U.S. Criticizes South Africa Over G-20 Presidency Handover and Summit Focus

WASHINGTON — November 23, 2025 — The U.S. government has sharply criticized South Africa following the exclusion of the American embassy delegation from the G-20 presidency handover ceremony, escalating diplomatic tensions between the two countries. Officials from the Trump administration described South Africa’s actions as a “weaponization” of the G-20 platform and expressed frustration over the summit’s failure to address the issue of Christian persecution globally.

According to U.S. officials, South Africa, which assumed the G-20 presidency this year, declined to allow the American delegation to participate in the official handover event. The move was interpreted by U.S. representatives as a deliberate political statement, signaling a broader disagreement over the direction and priorities of the G-20 agenda under South Africa’s leadership.

The G-20 summit, a forum for the world’s largest economies to discuss global economic and political issues, has traditionally included a focus on human rights concerns. However, U.S. officials noted that the current summit has notably overlooked the persecution of Christians, a point of contention that has drawn criticism from various advocacy groups and political figures in the United States.

The Trump administration’s response highlighted a growing diplomatic rift, with officials accusing South Africa of using its presidency to advance a selective agenda that marginalizes certain issues, including religious freedom. The U.S. delegation’s exclusion from the handover ceremony was seen as emblematic of a broader pattern of sidelining American interests and perspectives within the forum.

South African representatives have not publicly commented on the exclusion of the U.S. delegation or the criticisms regarding the summit’s agenda. However, analysts suggest that the move reflects South Africa’s intent to steer the G-20 discussions toward themes aligned with its domestic and regional priorities, which may differ from those emphasized by the United States.

The diplomatic friction comes at a time when global cooperation on economic recovery, climate change, and geopolitical stability remains critical. Observers warn that such disputes could undermine the effectiveness of the G-20 as a platform for addressing pressing international challenges.

The U.S. criticism also underscores ongoing debates about the role of the G-20 in addressing human rights issues. While the forum is primarily focused on economic policy, there has been increasing pressure from member countries and civil society organizations to incorporate discussions on human rights and religious freedoms.

As the G-20 presidency rotates annually among member states, the priorities and focus areas of the summit can shift significantly. South Africa’s tenure is marked by an emphasis on African economic development and global inequality, which may explain its approach to the agenda and engagement with other member nations.

The incident involving the U.S. delegation is likely to influence future diplomatic interactions within the G-20 framework and could prompt calls for clearer protocols regarding participation and agenda-setting in the summit process. Meanwhile, the issue of religious persecution remains a sensitive and unresolved topic within international forums.

The Trump administration’s public rebuke of South Africa signals a willingness to confront perceived exclusions and to advocate for broader recognition of religious rights on the global stage. How this diplomatic dispute will affect U.S.-South Africa relations and the broader G-20 cooperation remains to be seen as the summit progresses.