In an extraordinary and unprecedented move, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has declared South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool persona non grata, effectively expelling him from the United States. In a post on X, Rubio declared “Ebrahim Rasool is a race-baiting politician who hates America” and hates the President of the United States. The stated justification? Alleged “anti-American behavior” and “race-baiting”—vague and politically charged accusations likely referring to Rasool’s outspoken defense of South Africa’s land reform policies. Yet the true motive behind this decision is unmistakable: a retaliatory strike against South Africa for its principled decision to bring Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide in Gaza.
This expulsion is not about diplomacy; it is about punishing a nation that dared to challenge Washington’s unwavering support for Israel.
This expulsion is not about diplomacy; it is about punishing a nation that dared to challenge Washington’s unwavering support for Israel. By targeting Rasool, the Trump administration seeks to send a chilling message: any government that pursues legal accountability for Israeli actions will face political and economic consequences. It is a brazen act of diplomatic retribution, undermining the very international legal institutions that the United States claims to uphold.
This act is not only an abuse of power but also a chilling indication of how Donald Trump’s second term is shaping up—a regime that has discarded even the pretense of respect for diplomacy, international law, and basic norms of governance.
A precedent that undermines U.S. credibility
Historically, declaring an ambassador persona non grata is an extreme step reserved for cases of espionage, criminal conduct, or clear threats to national security. It is almost never used against diplomats simply for expressing policy views that differ from those of Washington.
Rubio’s decision to expel Rasool not only weaponizes the State Department against foreign governments that do not toe the Trump administration’s line.
Rubio’s decision to expel Rasool not only weaponizes the State Department against foreign governments that do not toe the Trump administration’s line, but it also sends a chilling message: any country that challenges U.S. policy, whether through legal avenues like the ICJ or by advocating for its own domestic reforms, will be punished.
What makes this particularly egregious is that South Africa is not a rogue state. It is a constitutional democracy and a longtime advocate for international justice, playing a pivotal role in the anti-apartheid struggle and the establishment of institutions like the ICC. By expelling its ambassador, Rubio and Trump are making it clear that they have no interest in engaging with the world on anything other than their own terms.
Punishing South Africa for standing up to Israel
Let’s be clear—this expulsion has nothing to do with so-called “race-baiting” or South Africa’s land policies, no matter how desperately the Trump administration clings to that excuse. The notion that a government long committed to reconciliation and constitutional democracy is somehow oppressing white South Africans is as laughable as it is cynical. Rasool has been targeted for one reason alone: his government had the audacity to hold Israel accountable at the ICJ for its military assault on Gaza, a move that has sent Washington into a fit of diplomatic retaliation.
President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have openly demonstrated unwavering support for Israel’s most extreme policies, effectively dismantling any remaining U.S. commitment to Palestinian rights. During Trump’s second term, the administration has taken a series of aggressive measures that have further entrenched Israel’s occupation and undermined the prospects for Palestinian self-determination.
The administration has cut all remaining aid to Palestinian refugees and pressured allied nations to do the same, severely limiting humanitarian assistance and exacerbating the suffering of displaced Palestinians. It has also provided full backing for Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, disregarding international law and emboldening settlement activities that have further displaced Palestinian communities. In addition, the administration has openly declared its intention to expel Palestinians from Gaza, exploring proposals to relocate them to third countries, while intimating support for Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. These moves have effectively foreclosed any possibility of a two-state solution and reinforced an irreversible status quo in which Palestinian rights are systematically eroded.
South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is one of the most significant legal challenges to U.S. backed impunity in decades. Rather than responding with diplomacy, Trump and Rubio have chosen the path of authoritarian bullying, expelling a respected ambassador in an attempt to intimidate any other nation that might dare to follow South Africa’s lead.
Trump’s lawless second term
If this were an isolated incident, it would still be outrageous. However, it is merely one addition to the long list of lawless, authoritarian actions that have defined President Trump’s return to power. In his first two months back in office, President Trump has pardoned January 6 rioters, installed loyalists in the Department of Justice, deployed federal troops against protests, rolled back environmental protections, allegedly weaponized the IRS against political opponents, and pushed for draconian abortion laws, solidifying his administration’s authoritarian trajectory.
Now, with Rubio at the helm of the State Department, Trump’s second-term foreign policy is revealing itself as even more reckless than his first. Instead of engaging in diplomacy, his administration is now openly engaging in diplomatic thuggery—expelling ambassadors not for wrongdoing, but for daring to challenge U.S. hegemony.
This move will not be forgotten, and it will not go unchallenged. South Africa has every right to retaliate by expelling U.S. diplomats or taking further legal action against the Trump administration. Other nations—especially those that claim to support international law—must speak out against this abuse of power.
Rubio and Trump are sending a clear message: America’s diplomatic corps is not a vehicle for engagement but a tool of intimidation. If the world does not push back now, there is no telling how far Trump’s authoritarian second term will go.
For the most part this Western ‘civilized’ society makes me vomit. And one point about Rubio: his parents left Cuba on account of dictator Batista (installed/supported by guess who), not because of Castro.
I’m sure the world is quite aware that the USA is a protector of war criminals on a regular basis, many of which reside in the corridors of power in DC. When the war criminal dominoes start to fall, these monsters will feel the heat that’s for sure!
A couple of years ago, someone — can’t remember his name, I think he was a professor of international relations — was asked, on the CBC, why it was South Africa that took Israel to the international court. He said that South Africa has an independent foreign policy. He delicately refrained from saying that Canada does not.
Re the Trump administrations South Africa craziness, the NYT has a piece today on how the actual South Africa doesn’t much conform to Trump’s hallucinations:
Trump Tries to Use White South Africans as Cautionary Tale…The president and his allies accuse South Africa of discriminating against and killing white people, and warn that it could happen in America if attempts to promote diversity aren’t stopped….To hear President Trump and some of his closest supporters tell it, South Africa is a terrible place for white people. They face discrimination, are sidelined from jobs and live under the constant threat of violence or having their land stolen by a corrupt, Black-led government that has left the country in disarray. The data tell a different story. Although white people make up 7 percent of the country’s population, they own at least half of South Africa’s land. Police statistics do not show that they are any more vulnerable to violent crime than other people. And white South Africans are far better off than Black people on virtually every marker of the economic scale….
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/15/world/africa/south-africa-whites-trump.html
There is a second element to this: Elon Musk. Brought up in an Afrikaner community that was not just racist but led by outright Nazis (some jailed by the British in WW2). Musk’s current beef is plans for more redistribution of land, which has even led to Chump offering white farmers asylum in the US and accelerated paths to citizenship.