Body Language Expert Analyzes Ramaphosa’s Smiling Reaction to “Kill the Boer” in Oval Office

Body language expert Jesús Enrique Rosas, The Body Language Guy, dissected a tense Oval Office meeting on May 21, 2025, where South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s reactions to a provocative “Kill the Boer” video, presented by U.S. President Donald Trump highlighting violence against white farmers, revealed discomfort and evasion.

Rosas scrutinized Ramaphosa’s reactions to a provocative video played by President Trump, which featured chants of “Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer” by Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF). The video, part of a nearly hour-long discussion, highlighted violence against white farmers in South Africa, framed by President Trump as evidence of a “white genocide.”

Rosas noted a warm initial interaction. The handshake between President Trump and Ramaphosa was described as “classic Trump,” with a firm grip, while Ramaphosa placed his hand on top, a gesture Rosas interpreted as asserting control while maintaining cordiality. President Trump’s verbal overtures, like expressing a desire to visit South Africa, were seen as an effort to “prime” Ramaphosa for a “setup.” This light-hearted preamble, including President Trump’s jest about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy being in South Africa, contrasted with the serious tone that followed.

The pivotal moment came when President Trump was asked by a reporter: “What would it take for you to be convinced that there’s no white genocide in South Africa?” Ramaphosa interjected before President Trump could respond, prompting President Trump to allow him to answer. Ramaphosa argued that the presence of white South Africans, including his Minister of Agriculture, disproved claims of widespread violence against white farmers. Rosas dismissed this as a “stupid argument,” likening it to tokenism and questioning its logic by comparing it to a hypothetical scenario where a white leader might point to a Black minister to deny racial issues.

As President Trump played the video, Rosas observed Ramaphosa’s body language shift dramatically. Initially, Ramaphosa avoided looking at the screen, displaying pacifying behaviors like caressing his chair, signaling discomfort or anxiety. When the video showed chants calling for land occupation and violence against farmers, Ramaphosa’s reaction included an “incongruent laugh” and a fleeting smile, which Rosas found troubling given the content’s gravity. Rosas questioned why Ramaphosa would laugh at a song inciting violence, especially if, as he later claimed, his government opposed such rhetoric.

The video escalated to images of white crosses in memorial of murdered white farmers, with cars lined up to pay respects. Only then did Ramaphosa turn to face the screen, asking, “Have they told you where that is, Mr. President? I’d like to know where that is because this I’ve never seen.” Rosas found this response evasive, suggesting Ramaphosa was deflecting rather than engaging with the evidence. President Trump reinforced his point by handing Ramaphosa articles documenting the violence, a move Rosas called “cinema” for its dramatic impact.

Ramaphosa attempted to contextualize the video, stating that the EFF’s rhetoric was not government policy and that South Africa’s multi-party democracy allowed diverse expressions, even those conflicting with official stances. He invoked Nelson Mandela’s legacy of dialogue to urge calm discussions. However, Rosas criticized this defense, noting that Ramaphosa failed to address why individuals like Malema faced no legal consequences for inciting violence. Rosas highlighted the scale of the event in the video, a stadium of 100,000 people chanting the song, underscoring the potential for such rhetoric to inspire real-world violence.

President Trump’s demeanor, according to Rosas, was one of calculated provocation. His “shit-eating grin,” as Rosas described it, suggested he was aware of the discomfort he was causing. President Trump’s decision to ignore unrelated questions from reporters, whom he dismissed as “fake news,” and his focus on presenting evidence kept the pressure on Ramaphosa. Rosas highlighted a moment where President Trump handed Ramaphosa a stack of papers without comment, letting the documents speak for themselves, amplifying the meeting’s intensity.

Rosas drew broader parallels, connecting unchecked rhetoric in South Africa to incidents of violence elsewhere, such as a recent shooting in Washington, D.C., where a Jewish diplomat and his American fiancée were targeted. He argued that songs and speeches inciting violence, if left unaddressed, could inspire deranged individuals to act, a point he felt Ramaphosa’s casual response failed to acknowledge.

The analysis concluded with Rosas questioning Ramaphosa’s character, suggesting his body language, evasive glances, pacifying gestures, and an inappropriate smile, revealed discomfort with the truth. He challenged Ramaphosa’s claim of inclusivity, particularly the reference to his white Minister of Agriculture as evidence of racial harmony, calling it a form of “DEI in reverse.” Rosas urged viewers to consider the implications of a political culture that tolerates open calls for violence, asking why figures like Malema faced no repercussions for their inflammatory rhetoric.