President Donald Trump is weighing a dramatic reduction in the United States’ annual refugee intake, with administration officials signaling a cap as low as 7,500 for the 2025-2026 fiscal year—an unprecedented low in modern American history. According to the Associated Press, sources familiar with the matter say the administration’s plan would prioritize white South African applicants, particularly Afrikaners, over other refugee groups, a move that has ignited sharp criticism from immigration advocates and lawmakers alike.
The potential shift comes on the heels of a turbulent period for U.S. immigration policy. The Biden administration’s previous target for refugee admissions stood at 125,000 for 2024, a figure that reflected a return to the more open and humanitarian approach that had, for decades, defined the nation’s approach to people fleeing persecution and violence abroad. The Trump administration’s proposed cap, by contrast, marks not only a numerical reduction but a fundamental reorientation of priorities.
The new proposal has not yet been finalized or officially transmitted to Congress, as required by law. The deadline for such notification passed on September 30, 2025, and the delay has left both prospective refugees and the organizations that support them in a state of uncertainty. The White House, for its part, maintains that the cap is not final until congressional consultation has taken place. One senior U.S. official told the Associated Press that such consultation is unlikely until the ongoing federal government shutdown is resolved.
That shutdown, which began on October 1, 2025, has effectively halted all new refugee admissions for the current fiscal year. Even before the shutdown, however, admissions had slowed to a trickle following Trump’s executive order suspending the refugee program on his first day back in office, January 20, 2025. Since then, only a small number of refugees have been admitted, either through ongoing court challenges or via a new, narrowly tailored program for Afrikaners announced by the administration in February.
The rationale for prioritizing white South African farmers, according to administration officials, is that they face discrimination and violence in their home country. However, the South African government has repeatedly denied that such persecution is taking place. The emphasis on this group has raised concerns among advocates that the U.S. is turning away from its longstanding commitment to a globally responsive and non-discriminatory refugee policy.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of the resettlement organization Global Refuge, told the Associated Press, “This would be a monumental shift in U.S. refugee policy, not just in terms of reducing admissions, but also in terms of disproportionately privileging one group over every other.” Vignarajah added, “Our concern is that this could turn what has long been a globally responsive humanitarian system into one that overwhelmingly favors a single group.”
The numbers at stake are significant. Mark Hetfield, president of HIAS, a Jewish refugee resettlement agency, noted that approximately 128,000 refugees have already been approved for resettlement in the United States but are now stuck in limbo, unable to move forward with their plans. Among them are about 14,000 Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities from Iran who have long been registered with the program. Hetfield questioned the administration’s priorities, saying, “How can a president who claims to stand for religious and American values and who claims to support legal and orderly migration turn his back on so many refugees who followed the rules, while moving white South Africans to the front of the line?”
The proposed cap of 7,500 is not only a steep drop from the Biden-era target but also lower than what many refugee advocates had feared. In early September, organizations that assist refugees began to worry that the administration was considering a cap of about 30,000, with most of those spots reserved for white South Africans. The revelation that the actual number could be slashed by more than 20,000 from that already conservative estimate caught many by surprise.
Adding to the sense of crisis, the Department of Homeland Security has ramped up immigration enforcement actions in major U.S. cities, including Chicago, as part of what officials describe as a campaign to “recapture our national identity.” The department has also launched a social media recruitment drive for new officers, further signaling a hardline stance on immigration enforcement.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have not been silent. The ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary committees, which oversee immigration matters, have accused the Trump administration of “open defiance of the law” for failing to notify Congress of the new refugee cap by the statutory deadline. In a letter last week, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, along with other top Democrats, warned that refugees are being left in “limbo.” They wrote, “The consequences are dire.” The lawmakers highlighted that thousands of people facing persecution abroad “who have already passed the rigorous vetting requirements” are being left to languish, while the administration is “carving out exceptions for white South African farmers, allowing Afrikaners to skip the line.”
For the 128,000 refugees who have already been approved for resettlement, the uncertainty is excruciating. Many have spent years navigating the labyrinthine vetting process, only to find themselves caught in an administrative freeze. The same is true for the 14,000 religious minorities from Iran, a group that has historically been a focus of U.S. humanitarian policy.
Supporters of the Trump administration’s approach argue that the United States must balance its humanitarian commitments with domestic security and economic concerns. They point to the ongoing government shutdown as evidence of broader dysfunction in Washington and argue that refugee policy should not be set in isolation from other national priorities. “Consultation with Congress is required by law, and it’s not going to happen until the government is back at work,” one senior official told the Associated Press.
Yet, for many observers, the proposed changes represent a stark departure from America’s historical role as a refuge for the world’s displaced and persecuted. The U.S. refugee program, which once enjoyed broad bipartisan support, now sits at the center of a heated national debate over identity, values, and the country’s place in the world. The outcome of this debate will have life-altering consequences for tens of thousands of people whose hopes now hang in the balance.
As the government shutdown drags on and the administration’s plans remain in flux, the fate of America’s refugee program—and those who depend on it—remains deeply uncertain. The coming weeks will reveal whether the U.S. continues to see itself as a beacon for the world’s most vulnerable, or whether it will close its doors to all but a favored few.
