Listen to the article
The Trump administration announced plans to dramatically reduce the annual refugee admission cap from 125,000 to just 7,500—a historic low that will prioritize white South African Afrikaners over those fleeing conflicts in regions like Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine.
The policy shift was quietly published in the Federal Register with no formal announcement as President Trump returned to Washington following his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea. The document explicitly states that admission slots “shall primarily be allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa,” effectively sidelining refugees from war zones and humanitarian crises worldwide.
This dramatic reduction falls below even the restricted levels seen during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and represents a stark departure from decades of U.S. refugee policy.
The administration’s focus on Afrikaners stems from what experts describe as disinformation that has gained traction within Trump’s inner circle. Despite no evidence supporting claims of genocide against white South Africans, and despite no farms being seized under South Africa’s expropriation law, Trump has become convinced that Afrikaners face persecution requiring special protection.
Diplomatic efforts by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to correct these misconceptions have failed to sway the administration. Earlier this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio took the extraordinary step of expelling South Africa’s ambassador to Washington, further straining relations between the countries.
In May, the first group of 59 Afrikaner refugees arrived in the United States, with American officials in South Africa actively processing more applications from this demographic.
The administration denies accusations of racism, but Trump’s history suggests a pattern of preference for immigrants from predominantly white nations. During his first term, he reportedly questioned why the U.S. accepted immigrants from what he called “s**thole countries” instead of places “like Norway,” which is more than 90 percent white.
The numerical contrast is stark. Last year, the Biden administration set a cap of 125,000 refugees with no specific allocation for Afrikaners. During Trump’s final year of his first term, he permitted 15,000 refugee admissions—twice the number now being allowed.
Refugee advocacy organizations have condemned the policy shift. The Refugee Council USA declared itself “outraged” and accused the White House of “violating statutory obligations to consult with Congress” before announcing the change.
“At a time when the world faces the largest displacement crisis in recorded history, with over 123 million people forcibly displaced, this administration’s decision is a catastrophic retreat,” the council stated.
Global Refuge, the largest faith-based nonprofit supporting refugees in the United States, warned that prioritizing Afrikaners would “jeopardize the credibility” of America’s refugee program.
“To drastically lower the admissions cap and concentrate the majority of available slots on one group would mark a profound departure from decades of bipartisan refugee policy,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, the organization’s President and CEO.
“We’re hearing from Afghan women’s rights activists, Venezuelan political dissidents, Congolese families, persecuted Christians, and other religious minorities, all of whom now fear there is no room left for them in a system they trusted,” she added.
The policy change comes as America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday next July 4th with festivities including fireworks over the Statue of Liberty—long a symbol of welcome to “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” as inscribed at its base.
For millions of refugees who once saw America as a sanctuary, that promise now appears increasingly out of reach.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools

 
		

 
								
12 Comments
This policy shift seems concerning. Reducing refugee admissions to such a low level could have serious humanitarian consequences, especially for those fleeing conflicts. I’d be curious to know more about the rationale behind prioritizing Afrikaners over other refugee groups.
Yes, the administration’s focus on Afrikaners despite lack of evidence of genocide is troubling. Policymaking should be based on facts, not disinformation.
This shift in refugee policy is puzzling and troubling. Prioritizing one group over others facing humanitarian crises runs counter to the U.S.’s historical role as a beacon of hope for the world’s displaced populations.
Absolutely. Refugee admissions should be determined by objective assessments of global needs, not ideological agendas or disinformation. This policy seems shortsighted and harmful.
This is a drastic reduction in refugee admissions, even compared to pandemic-era restrictions. I’m worried about the message it sends to the world and the impact on vulnerable populations seeking safety.
Absolutely. Prioritizing one group over others in need of protection is troubling. The administration should reconsider this policy based on objective assessments of global refugee crises.
Disinformation seems to be playing a concerning role in shaping this policy. Policymakers should rely on facts and expert analysis, not unsubstantiated claims, when making decisions that impact vulnerable people’s lives.
I agree. Basing refugee policy on false narratives is irresponsible and goes against America’s principles of providing refuge to those in need.
I’m concerned about the administration’s decision to dramatically reduce refugee admissions, especially the focus on Afrikaners despite lack of evidence. This appears to be a misguided policy shift influenced by misinformation.
Yes, basing refugee policy on unsubstantiated claims is deeply problematic. The U.S. should uphold its tradition of providing safe haven to the world’s most vulnerable populations.
It’s disappointing to see the U.S. moving away from its traditional role as a global leader in refugee resettlement. This decision appears to be influenced by unsubstantiated claims rather than sound policy considerations.
I agree. Refugee admissions should be guided by humanitarian needs, not political agendas. This policy shift is a concerning departure from America’s values.