A recent CNN segment sparked heated debate over the Trump administration’s decision to grant refugee status to a group of white South African farmers facing violence and displacement in their home country.

The panel, which included CNN commentator Scott Jennings and Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary, debated the media’s portrayal of the decision and the broader implications surrounding race, immigration, and global human rights.

The policy in question involves accepting 59 white South African farmers into the United States as refugees.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

The move comes after years of reported violence targeting the country’s white farming population, including home invasions, assaults, and murders.

Though the number is small, the decision has drawn sharp reactions from media figures and political commentators, many of whom have questioned the motives behind the policy.

CNN’s coverage focused on whether the Trump administration’s move was racially motivated, with some panelists questioning the justification for accepting white refugees while opposing broader refugee resettlement efforts involving migrants from other regions.

Jennings pushed back on those accusations, saying the reaction to the 59 individuals being granted refuge was disproportionate and politically charged.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

O’Leary echoed those concerns, calling the controversy “manufactured” and suggesting the backlash was rooted in politics, not substance.

The broader issue touches on longstanding tensions in South Africa over land redistribution, crime, and the legacy of apartheid.

Some activists have claimed that the attacks on white farmers amount to a campaign of violence. Others, including officials in the South African government, have denied that there is any coordinated targeting based on race.

While the term “genocide” has been raised by some commentators, there is no international legal consensus that the crimes rise to that level.

Under the United Nations Genocide Convention, the term requires a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Critics of the policy have pointed to the lack of formal genocide designation as a reason to question the Trump administration’s decision.

Supporters of the refugee initiative have pointed to the history of the farmers, many of whom are Afrikaners whose families have lived in South Africa for generations.

They argue that these individuals are facing threats to their lives and livelihoods due to their identity, and that U.S. refugee protections should be extended regardless of race.

Opponents, including some media commentators, have portrayed the move as ideologically driven, with accusations that the Trump administration is selectively applying humanitarian standards based on race.

The appalling nature of the discussions tonight on CNN really highlights how much they hate White Christian people.

Imagine saying, ‘There hasn’t been enough k*lling to consider it to be a gen*cide.’

These people are delusionally demented. pic.twitter.com/3ZVevrsTaS

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) May 13, 2025

This framing has led to headlines claiming the policy is an effort to “import white supremacists,” despite no evidence supporting such allegations.

🚨Scott Jennings sits and listens patiently as CNN Panelist Ashley Allison stutters through her understanding of “the history of South Africa.”

“That allowed for a racial reconciliation — one that this country has yet to do.”

“The people who are native to that land deserve… pic.twitter.com/BHngFEwynD

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) May 13, 2025

The Trump administration has not announced plans to expand the scope of the program, though officials have not ruled out the possibility of accepting more individuals from the region in the future.

U.S. officials welcome the 1st group of white farmers fleeing persecution in South Africa: pic.twitter.com/2LkCJ1W4WG

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 12, 2025

The debate underscores ongoing divisions over the role of the U.S. in responding to international human rights concerns, and whether refugee decisions should be viewed through a political or racial lens.

Connect with Vetted Off-Duty Cops to Instantly Fulfill Your Security Needs