White South Africans granted refugee status by Trump administration arrive in US
A flight carrying a group of 59 White South Africans granted refugee status in the United States by the Trump administration arrived at Washington Dulles airport in Virginia on Monday, a State Department official said.
The Trump administration has moved to not only admit but to expedite the processing of Afrikaners as refugees for alleged discrimination. At the same time, it has suspended virtually all other refugee resettlement, including for people fleeing war and famine. The policy has drawn criticism from the South African government and from refugee advocates.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said Monday that those going to the US 'do not fit the definition of a refugee.'
Ramaphosa said he told Donald Trump that what the US president had been told about the persecution of the White minority group was not true.
'Those people who have fled are not being persecuted, they are not being hounded, they are not being treated badly,' he said at a panel at the Africa CEO Forum in Cote d'Ivoire moderated by CNN's Larry Madowo.
'They are leaving ostensibly because they don't want to embrace the changes that are taking place in our country in accordance with our constitution,' Ramaphosa said.
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International, called the policy 'a racialized immigration program masquerading as refugee resettlement, while real refugees remain stranded.'
'The main problem is denying protection to any other refugees from anywhere else in the world,' he said. 'There are millions of refugees around the world - people who have had to flee their home countries due to war or persecution – who have far more need for protection than anyone in this group – none of whom, to my knowledge, had been forced to flee from South Africa.'
In remarks on Friday, senior White House official Stephen Miller said the arrivals this week are 'the beginning of what's going to be a much larger-scale relocation effort.'
Since Trump began his second term, the US has taken a series of punitive measures against South Africa, whose government has been met with ire not only from Trump, but also from his ally Elon Musk, who was born and raised in the country.
Both Trump and Musk, the tech billionaire, have alleged that White farmers in the country are being discriminated against under land reform policies that South Africa's government says are necessary to remedy the legacy of apartheid.
In January, South Africa enacted the Expropriation Act, seeking to undo the legacy of apartheid, which created huge disparities in land ownership among its majority Black and minority White population.
Under apartheid, non-White South Africans were forcibly dispossessed from their lands for the benefit of Whites. Today, some three decades after racial segregation officially ended in the country, Black South Africans, who comprise over 80% of the population of 63 million, own around 4% of private land.
The expropriation law empowers South Africa's government to take land and redistribute it – with no obligation to pay compensation in some instances – if the seizure is found to be 'just and equitable and in the public interest.'
In February, Trump suspended aid to South Africa, alleging discrimination against White farmers. In that same executive order, the president said the US would 'promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.'
Earlier this month, Trump said in a post on social media that 'any Farmer (with family!) from South Africa, seeking to flee that country for reasons of safety, will be invited into the United States of America with a rapid pathway to Citizenship.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
38 minutes ago
- E&E News
Trump's proposed forestry cuts cloud GOP research bill
The Trump administration's proposal to cut off funding for state and private forestry programs would threaten programs with bipartisan support, House Democrats said at a hearing. A House Natural Resources hearing on wildfire and forestry bills saw Democrats charging that eliminating the funds for the coming fiscal year would hobble one of the very measures the GOP majority is looking to push through, among other consequences. At issue is a range of programs that help states, localities and conservation organizations manage nonfederal lands, including for wildfire prevention and reforestation. Congress funded state and private forestry at $284 million this year. Advertisement One budget casualty, Democrats on the Subcommittee on Federal Lands said, could be the Southwest Ecological Restoration Institutes, a network of three research programs at universities in Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona that gets around $7 million in annual federal funding.
E&E News
38 minutes ago
- E&E News
Energy secretary is forced to defend Trump's Empire Wind rescue
Energy Secretary Chris Wright was thrust into the uncomfortable position of defending the Trump administration's decision to save a New York offshore wind project that it had pushed to the brink of collapse. Wright was pressed about the rationale for lifting a stop-work order on Empire Wind 1 during an interview Monday with Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum. The Energy secretary is an unlikely defender of the decision. A former oil executive, he has repeatedly criticized wind and solar as electricity sources since taking over the department. He also has limited authority over offshore wind development, which is located almost exclusively in federal waters and is regulated by the Interior Department. Yet his comments offer the most detailed explanation to date about the administration's move to reverse the order that had halted construction on the project in mid-April. Advertisement 'The global record of offshore wind has been a train wreck. It's just been very expensive electricity and intermittent electricity has driven prices up. But Empire Wind's a trickier issue because it's well under construction and billions have already been spent. So it's tricky what to do with midstream projects,' Wright said. 'More important for New York by far is to build the Constitution and the NESE [Northeast Energy Supply Enhancement] pipelines that can bring lower cost, cleaner energy to New Yorkers, lower the cost of home heating, lower the cost of electricity.'
