The South African land law that has enraged Trump

• Trump cuts SA funding, citing land theft from whites
• Most land still owned by white South Africans
• Critics blame influence of Elon Musk on Trump

JOHANNESBURG - Thirty years after the end of white minority rule in South Africa and land ownership remains a hot topic in one of the world's least equal nations.

Now it is a hot topic in Washington too.

On Feb. 7, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to cut U.S. financial assistance to South Africa, citing disapproval of a new land expropriation act and of Pretoria's genocide case at an international court against Israel.

The White House also said it would come up with a plan to resettle white South African farmers and their families as refugees.

Many South Africans believe Trump has been influenced by Elon Musk, the South African-born billionaire who has often tweeted his disdain for what he calls South Africa's "openly racist ownership laws" and "genocide of white people".

Critics of Musk's views have pointed out that South Africa's high murder rates affect all races, not just white farmers.

So, what is the expropriation act and why has it ruffled feathers from Johannesburg to Washington?

What is the expropriation act?

The Expropriation Act No 13 was signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa in January and is meant to address land inequalities that stem from apartheid and white supremacy.

Nearly 400 years of Dutch and British colonial rule and four decades of apartheid saw waves of land grabs and mass evictions of Black, Indian and mixed-race people to create white-only areas.

The 1913 Native Land Act gave most farmland to whites -generally Afrikaners of Dutch and French descent - leaving just 13% to Blacks.

In 1950 the Afrikaner National Party passed a law removing 3.5 million Black people from their ancestral lands.

Today, only 4% of privately-held land is owned by Black South Africans, who make up nearly 80% of the 60 million-strong population.

The new Land Expropriation Act allows the state to expropriate land in specific circumstances and use it in the public interest.

In rare cases this could be without compensation.

According to Werksmans Attorneys, one of the country's leading law firms, expropriated land would need to be "for a public purpose, but also in the public interest".

"Just and equitable" compensation would take into account the use, history and improvements made to the property, if the state had invested in the property and the reason for the expropriation.

Zero compensation would only apply under specific conditions, such as if the land was not being used productively, and would rarely be applied in urban and developed areas, according to Werksmans.

What has been the political reaction to the act?

The centrist Democratic Alliance (DA), the second largest party in the government coalition behind the African National Congress, has said the act violates private property rights.

It has filed a court challenge, calling the act unconstitutional.

The ANC has defended the law as an attempt to rectify the injustices of the past and has pushed back against what it says is misinformation, pointing out that no expropriations have yet taken place under the law.

Defending the legislation, Ramaphosa has said similar laws exist in many other countries, including the United States.

As a constitutional democracy, he said, the law would balance the need for public use of land and protection of property rights.

The AfriForum group, which champions the white Afrikaner minority, lobbied against the act in U.S. media and political circles, portraying it as part of a wider onslaught against Afrikaners.

Now, the party of ex-president Jacob Zuma has filed a treason complaint against AfriForum, accusing it of spreading misinformation to influence Trump.

How have South Africans responded to Trump's intervention?

Several hundred white South Africans have welcomed Trump's support, gathering this month outside the U.S. embassy in Pretoria, some in shirts saying 'Make Afrikaans Great Again'.

Social media has also been flooded with white South Africans mocking their own privilege and pledging loyalty to South Africa.

Videos of white and Black South Africans dancing together have also been widely shared.

Ramaphosa said that "with the exception of PEPFAR Aid, which constitutes 17% of South Africa's HIVAids programme, there is no other significant funding that is provided by the United States in South Africa".

While there is still lingering concern that Trump may halt a U.S.-Africa trade programme, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), Ramaphosa has stuck by his policies.

In his annual presidential speech on Feb. 6, Ramaphosa indirectly addressed U.S. funding threats saying:

"We are a resilient people. We will not be bullied."

(Reporting by Kim Harrisberg; Editing by Lyndsay Griffiths.)