Refugee resettlement in U.S. creates major positive impact
Despite a February 2025 federal court order to resume refugee resettlement, the administration has said that won't be happening any time soon because the country's refugee system has been so thoroughly dismantled.
Trump's Jan. 20 executive order discontinued regular refugee processing and halted all federal funding for refugee resettlement. It ended the State Department's 2023 Welcome Corps program, which allowed U.S. citizens to privately sponsor refugees, as well as a program that resettled children from Central America and certain family members. Trump also suspended the follow-to-join visas that reunited refugee families.
Together, these programs make up the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Created in 1980, the program resettles refugees nationwide through partnerships between the government and U.S.-based resettlement agencies. It had made the United States the global leader in refugee resettlement.
As a scholar of refugees and displacement, I expect refugee admissions to remain close to zero for the rest of Trump's term. Thousands of refugees, both at home and abroad, will suffer as a result. So will the many Americans who work within the country's sprawling refugee resettlement network.
Brief history of U.S. refugee policies
Under U.S. and international law, refugees are people fleeing "persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution" due to race, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, religion or national origin.
While refugees have come to the United States since its founding, the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 was the country's first official "refugee" law. The act, which expired in 1952, allowed more than 350,000 European refugees displaced by World War II to enter the United States within the constraints of an existing quota system that defined how many refugees the country would admit each year, and from which countries.
Between 1952 and 1980, numerous international refugee crises spurred Congress to pass a series of laws welcoming certain groups into the country.
Political calculations played a major role in these decisions. For instance, as part of America's Cold War, anti-Communist strategy, Congress passed laws in 1962 and 1966 giving tens of thousands of Cubans fleeing Fidel Castro's regime sanctuary in the United States.
In the 1970s and 1980s, following its loss to communist North Vietnam in the Vietnam War, the United States welcomed approximately 1.4 million refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
In 1980, Congress passed the Refugee Act, which amended existing law to raise the annual ceiling for refugees and created a formal process for refugee resettlement.
Every year, through presidential determination, the president, in consultation with Congress, establishes refugee admissions levels. This decision takes into account U.S. national interests and international humanitarian crises. The caps are announced in the fall.
On average, since 1980, the annual presidential determination number has exceeded 95,000 people. Since 2000, Presidential determinations have ranged from a low of 27,131 -- after the 9/11 attacks -- to last year's ceiling of 125,000 refugees per year.
How to get refugee status
To vet potential refugees and assist qualifying refugees in the resettlement process, several U.S. government agencies coordinate closely: the State Department, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services.
To qualify for consideration, refugees must be living overseas. The resettlement process begins with registration with the U.N. Refugee Agency. U.N. officials collect documentation and perform an initial screening, and then refer qualifying individuals to one of seven U.S. State Department resettlement support centers worldwide.
State Department officials interview applicants and submit them to a rigorous screening that includes an FBI background check. Highly trained immigration officers posted overseas then try to confirm whether applicants meet the legal standards of a refugee. They conduct face-to-face interviews to verify who they are and what forced them to flee. Testimonies are evaluated for consistency with country conditions.
The process takes 18 to 36 months or longer.
Once refugees are accepted into the United States, 10 national refugee resettlement agencies in coordination with local nonprofit partners support them during their first 90 days in the country.
Previous suspensions
Critics of resettlement, including Trump, have argued that refugees threaten U.S. national security, are unvetted and do not assimilate into the U.S. economy and society.
However, research show that refugees contribute both economically and socially through taxes and entrepreneurship. They also revitalize towns with declining populations.
Between 2005 and 2019, refugees yielded a net positive fiscal impact of $123.8 billion, at both federal and state levels, and generated an estimated $581 billion for governments at all levels. A 2023 American Immigration Council report found that the spending power of refugees in just one state, California, totaled more than $20.7 billion.
There is no link between refugees and crime, nor is there any notable link to terrorism.
Although the 9/11 attacks were not committed by refugees, President George W. Bush in 2001 suspended refugee admissions for several months, leaving 23,000 refugees already approved for resettlement in limbo, mainly in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Many had sold their belongings and homes in anticipation of moving to the United States.
In 2017, in his first term in office, Trump issued executive order 13769. The directive suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days and barred entry of people from seven Muslim-majority countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- for 90 days. It also indefinitely banned Syrian refugees.
