Pieter du Toit’s Craven Defense of Trump’s Diplomatic Bullying

There is a special kind of absurdity in watching someone attempt to argue that the Trump administration operates on rational principles. Enter Pieter du Toit, who, in his March 15, 2025 article “FIRST TAKE | SA, US Relations in Full-Blown Crisis After Ambassador’s Mindless Comments,” https://www.news24.com/news24/opinions/analysis/first-take-sa-us-relations-in-full-blown-crisis-after-ambassadors-mindless-comments-20250315 paints a risible picture of Ebrahim Rasool’s expulsion as the logical consequence of a diplomat’s “mindless comments.” One might almost mistake his analysis for serious commentary—if it were not so transparently an ideological hit piece and an axe-grinding screed against Rasool and the ruling party, thinly disguised as political analysis.

Du Toit would have us believe that the Trump administration, an administration that has made diplomatic retribution its calling card, expelled Rasool as a direct result of his supposed indiscretions. But this argument is beyond preposterous. Trump and his band of loyal enforcers do not require justifications for their actions. Their governance is based on bludgeoning force, not reasoned diplomacy. Rasool’s carefully reasoned positions did not get him expelled—lobbying against South Africa’s principled challenge to Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did. His removal is part of a broader Trumpian effort to punish adversaries, both foreign and domestic, who dare to resist the administration’s autocratic dictates. The claim by Marco Rubio that Rasool was expelled for “race-baiting” is nothing more than a convenient fiction designed to mask the real motivation: retribution for challenging Israel’s impunity.

Du Toit: The Court Scribe for a Diplomatic Bully

Du Toit fails to acknowledge this reality. Instead, he parrots right-wing talking points, uncritically accepting the claim that Rasool’s expulsion was a response to his comments on Trump’s nativism. Does Du Toit genuinely believe this flimsy cover story, or is he simply running interference for an administration that has made a sport of punishing its critics? Either way, his analysis is hardly worth the bandwidth it occupies.

Let us be unequivocal about what has transpired: Rubio and Trump are punishing South Africa for daring to hold Israel accountable at the ICJ. The Trump administration, now entirely unmoored from diplomatic restraint, has launched a full-scale assault on international law, weaponizing foreign policy to silence dissent and crush any challenge to its unwavering support for Israel’s most extreme policies. Trump has escalated his assault on international law, declaring a full boycott of the International Criminal Court and threatening economic sanctions against any judge or lawyer involved in investigating Israel or the United States for war crimes. The expulsion of Rasool is not an enforcement of diplomatic decorum—it is a calculated act of retaliation, a blunt instrument of retribution wielded against a nation that refuses to submit to Washington’s dictates.

Trump and his vice president have repeatedly demonstrated open contempt for foreign leaders, shattering every norm of diplomatic conduct. Trumps humiliating treatment in the Oval Office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky remains one of the most cringeworthy diplomatic spectacles in recent memory, exposing the sheer disdain with which his administration regards international partners. Vice President J.D. Vance’s conduct has been no better; his open hostility and verbal abuse toward European leaders, delivered on their own soil, exemplifies the administration’s reckless and antagonistic approach to global affairs.

By contrast, Rasool did nothing remotely comparable. He did not insult his hosts, nor did he engage in crude provocations or diplomatic grandstanding. Instead, he offered a measured and intellectually rigorous analysis of the rise of nativism and its global consequences—precisely the kind of discourse that diplomats routinely engage in. Rasool’s remarks fit squarely within this tradition, making his expulsion not a matter of diplomatic propriety but a vindictive act of political retribution. But, of course, this is not about standards—it is about subjugation. Rasool was expelled not for what he said, but for what his government did: challenge the impunity of a U.S.-backed ally at the world’s highest court.

