The Trump administration is reportedly mulling a drastic restructuring of the U.S. refugee system. Documents obtained reveal plans to significantly reduce the program’s scope while giving preferential treatment to English speakers, white South Africans, and Europeans who express anti-migration sentiments.
These controversial proposals, some already implemented, would fundamentally alter a program designed over decades to assist the world’s most desperate individuals. Instead, the new system aligns with former President Trump’s immigration philosophy: prioritizing mostly white individuals claiming persecution while largely excluding others.
Officials from the State and Homeland Security Departments submitted these plans to the White House in April and July. This followed former President Trump’s directive for federal agencies to assess whether refugee resettlement truly serves U.S. interests. He had previously halted refugee admissions on his initial day in office, prompting these detailed recommendations on the program’s future.
Sources familiar with the discussions indicate that no ideas have been dismissed by Trump administration officials, though a timeline for approval or rejection remains undefined. These officials spoke anonymously due to the confidential nature of the plans.
Further changes suggest a new focus on an applicant’s ability to ‘assimilate’ into American society. This could involve mandatory classes on ‘American history and values’ and ‘respect for cultural norms’.
Additionally, the proposals recommend prioritizing Europeans who claim persecution for ‘peaceful expression of views online,’ specifically mentioning opposition to ‘mass migration’ or support for ‘populist’ political parties.
This appears to be a veiled reference to the far-right European party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), whose leadership has a history of downplaying the Holocaust, using Nazi-era slogans, and denigrating non-citizens. Vice President JD Vance has previously criticized Germany for attempting to silence this group.
A senior official, speaking anonymously as the plan is not yet finalized, confirmed that the Trump administration is closely monitoring the European situation to assess potential eligibility for refugee status under these new guidelines.
Even before formal submission, former President Trump had already implemented parts of these proposals, such as drastically cutting refugee admissions and granting priority status to Afrikaners—the white minority historically associated with South Africa’s apartheid regime.
Trump has consistently claimed that Afrikaners suffer racial persecution in South Africa, a assertion strongly challenged by South African government officials. Police data indicates no increased vulnerability to violent crime for white individuals compared to other demographics in the country.
Collectively, these proposals offer a clear insight into Mr. Trump’s vision for a program historically seen as a symbol of America’s commitment as a global sanctuary.
Both former President Trump and a segment of American voters have increasingly rejected this traditional role, particularly after years of unprecedented undocumented border crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border. Despite the refugee program’s rigorous, multi-year screening process being seen as the ‘correct’ pathway for protection, Mr. Trump has explicitly stated his desire for a comprehensive crackdown on all forms of immigration, legal and otherwise.
The documents presented to Mr. Trump cite a controversial rationale: America’s acceptance of refugees has purportedly led to excessive diversity within the nation.
One document explicitly states that ‘the sharp increase in diversity has reduced the level of social trust essential for the functioning of a democratic polity.’ Consequently, the administration advocates for admitting only ‘refugees who can be fully and appropriately assimilate, and are aligned with the president’s objectives’.
To achieve this, the documents suggest that Mr. Trump should cancel existing applications from hundreds of thousands of individuals already awaiting entry as refugees, many of whom have already undergone rigorous security vetting and referrals.
Furthermore, federal agencies under Mr. Trump proposed capping the number of refugees allowed to resettle in communities already densely populated by immigrants. This measure is intended to prevent ‘the concentration of non-native citizens’ and thereby promote assimilation.
While declining to comment on specifics, State Department spokesman Thomas Pigott stated, ‘It should come as no surprise that the State Department is implementing the priorities of the duly elected president of the United States.’ He underscored that ‘this administration unapologetically prioritizes the interests of the American people’.
Despite the broader refugee restrictions, the administration has made limited exceptions. Documents indicate federal agencies have facilitated the resettlement of a small number of Afghans who provided assistance to U.S. forces during the conflict.
Critics argue that these plans starkly reveal the president’s narrow vision for America’s future demographic makeup.
Barbara L. Strack, a former chief of refugee affairs for Citizenship and Immigration Services under multiple administrations, commented that the proposals ‘reflect a preexisting notion among some in the Trump administration as to who are the true Americans. And they think it’s white people and they think it’s Christians’.
Additional proposed changes include heightened security vetting for refugees, such as expanded DNA testing for children to verify their familial relationship with accompanying adults.
Furthermore, former President Trump plans to dramatically reduce the annual refugee intake to just 7,500 for the upcoming year, a significant cut from the Biden administration’s previous limit of 125,000.
Although legal requirements mandate congressional consultation for setting refugee limits, White House officials claim the ongoing government shutdown has caused delays in this process.
The White House continues to receive proposals from administration officials. A draft of a third report, seen by The New York Times, suggests a new approach: U.S. embassies would handle referrals for refugee status, replacing the long-standing practice of relying on the United Nations. This shift would grant the U.S. significantly more control over the selection of refugee candidates.
During a United Nations General Assembly panel on refugee policies last month, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau defended the Trump administration’s stance.
Mr. Landau asserted, ‘Saying that the process is susceptible to abuse is not being xenophobic, it is not being a mean or bad person.’
The administration’s argument posits that admitting thousands of refugees globally would overburden American communities already struggling to support the unprecedented number of migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border during the previous Biden administration.
It’s important to note that border migrants seek protection through a different system than refugees, who typically undergo years of rigorous vetting abroad before being cleared for U.S. travel. Historically, the refugee program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
For years, Mr. Trump and his immigration policy advisor, Stephen Miller, have aimed to restrict refugee entry into the U.S., especially from African and Muslim-majority countries. During his initial term, former President Trump infamously questioned, in a White House meeting, why the U.S. would accept immigrants from Haiti and African nations—terms he reportedly used to describe them—over those from Europe.
Now, his administration seems poised to formalize these controversial sentiments into official policy.
The report also includes a proposal from administration officials to prohibit refugees from settling in U.S. communities that have recently sought federal assistance for migrants.
However, numerous local leaders and refugee advocates contend that refugees not only integrate successfully into American life but also provide significant economic benefits to their local communities.
Marian Abernathy, a lay leader at the Judea Reform Congregation synagogue in Durham, N.C., has been actively assisting refugees in her community since 2016. Her efforts have supported a dozen families from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Haiti, Venezuela, and Syria over the past four years.
According to Abernathy, these refugees have found employment as nursing aides, engineers, Uber drivers, medical technicians, and even lunch coordinators at local schools.
She emphasized their integration, stating, ‘They come to dinner at our houses. We go to dinner at their houses. We go to events together, hang out at the museum. I don’t feel like they’re not integrated.’
Abernathy concluded by praising their work ethic: ‘I’ve rarely seen a group of people who work harder and who want fewer handouts.’