikaner refugee situation highlights a complex tension between community preservation and individual safety. While Solidariteit, AfriForum, Maroela Media, and their leaders have a right to advocate for Afrikaners within South Africa, their selective reporting and consistent rhetoric—seen in the statements of Kleynhans, Kriel, and Roets—suggest a deliberate narrative to discourage emigration. By emphasizing the risks of leaving, downplaying the benefits of refugee status, and omitting government hostility, these groups are shaping a narrative that prioritizes staying over exploring all options.
For Afrikaners facing violence, discrimination, or economic hardship, the refugee program could be a lifeline, as demonstrated by the first arrivals in the US. Yet, without clear, balanced information from trusted sources, many may remain in danger, deterred by a narrative that serves organizational interests over individual needs. As the refugee program develops, it’s imperative that Solidariteit, AfriForum, and Maroela Media provide transparent, comprehensive reporting, ensuring Afrikaners can make informed decisions about their future—whether that future is in South Africa or abroad.
Dispelling Fear-Mongering: The Reality of Cultural Diversity in the US
The United States is a vibrant mosaic of cultural diversity, offering a welcoming environment for immigrants to maintain and celebrate their heritage while integrating into a broader society. Concerns about cultural loss for Afrikaners in the US are often overstated, as the country has a long history of supporting diverse communities. According to the American Community Survey, the US is home to speakers of 382 languages, which are often grouped into 39 distinct language categories for analysis, reflecting the nation’s linguistic richness (Immigration and Language Diversity in the United States – PMC). Beyond language, the US hosts a multitude of cultures, with 11 distinct regional cultures identified by author Colin Woodard in his book American Nations, each contributing to the country’s unique identity—from the commercial diversity of New Netherland to the community-oriented Midlands (The 11 Nations of the United States and Their Cultures – Business Insider). Immigrants are free to practice their traditions, as evidenced by the freedom of religion enshrined in US law, which allows diverse religious communities to thrive, such as providing spaces for Muslims to pray at work or school (Understanding Diversity in the USA | USAHello). This rich tapestry demonstrates that Afrikaners, like countless other groups, can preserve their cultural identity while contributing to and benefiting from the multicultural fabric of the US.
Cultural Preservation in the US: Examples of the Bhutanese and Amish Communities
The United States has a proven track record of allowing diverse groups to maintain their cultural identities, countering claims like those of AfriForum’s Kallie Kriel that Afrikaners “cannot survive in US as a cultural community.” One notable example involves the Bhutanese refugees of Nepali descent, a group likely referenced by Ret. Col. Chris Wyatt in his discussions on refugee policies. Between 2008 and 2016, the US resettled over 96,000 Bhutanese refugees who had been expelled from Bhutan in the 1990s and lived in camps in Nepal for nearly two decades (UNHCR: Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal). Many of these refugees, granted special refugee status, have chosen to remain in the US without pursuing citizenship, maintaining their Nepali language, Hindu and Buddhist traditions, and community structures, particularly in cities like Columbus, Ohio, where they form tight-knit communities (Refugee Resettlement in the United States: Bhutanese Refugees). This demonstrates that cultural preservation is possible without full assimilation, even for groups with long-term refugee status. Similarly, the Amish, a distinct cultural and religious group in the US, exemplify the ability to preserve traditions over generations. With a population of approximately 373,620 as of 2023, the Amish maintain their Pennsylvania Dutch language, traditional dress, and agrarian lifestyle, largely resisting modern technology while living in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio (Amish Population 2023 – Elizabethtown College). Their success in upholding their cultural identity while coexisting within the broader American society directly challenges the fear-mongering narrative, showing that Afrikaners, too, can preserve their heritage in the US, whether they choose to assimilate like many Afrikaner refugees or maintain distinct cultural practices.
Sources:
- X post by @JacoKleynhans on Refugee Status
- IOL Headline: “‘I am staying’: AfriForum’s Kallie Kriel says Afrikaners cannot survive in US as a cultural community”
- Ernst Roets’ Statement on his YouTube Channel.
- Pioneer Initiative – Ernst Roets
- NPR: First Afrikaners arrive in U.S. under radically redrawn refugee program
- The New York Times: Afrikaners Granted Refugee Status by Trump Arrive in U.S.
- BBC News: Cyril Ramaphosa says Afrikaners ‘running away’ from South Africa to US are ‘cowards’
- Daily Maverick: Ramaphosa calls Afrikaans ‘refugee’ trek to US a ‘cowardly act’ at agricultural show
- Maroela Media NAMPO article
- X post by @maroelamedia on Afrikaner refugees
- X post by @afriforum on farm attack
- X post by @JacquesBroodryk on farm attack
- Solidarity Movement – Who We Are
- AfriForum – Solidariteit Beweging
- Maroela Media – Wikipedia
Leave a Reply