South Africa and Rwanda face removal from a US trade deal that lets them sell goods in America without import duties. Donald Trump has proposed cutting both nations from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), putting major export deals at risk.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says Trump has sent notice to Congress and both affected states. The move follows a review that found neither country met the deal's rules, according to Washington.
At issue are US claims about limits on American firms, blocked investment, and policies that clash with its security goals. Each nation faces a different set of concerns, though.
AGOA has been around since 2000. It gives eligible African nations a way to ship thousands of types of goods into the US without tariffs. In return, members must meet standards on trade, worker rights, legal protections, and political freedoms.
For Pretoria, the dispute adds strain to an already tense relationship with the Trump administration. US officials have criticized South Africa over trade barriers, alleged corruption, and some of its foreign policy choices.
Rwanda faces a separate set of complaints. Washington has raised issues tied to civil rights, labor rules, and the country's legal system. There is also the war in eastern DR Congo, where US officials accuse Kigali of backing armed rebel groups.
And sanctions are already part of that dispute. Several people and bodies linked to Rwanda have faced US penalties.
South Africa has far more at stake in trade terms. Its AGOA shipments were worth about US$1.7 billion in 2025. Car parts, citrus fruit, and wine are among the goods that benefit from the program.
By contrast, Rwanda sells far less under the deal. Coffee and minerals form part of its trade with American buyers.
Without the tariff break, exporters could face higher costs and tougher price competition. South African car makers and farm businesses may be hit hard, while jobs tied to overseas sales could face pressure.
Pretoria's trade ministry plans to keep seeking US business deals and help firms that may lose access to the trade benefits.
The proposed removal would not settle every trade question at once. Actual costs will depend on how the US carries out the change and what new terms, if any, follow.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says Trump has sent notice to Congress and both affected states. The move follows a review that found neither country met the deal's rules, according to Washington.
At issue are US claims about limits on American firms, blocked investment, and policies that clash with its security goals. Each nation faces a different set of concerns, though.
AGOA has been around since 2000. It gives eligible African nations a way to ship thousands of types of goods into the US without tariffs. In return, members must meet standards on trade, worker rights, legal protections, and political freedoms.
For Pretoria, the dispute adds strain to an already tense relationship with the Trump administration. US officials have criticized South Africa over trade barriers, alleged corruption, and some of its foreign policy choices.
Rwanda faces a separate set of complaints. Washington has raised issues tied to civil rights, labor rules, and the country's legal system. There is also the war in eastern DR Congo, where US officials accuse Kigali of backing armed rebel groups.
And sanctions are already part of that dispute. Several people and bodies linked to Rwanda have faced US penalties.
South Africa has far more at stake in trade terms. Its AGOA shipments were worth about US$1.7 billion in 2025. Car parts, citrus fruit, and wine are among the goods that benefit from the program.
By contrast, Rwanda sells far less under the deal. Coffee and minerals form part of its trade with American buyers.
Without the tariff break, exporters could face higher costs and tougher price competition. South African car makers and farm businesses may be hit hard, while jobs tied to overseas sales could face pressure.
Pretoria's trade ministry plans to keep seeking US business deals and help firms that may lose access to the trade benefits.
The proposed removal would not settle every trade question at once. Actual costs will depend on how the US carries out the change and what new terms, if any, follow.