E&E News
38 minutes ago
- E&E News
What to look for in Zeldin's power plant rule repeal
EPA will move Wednesday to repeal Biden-era power sector rules for carbon and hazardous emissions. The two repeal proposals are the Trump EPA's most important regulatory actions to date. They will not only set the stage for rolling back key Clean Air Act rules, but also provide a glimpse of the Trump administration's broader anti-climate and anti-regulatory strategy. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin will unveil the proposals at the agency's Washington headquarters Wednesday afternoon during an event attended by several Republican lawmakers. Advertisement The proposals target two regulations central to the Biden administration's climate agenda: one that sets carbon pollution limits at fossil fuel power plants, and another that ramps up controls on harmful pollution like mercury. It's unclear whether the agency will release the full draft regulations and regulatory documents Wednesday — or wait until the drafts are published in the Federal Register. But here's what to know and watch in the days ahead. The basics EPA has said it plans to repeal both the carbon and mercury rules by the end of this year, and the proposals cleared White House review Friday. The draft climate rule repeal would jettison standards for new gas- and existing coal-fired power that were based on carbon capture and storage. EPA is not expected to immediately propose a replacement rule, but hasn't ruled out doing so in the future. The two proposals traveled to the White House for review in near-record time — just over 100 days after President Donald Trump's inauguration. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review in a mere 35 days, or about half the time usually allotted for review of complex EPA rulemakings. The Trump administration has been tight-lipped about its strategy for doing away with the power plant carbon rule. EPA did not respond to calls for comment on this story. Possible legal arguments The agency will need to use the draft repeal to lay out its legal case for abandoning the 2024 carbon rule. That case could be twofold — a more conventional attack on the Biden administration's reliance on carbon capture as a benchmark technology, and a broader contention that power plant carbon shouldn't be regulated at all. Jeff Holmstead, who served as EPA air chief during the George W. Bush administration, said in a recent interview that EPA would be on firm legal ground to argue that carbon capture and storage doesn't align with the Clean Air Act's directive to base performance standards on controls that are 'adequately demonstrated.' 'I think that was a big stretch, and I don't think it would have been upheld in court,' he said. But EPA has signaled it plans to use the repeal to take a broader swipe at its own authority to regulate carbon — or at least carbon from power plants. To do that, it appears poised to argue that the U.S. power sector doesn't contribute 'significantly' to pollution and thus doesn't meet the Clean Air Act threshold for regulatory action. It's a gambit that, if successful, could make it harder for subsequent administrations to regulate power plant carbon. But lawyers say EPA has an uphill battle. Power is the country's second-highest-emitting sector after transportation. EPA argued during the first Trump administration that the power sector meets the Clean Air Act threshold. And the D.C. Circuit ruled in West Virginia vs. EPA — the same case that struck down the Obama-era Clean Power Plan — that power sector emissions were significant enough to merit regulation. 'The U.S. power sector, if it were a country, would be the sixth-biggest country emitter in the world,' said Jason Schwartz, legal director at the Institute for Policy Integrity. 'By any reasonable interpretation of the legal language, this is clearly a significant contribution. If this isn't, then nothing is and what's the point of the Clean Air Act in the first place?' Schwartz and his colleague Peter Howard recently released an analysis that estimated that a year of U.S. power sector emissions causes $370 billion in global damages and $56 billion in U.S. public health impacts, as well as contributes to 5,300 future U.S. deaths. Cost-benefit analysis One question that may be answered Wednesday is how EPA will weigh the costs and benefits of rolling back the rule. That will only be answered when — or if — the agency releases supporting documents for the repeal proposal. The breakneck pace of EPA's regulatory rollback means that the agency likely hasn't had time to construct an analytical framework on things like the health and mortality consequences of increased smog and soot stemming from the repeals, or changes it expects to see in power sector investments. That means the agency will either have to rely on outdated metrics from the first Trump administration or on the Biden-era projections it claims vastly inflate regulatory benefits and obscure costs. 'I have no idea what we're going to see tomorrow,' said Julie McNamara, associate policy director for climate at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a Tuesday interview. 'The power sector is in total flux. Will they be including increased demand from data centers? Will they be including increased costs of gas from all the ramp up of [liquefied natural gas] and gas generation? What do they assume for coal would have happened under the Biden-era regulations? 'That could be very telling for the narrative they tried to set around the future of this nation's power sector,' she said. 'It is quite unlikely to line up with reality.' Numerous experts outside the federal government have analyzed the effect of the Biden carbon rules on both the grid and emissions — and the possible impact of removing them. John Bistline, an energy systems analyst with Electric Power Research Institute, published a model-based study in the journal Science earlier this year. It found that the power plant carbon rule would make a significant dent in power sector emissions in later decades with or without increased power demand, and would reduce uncertainty around how much coal-fired power remained on the grid. The climate question One open question is how — or whether — EPA will try to monetize damages from climate change. The Trump White House has told agencies to avoid using a metric for the social cost of greenhouse gases that reflects climate damage stemming from agency policies. But with a regulatory action that hinges so directly on carbon emissions, experts said EPA could find it hard to defend the rollback if it hasn't shown it has grappled with the climate impacts of its decision to rescind the rule. 'If they didn't do any analysis, what is their explanation?' said Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She noted that the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to provide a reasoned explanation for changes to existing policy. 'It all goes back to just classic administrative law,' Hankins said. 'Are they explaining why they've changed their mind since the Biden administration? Are they using the best available science? Are they adequately considering all aspects of the problem?' Schwartz said EPA might not release any regulatory analysis at all, if it believes it can repeal the Biden rule based solely on a legal argument that power plant carbon shouldn't be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But he said that could increase the chances that the rule would be thrown out in court. 'I think that would be a mistake,' he said. This story also appears in Energywire.
