On October 15, 2025, reports from both The New York Times and AlterNet revealed that the Trump administration is considering a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. refugee system—one that would fundamentally reshape the country’s approach to offering sanctuary to those in need. The draft proposals, submitted to the White House earlier this year, would slash refugee admissions to minimal levels and prioritize English speakers, white South Africans, and Europeans who oppose migration, especially those aligned with far-right political movements such as Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
The documents, which have not yet been formally approved or rejected, outline a vision for refugee resettlement that would depart dramatically from the decades-old humanitarian focus of the program. Instead, the proposed changes would align with President Trump’s broader immigration agenda, which, according to The New York Times, seeks to admit mostly white individuals who claim persecution, while restricting access for most other asylum seekers. The proposals are currently under review by senior administration officials, with no set timeline for implementation.
According to the documents, the administration would prioritize refugees who have been “targeted for peaceful expression of views online such as opposition to mass migration or support for ‘populist’ political parties.” This language, as noted by AlterNet, appears to specifically target followers of far-right movements in Europe, including the AfD. The party has been widely criticized for its nationalist rhetoric, trivialization of the Holocaust, and denigration of foreigners. Vice President JD Vance has gone so far as to criticize Germany for allegedly suppressing the views of AfD supporters, suggesting that the Trump administration is actively monitoring developments in Europe to determine eligibility for refugee status.
One of the most controversial aspects of the proposals is the call to cancel the applications of hundreds of thousands of people already in the refugee pipeline—many of whom have undergone years of security checks and vetting. The administration’s rationale, as laid out in the documents, is that “the sharp increase in diversity has reduced the level of social trust essential for the functioning of a democratic polity.” The proposals argue that the U.S. should only admit “refugees who can be fully and appropriately assimilate, and are aligned with the president’s objectives.”
The draft also advises that refugees be directed to take classes on “American history and values” and “respect for cultural norms” as part of an intensified focus on assimilation. Furthermore, it proposes imposing limits on the number of refugees allowed to resettle in communities with already high immigrant populations, with the stated goal of avoiding “the concentration of non-native citizens” and promoting assimilation. The administration has also floated the idea of banning refugees from resettling in U.S. communities that have requested federal aid to assist migrants in recent years.
Some elements of the plan have already been enacted. President Trump, for example, slashed refugee admissions upon taking office and has offered priority status to Afrikaners—the white minority that once dominated South Africa during apartheid. Trump has claimed that Afrikaners face racial persecution in South Africa, a claim disputed by South African officials and contradicted by police statistics, which do not indicate that white people are more vulnerable to violent crime than other groups. Nevertheless, the administration has made exceptions to its broader refugee ban for a limited number of Afghans who assisted U.S. soldiers during the war.
Other proposed changes include more intensive security vetting for refugees, such as expanded DNA testing to verify that children are related to the adults they accompany. The administration is also seeking to reduce the refugee admissions cap to 7,500 for the upcoming year, a drastic cut from the 125,000 limit set by the Biden administration. By law, the president must consult Congress before imposing a new refugee limit, but White House officials have stated that the ongoing government shutdown has delayed that process.
Another significant shift would involve transferring the responsibility for refugee referrals from the United Nations to U.S. embassies, giving American officials greater control over who is admitted into the country. According to a draft of a third report obtained by The New York Times, this change is designed to ensure that the refugee pipeline aligns more closely with U.S. interests and priorities.
Not surprisingly, the proposals have generated fierce criticism from refugee advocates and former officials. Barbara L. Strack, a former chief of the refugee affairs division at Citizenship and Immigration Services, told The New York Times, “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.” Critics argue that the overhaul would transform the refugee admissions process from a humanitarian mission into a tool for advancing nationalist and racialized politics, screening applicants based on ideology and race rather than need.
Thomas Pigott, a spokesperson for the State Department, declined to comment on the specific details of the documents but said, “It should come as no surprise that the State Department is implementing the priorities of the duly elected president of the United States. This administration unapologetically prioritizes the interests of the American people.” At a United Nations General Assembly panel last month, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau defended the administration’s approach, stating, “Saying that the process is susceptible to abuse is not being xenophobic, it is not being a mean or bad person.”
Supporters of the proposals argue that the changes are necessary to align refugee policy with American interests and to address concerns about social cohesion and resource allocation. They point to the record number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and argue that communities are already stretched thin. However, critics counter that the refugee program is entirely separate from the asylum process at the border and involves meticulous screening and yearslong waits.
Local leaders and advocates for refugees have pushed back against the administration’s claims, highlighting the positive contributions that refugees make to American communities. Marian Abernathy, a lay leader at the Judea Reform Congregation in Durham, North Carolina, told The New York Times about her experience helping refugee families from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Haiti, Venezuela, and Syria. “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,” she said. “I’ve rarely seen a group of people who work harder and who want fewer handouts.”
Historically, the U.S. refugee program has enjoyed bipartisan support, with both Republicans and Democrats viewing it as a symbol of America’s role as a sanctuary for the world’s most vulnerable. However, the Trump administration—guided by longtime advisor Stephen Miller—has consistently sought to limit refugee admissions, particularly from Africa and Muslim-majority nations. During his first term, President Trump infamously questioned why the U.S. would accept immigrants from Haiti and African countries, reportedly using derogatory language, and instead expressed a preference for migrants from Europe.
Legal challenges to the proposed overhaul are likely. A federal judge previously blocked an effort by the administration to suspend the refugee program entirely, ruling that while the president may limit admissions, he cannot nullify laws passed by Congress. As the administration continues to refine its proposals, the future of America’s refugee program—and its identity as a nation of immigrants—remains uncertain.
The debate over the refugee system is far from settled, with profound implications for the character and values of the United States in the years ahead.
