The Trump administration is reportedly planning a drastic revamp of the U.S. refugee system. These proposed changes would severely limit the program, prioritizing English speakers, white South Africans, and Europeans who are critical of migration, based on confidential documents seen by The New York Times.
Some of these contentious proposals are already in motion. They would fundamentally alter a program traditionally dedicated to assisting the world’s most vulnerable, aligning it instead with Mr. Trump’s immigration philosophy. This vision emphasizes aid primarily for white individuals claiming persecution, while largely restricting entry for others.
Officials from the State and Homeland Security Departments submitted these plans to the White House in April and July. This came after President Trump ordered federal agencies to assess whether the refugee resettlement program truly served U.S. interests. On his first day in office, Mr. Trump had already halted refugee admissions and requested ideas on the program’s future, or even its continuation.
Insiders familiar with the discussions indicate that no ideas have been dismissed by Trump administration officials, though a timeline for their approval or rejection remains undefined. These officials requested anonymity to speak openly about the sensitive nature of the proposals.
A significant shift in the proposed system would focus heavily on applicants’ ability to assimilate. This would involve mandatory courses covering “American history and values” and “respect for cultural norms.”
Furthermore, the plans suggest prioritizing Europeans who claim persecution for “peaceful expression of views online,” including criticism of mass migration or support for “populist” political movements.
This particular suggestion seems to allude to the far-right German party, Alternative for Germany (AfD), whose leaders have been accused of downplaying the Holocaust, using Nazi-era rhetoric, and denigrating non-natives. Vice President JD Vance has previously criticized Germany’s attempts to curb the AfD’s views.
A senior official, speaking anonymously due to the plan’s preliminary status, stated that the Trump administration is actively monitoring the European situation to identify potential refugee candidates under these new guidelines.
Even before the full proposals were formally submitted, Mr. Trump had already implemented certain elements. These included sharply reducing overall refugee admissions and granting preferential status to Afrikaners, the white minority that historically enforced South Africa’s apartheid regime.
Mr. Trump has asserted that Afrikaners face racial persecution in South Africa, an assertion strongly challenged by South African government officials. Police data, in fact, does not indicate that white individuals are disproportionately vulnerable to violent crime compared to other demographic groups in the country.
Collectively, these proposals offer a revealing glimpse into Mr. Trump’s broader intentions for a program that has long been a symbol of America’s commitment as a sanctuary for those fleeing danger.
Following years of unprecedented illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border, Mr. Trump and a significant portion of the American electorate have rejected this traditional role. Despite the refugee program’s rigorous screening and lengthy waiting periods, often seen as the “proper” route for seeking protection, Mr. Trump has unequivocally expressed his desire to curb all forms of immigration, legal and illegal alike.
The reasoning presented in the documents to Mr. Trump explicitly states that America’s acceptance of refugees has led to excessive diversity within the nation.
One document asserts that “The sharp increase in diversity has reduced the level of social trust essential for the functioning of a democratic polity.” Consequently, the administration should only welcome “refugees who can be fully and appropriately assimilate, and are aligned with the president’s objectives.”
To achieve this, the documents recommend that Mr. Trump cancel hundreds of thousands of pending refugee applications. Many of these applicants have already undergone exhaustive security screenings and received referrals.
Furthermore, federal agencies under Mr. Trump have proposed capping the number of refugees resettling in communities with existing large immigrant populations. This is justified by the belief that the U.S. should prevent “the concentration of non-native citizens” to foster better assimilation.
Thomas Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, declined to discuss the documents’ specifics. However, he 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 further asserted, “This administration unapologetically prioritizes the interests of the American people.”
Despite the general refugee ban, the administration has made a few exceptions. The documents indicate that federal agencies have facilitated the resettlement of a small number of Afghans who supported U.S. soldiers during the conflict.
Critics argue that these plans starkly reveal the president’s narrow vision for America’s future demographic makeup.
Barbara L. Strack, who previously headed the refugee affairs division at Citizenship and Immigration Services across three administrations (Bush, Obama, and Trump), commented, “It reflects 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.”
Further changes include more rigorous security screenings for refugees, such as expanded DNA testing for children to confirm their biological relationship with accompanying adults.
Mr. Trump also intends to dramatically reduce the number of refugees permitted into the U.S. next year, proposing a cap of 7,500. This is a sharp contrast to the 125,000 limit established by the Biden administration in the previous year.
While federal law mandates that Mr. Trump consult Congress on refugee limits, White House officials claim the ongoing government shutdown has caused a delay in this process.
The submission of proposals to the White House is ongoing. A draft of a third report, also obtained by The New York Times, reveals a new suggestion: U.S. embassies, rather than the long-standing practice of relying on the United Nations, would now be responsible for referring individuals for refugee status. This change aims to grant the U.S. greater control over who enters the refugee resettlement process.
During a U.N. General Assembly panel on refugee policies last month, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau defended the Trump administration’s stance.
Mr. Landau argued, “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 allowing thousands of refugees from around the globe would overburden American communities. Many of these communities are already struggling and have requested more resources to manage the record influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border during the previous administration.
It’s important to note that border migrants and refugees seek protection through distinct programs. Refugees typically endure years of overseas vetting before being approved for travel to the United States. Historically, the refugee program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support from both Republican and Democratic parties.
For years, Mr. Trump and Stephen Miller, a key architect of his immigration policies, have aimed to restrict the entry of refugees, especially those from African or Muslim-majority countries. During his initial term, Trump controversially questioned why the U.S. should accept immigrants from Haiti and African nations—terms he disparagingly labeled as “shithole countries”—instead of prioritizing Europeans.
Now, his administration seems poised to formalize these sentiments into official policy.
The report also included a proposal to ban 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 contribute positively to local economies.
Marian Abernathy, a lay leader at the Judea Reform Congregation synagogue in Durham, N.C., has actively supported refugees in her community since 2016. Over the past four years alone, she has assisted a dozen families from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Haiti, Venezuela, and Syria.
She noted that these refugees have found employment as nursing aides, engineers, Uber drivers, medical technicians, and lunch coordinators in local schools.
“They come to dinner at our houses,” she shared. “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.”
“I’ve rarely seen a group of people,” she concluded, “who work harder and who want fewer handouts.”