Donald Trump cast a spotlight on South Africa by speaking out against the government's new land reform policies on Sunday and threatening to cut off funding to the African nation pending a "full investigation" into the Expropriation Act, which came into effect last month. He and Elon Musk believe it discriminates against white landowners, but South African leaders reaffirm quite the opposite — that it's simply a way to make access to land fair. 

What have Trump and Musk claimed? 
In posts on social media media, Trump accused South Africa of embarking on "land grabs" against "certain classes of people." And he told reporters that the government was "confiscating land" and "doing things that are perhaps far worse than that." 

Trump's remarks appear to refer to the "far-right cause celebre" of the white minority in South Africa, who they claim are being "marginalized" and "subjected to 'genocide,'" said Sky News. Musk has previously accused left-wing party leaders of "openly pushing for genocide of white people" and called the land reform policy "openly racist." 

What has the South African government said? 
President Cyril Ramaphosa has defended the Expropriation Act, saying it would "balance the need for public usage of land and the protection of the rights of property owners." He vehemently denied that the policy targets white landowners, as Trump insinuated. In a statement on X, Ramaphosa said the new law was not a "confiscation instrument" but rather a "constitutionally mandated legal process" that other countries, including the U.S., also use to ensure there's "access to land in an equitable and just manner." 

What's the truth? 
The Expropriation Act makes no mention of race, and there's no evidence of it being used specifically to target white landowners. And the most recent census suggests South Africa's 7% white population owns 70% of all "privately owned farmland in the country," said Al Jazeera. These "ongoing disparities in land ownership" are why the government has sought to find ways to create a "more equitable distribution of land" and why right-wing commentators claim the policy is racially targeted. 

Previous policies aimed at reducing the disparity of land ownership have "not been used effectively," said Zsa-Zsa Temmers Boggenpoel, a law professor, at The Conversation. And skeptics are "not convinced" the Expropriation Act is a "silver bullet to effect large-scale land reform."

Federal science agencies are at a crossroads in trying to comply with President Donald Trump's executive orders. As a result, the health of millions is potentially at risk. 

Background
In a "head-snapping, blink-and-you'll-miss-it" two weeks, Trump has issued executive orders recognizing only two genders and rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives within the federal government, said Science. Federal agencies focused on public health have felt the heat and have had to "temporarily suspend" many activities and grants related to "now off-limits topics."

The latest
One of the agencies most affected is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which removed thousands of website pages containing words like "gender," "transgender," "pregnant person," "LGBT," "assigned male at birth" and others related to gender identity, said Reuters. This especially threatens access to information regarding sexually transmitted infections and reproductive health. 

The purge "also swept up vaccine information statements, which must be given to patients before they can be immunized; guidelines for contraception; and several pages on how race and racism affect health outcomes," said The New York Times. Data showing that bird flu was spread between cats and humans was released and then promptly deleted. 

The National Science Foundation, which provides grants to research projects globally, has halted several funded projects. NSF staff have been "combing through thousands of active science research projects, alongside a list of keywords, to determine if they include activities that violate executive orders," said The Washington Post. 

Following public backlash, some CDC pages were restored, but many restored pages have changed. Health experts are "trying to catalog what is missing and what has changed," Dr. Megan Ranney, the dean of Yale University's School of Public Health, said to NPR. And advocacy group Doctors for America has filed a lawsuit against federal health agencies in response to the removal of websites and databases.

The reaction
"We can't just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating or researching infectious diseases such as HIV. I certainly hope this is not the intent of these orders," Carl Schmid, the executive director of the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, said to Reuters. The purge also raises legal questions, Dr. Alfredo Morabia, of the American Journal of Public Health, said to the outlet. "How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality?"