US Trade Shift Puts South African Workers at Risk

South Africa could lose preferential access to the US market from 1 January 2027, after the Trump administration announced its intention to terminate the country’s eligibility for the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Until that proposed termination takes effect, South Africa remains eligible. If it proceeds, exporters could face additional most-favoured-nation tariffs of around 3.4% on top of tariffs imposed by the US administration, according to Tshiamo Masike, an economist at Momentum Group.

The decision is a use of trade policy by a powerful government, with potential costs concentrated among South African businesses and workers tied to exports. The market won’t be closed, but the price of access could rise. Eyewitness News reported Deputy Trade, Industry and Competition Minister John Steenhuisen put the increase at roughly 3.5 percentage points on existing tariffs.

The cost lands below

South Africa exported approximately $1.7 billion (R28bn) of goods to the US under AGOA in 2025 and has historically been the programme’s largest beneficiary. AGOA-related exports account for approximately 10% of South Africa’s total exports to the US and 1% of its total exports globally.

Masike said the direct effect on overall GDP would probably be relatively small, while the employment consequences could be more significant, particularly in the automotive and agricultural sectors. Steenhuisen singled out parts of the citrus industry that rely heavily on the US market. The people whose jobs depend on those sectors are exposed to decisions made through negotiations between governments, not decisions they control.

Steenhuisen said the exclusion could add pressure to an economy facing slow growth and high unemployment. It could also make it harder for farmers, producers, packhouses and manufacturers to plan production for the US. No workers, farmers or grassroots groups are quoted describing their response in the account. It reports no mutual-aid effort or direct action around the proposed exclusion.

Negotiation, dependence and alternatives

Steenhuisen told 702’s Clement Manyathela the exclusion was not entirely unexpected after a period of uncertainty and negotiations with the US administration. “I don't think it's unexpected,” he said. “With the new administration in the US, you learn to expect the unexpected.” He said the United States had not closed its market to South African goods, but moving from preferential tariffs to most-favoured-nation status would remove a competitive advantage. “There's lots to worry about,” he said. “You don't want to be in a situation where every year you're wondering, are you in, are you out?”

South Africa’s ambassador to the US, Roelf Meyer, said bribery and corruption were never raised as concerns by the United States during negotiations over AGOA eligibility. The South African government said it was unfortunate that the reasons for exclusion were not the conditions set during negotiations. It said it would focus on diversifying export markets.

Masike said the trade ministry had reiterated that Washington remained an important trade and investment partner while indicating that South Africa would accelerate efforts to diversify. Finding alternatives of comparable size and value would be neither immediate nor costless, he wrote, making continued diplomatic engagement important before the proposed termination date. Steenhuisen called for continued engagement with Washington and consideration of a more stable bilateral trade agreement. He cited opportunities in China, Thailand, the Philippines, Japan and the Middle East, as well as in Africa, Europe and the ASEAN region. The account offers no electoral or legislative remedy; the proposals described are diplomacy, a possible trade agreement and market diversification.

Ports and political blame

Steenhuisen criticized South Africans who had spoken against the country while abroad, arguing their criticism had fed narratives in the US. He questioned whether they had considered consequences for workers and businesses. “We're in a difficult situation with the US and then to have members wearing your own jersey going around the back of the goals and assisting, you know, and actively agitating against your own country, your own workers, your own farmers and your own farmworkers I think has been distinctly unhelpful,” he said.

He also pointed to domestic inefficiencies, saying South Africa could improve its competitiveness by addressing problems at the Port of Cape Town and reducing the cost of getting goods to international markets. “Our stone fruit exporters lost a billion rand last year because of port inefficiencies,” he said. “Trade is about addition, not subtraction.”

Masike said the loss of preferential access would add uncertainty to South Africa’s relationship with an important trading and investment partner and could have more significant consequences for businesses, workers and industries that rely on the US market. The US proposal remains just that for now. But the export-dependent sectors have already been left planning around the possibility.