On October 31, 2025, the South African government publicly condemned a dramatic shift in U.S. refugee policy that prioritizes Afrikaners—South Africa’s white minority of Dutch descent—for resettlement in the United States. The move, announced by President Donald Trump the previous day, sets the U.S. refugee admissions ceiling at just 7,500 for fiscal year 2026, the lowest since the refugee program’s inception in 1980, and a sharp drop from the 125,000 spots available under the Biden administration just a year prior, according to The Associated Press and CBC.
Trump’s new policy, which singles out Afrikaners for special consideration, has ignited a firestorm of criticism both at home and abroad. The administration claims that Afrikaners face persecution and even “genocide” in South Africa—allegations the South African government has flatly rejected. “The claim of a ‘white genocide’ in South Africa is widely discredited and unsupported by reliable evidence,” said Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for South Africa’s international relations department, as quoted by AP. He added, “A program designed to facilitate the immigration and resettlement of Afrikaners as refugees is deeply flawed and disregards the country’s constitutional processes.”
For many, the numbers themselves are startling. The ceiling of 7,500 refugees is not only a record low but represents a seismic shift away from the U.S. tradition of offering sanctuary to people fleeing war, persecution, and catastrophe. Under President Biden, over 100,000 refugees were admitted in fiscal 2024, with the majority coming from crisis-stricken nations like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, and Syria. Now, as CBC reports, the new policy “primarily allocates” refugee spots to white South African Afrikaners, deprioritizing those escaping violence in Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, and other hotspots.
The Trump administration’s announcement was published in the Federal Register on September 30 and became official on October 2. The notice justifies the focus on Afrikaners by citing humanitarian concerns or the national interest, but critics argue that the rationale is both factually and morally indefensible. Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. have lambasted the policy. In a joint statement, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin and Senator Dick Durbin said, “This bizarre presidential determination is not only morally indefensible, it is illegal and invalid.” They also pointed out that the executive branch did not consult Congress before setting the new refugee levels, as required by law—a point echoed by Reuters and other outlets.
The controversy doesn’t end there. The Trump administration has also moved oversight of refugee support programs from the State Department to the Department of Health and Human Services, a change that, according to some advocates, further undermines the program’s integrity. During the United Nations General Assembly in September, top Trump officials called on other nations to join a global campaign to roll back asylum protections—a move that would fundamentally reshape the post-World War II migration framework.
Within South Africa, the policy has sparked a divisive debate. While some Afrikaner groups remain critical of the government’s handling of crime and redress policies, many Afrikaners themselves have rejected the notion that they require special asylum status. In a widely publicized open letter, a group of prominent Afrikaners—including politicians, activists, writers, and businesspeople—wrote, “The idea that white South Africans deserve special asylum status because of their race undermines the very principles of the refugee program. Vulnerability—not race—should guide humanitarian policy.”
Nevertheless, the lobby group AfriForum, while stopping short of calling farm murders in South Africa a genocide, has voiced support for giving Afrikaners the option to apply for refugee status. “There will be Afrikaners that apply and they should have the option, especially those who have been victims of horrific farm attacks or the South African government’s many racially discriminatory policies,” AfriForum’s Ernst van Zyl told AP.
Despite the controversy, the actual uptake of the offer has been modest. By early September 2025, only 138 South Africans had entered the U.S., according to Reuters. By May, a group of 59 white South Africans were granted asylum and received with much fanfare, and by October, approximately 400 had reportedly been relocated, according to CBC. U.S. officials have set ambitious targets: processing 2,000 Afrikaners for resettlement by the end of October and an additional 4,000 by the end of November.
The policy’s critics are legion. Sharif Aly, president of the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), argues that the U.S. government is “politicizing a humanitarian program” and “giving special privilege to Afrikaners.” He added, “It is egregious to exclude refugees who completed years of rigorous security checks and are currently stuck in dangerous and precarious situations.” Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, CEO of Global Refuge, warned, “This decision doesn’t just lower the refugee admissions ceiling. It lowers our moral standing.” Uzra Zeya, president of Human Rights First and a former State Department official, called the policy “blatantly racist,” stating, “Turning our back on hundreds of thousands of truly at-risk refugees fleeing religious, political, and other forms of persecution defies decades of bipartisan support for welcoming the vulnerable.” Guerline Jozef of the Haitian Bridge Alliance described the cap as “white supremacy disguised as refugee policy,” highlighting the plight of Black refugees from Haiti, Sudan, the Congo, and Cameroon who are being left behind.
Supporters of the administration’s move argue that the U.S. must act in its own national interest and address the specific vulnerabilities of Afrikaners, whom Trump and his allies claim are targets of violence and discrimination in South Africa. However, the South African government and a broad spectrum of international observers maintain that these claims are exaggerated or outright false. South Africa’s Afrikaner community, numbering around 2.7 million in a population of 62 million, is integrated into all aspects of society and includes business leaders, athletes, and government officials. The country’s post-apartheid constitution enshrines equal rights for all citizens, regardless of race.
The refugee policy shift has also drawn criticism for its broader implications. Gideon Maltz, CEO of Tent Partnership for Refugees, noted that refugees have historically helped address labor shortages in the U.S. and that the program “has been extraordinarily good for America.” He warned, “Dismantling it today is not putting America first.”
As the debate rages on, the fate of thousands of would-be refugees from around the world hangs in the balance. For many, the U.S. has long represented a beacon of hope and sanctuary. Whether that reputation will endure in the face of such a dramatic policy shift remains to be seen.