Ambassadors Do This All the Time

Du Toit’s claim that ambassadors should refrain from commenting on political affairs in their host country is not only inaccurate but willfully ignorant of diplomatic norms. Throughout history, U.S. ambassadors have routinely criticized the domestic policies of foreign governments. From Marie Yovanovitch’s condemnation of corruption in Ukraine to Michael McFaul’s vocal opposition to Russia’s crackdown on civil society, diplomats have consistently engaged in political discourse without facing expulsion. James Jeffrey criticized Turkey’s assault on press freedom, Anne Patterson denounced Egypt’s military-backed repression, and David Pressman called out Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ policies—all while serving as ambassadors. If merely acknowledging nativism’s global rise is grounds for expulsion, then by this standard, half of Washington’s diplomatic corps should be sent packing.

Trump’s Government by Vendetta

Du Toit would have us believe that the Trump administration follows a rational process, that there was a straightforward cause-and-effect chain leading to Rasool’s expulsion. But if du Toit had been paying attention, he would know that Trump’s domestic and foreign policy is dictated less by reason, but by tantrums and vendettas.

Trump’s second term has been marked by authoritarian overreach, political retribution, and a brazen disregard for the rule of law. He has pardoned January 6 rioters, installed a loyalist as Attorney General to shield himself from legal scrutiny, and pressured states to enact draconian abortion bans. Simultaneously, he has escalated crackdowns on dissent by deploying federal troops against protests, while targeting asylum seekers with harsh new policies, including banning asylum for Palestinians and backing Israel’s efforts to expel them from Gaza.

On the global stage, Trump’s foreign policy remains as erratic and reckless as ever. He has once again threatened NATO allies with U.S. withdrawal, flouting treaty-based commitments. These actions, taken together, illustrate a presidency untethered from legal norms, democratic values, or diplomatic precedent—one that governs through intimidation, retaliation, and sheer force of will.

Du Toit’s Fixation on Rasool: An Agenda, Not an Analysis

Du Toit’s article drips with an obvious hostility toward Rasool and the South African government, raising the question: what is his personal stake in this? His article reads less like an analysis and more like a political hit job—an attempt to rationalize Trump’s bullying tactics by turning Rasool and the South African government into the villain. He has picked a side, wielding his pen as a cudgel against a diplomat and country whose real crime, Du Toit’s ignores, is refusing to be a supplicant to U.S. and Israeli interests.

Du Toit’s Feeble Defense of Authoritarian Thuggery

At the heart of du Toit’s article is a fundamentally flawed premise: that the Trump administration expelled Rasool for a legitimate reason, rather than out of sheer political spite. That premise is laughable. Trump, Rubio, and their MAGA wrecking crew do not need reasons—they need targets. And South Africa, by standing up for international law, became one.

Rather than acknowledging the brazen political nature of this expulsion, du Toit has chosen to serve as its apologist, spinning a narrative that lets Trump and Rubio off the hook while smearing Rasool as the problem. It is transparently dishonest, and it deserves to be called out for what it is: a feeble attempt to rationalize diplomatic bullying by an administration that has abandoned any pretense of acting in good faith.

**This piece was submitted to News24 as a direct response to Pieter du Toit’s hit job on Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool. The Opinion Editor, however, objected to what she called “gratuitous” criticism of du Toit and insisted that certain passages be removed before considering it for publication. The irony is rich—apart from the litany of factual errors, du Toit himself engages in precisely the kind of baseless, sweeping attacks that News24 is now reluctant to allow me to call out.

For example, du Toit asserts, without evidence, that Rasool leads a South African mission whose “diplomatic nous and ability have been severely depleted and neglected over the past decade.” He further claims that Rasool and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) “have proved out of their depth” without offering a shred of objective analysis or measurable criteria to support this sweeping indictment. Far from being gratuitous, my response is a necessary corrective to du Toit’s distortions. To sanitize my critique would be to let stand a one-sided, unchallenged narrative—one that thrives on the very kind of unchecked rhetoric News24 appears comfortable publishing when it comes from du Toit. That is why I stand by my words and refuse to remove the parts that call him out.