Trump also lowered the annual refugee admissions cap, from 110,000 in 2017 to 45,000 in 2018, and continued dropping it each year. By 2021, his administration had set the lowest refugee cap in U.S. history, at 15,000.
What happens when refugee resettlement pauses
The second suspension of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program drastically affected refugees waiting abroad for resettlement and those already in the United States.
Arabic-speaking refugees in particular struggled with discrimination and psychosocial challenges such as stress and other medical issues, leading to poorer social integration.
The U.S. economy suffered, too. One researcher estimated that Trump's 2017 suspension of refugee resettlement deprived the country of $9.1 billion in economic activity per year and sapped public coffers at all levels of government of over $2 billion a year. More than 300 Americans who worked in refugee resettlement were laid off in 2017 alone.
Trump's Muslim ban created an enormous backlog of immigration cases. In 2021, for instance, the incoming Biden administration inherited petitions for 25,994 unprocessed refugee family reunification cases.
Many other vetted refugees were not allowed entry, including U.S.-affiliated Iraqis and Afghans who remained trapped in violent contexts.
Immediate impact of Trump's order
Similar repercussions are already seen today.
As of Jan. 22, the Trump administration had canceled the flights of 10,000 vetted refugees into the United States. Most of them were coming from the 10 countries from which the United States had accepted refugees in recent years, including Venezuela, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Sudan and Iraq.
These refugees are now at acute risk of persecution and violence.
Recently arrived refugees, who would normally receive assistance for their first 90 days, are likewise losing support for basic essentials, such as warm clothing, food and housing assistance.
Resettlement agencies nationwide are also feeling the pain of Trump cutting federal funding for refugee resettlement.
Several nonprofits have lost millions in government contracts allocated to assist new arrivals. They were forced to fire dozens or in some cases hundreds of staffers.
Three refugee resettlement agencies have sued the federal government for withholding congressionally appropriated funding for refugee processing and services. On Feb. 25, a federal judge in Seattle agreed with the plaintiffs in Pacito vs. Trump that Trump likely exceeded his authority and temporarily blocked the refugee program's suspension.
The legal battle over America's refugee system has just begun. History suggests everyone involved with the program and the U.S. economy will suffer for years to come.
">Tazreena Sajjad is a senior professorial lecturer of global governance, politics and security at the American University School of International Service. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely the views of the author.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Roasters Shun Coffee From Brazil After 50% Tariffs Kick In
(Bloomberg) -- American coffee buyers are shunning fresh deals with top grower Brazil after President Donald Trump's 50% tariff took effect this month. Chicago Schools Seeks $1 Billion of Short-Term Debt as Cash Gone A Photographer's Pipe Dream: Capturing New York's Vast Water System A London Apartment Tower With Echoes of Victorian Rail and Ancient Rome Why New York City Has a Fleet of New EVs From a Dead Carmaker Princeton Plans New Budget Cuts as Pressure From Trump Builds Companies are avoiding new contracts and looking for wiggle room in existing ones to avoid having to pay the higher levies, according to a dozen brokers, roasters and exporters contacted by Bloomberg. Some US buyers are asking for extended shipping timelines in the hopes that tariffs may be eased later, according to Brazil's exporter group Cecafé. Deals between the US and Brazil have 'totally stalled,' said coffee broker Thiago Cazarini. 'No one's really buying anything.' About a third of America's unroasted coffee typically comes from Brazil, a country Trump has been immersed in a trade conflict with, in part due to what he calls the 'politically motivated persecution' of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. A political ally of Trump's, Bolsonaro faces trial for an attempted coup against the government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who defeated Bolsonaro in a 2022 election. Trump first announced 10% tariffs on Brazil and other countries in April, before imposing 50% levies on the South American agricultural power that kicked in on Aug. 6. One roaster, Florida-based Zaza Coffee, gets about a quarter of its beans from Brazil and currently has 14 to 16 weeks left of those supplies. After the beans are used up, the company is looking to replace them with coffee from Central America, Peru and Mexico, said JP Juarez, Zaza's director of coffee innovation. 'We have a certain window within this 14 weeks that maybe something can change in the case of the tariffs,' Juarez said. But 'in the scenario of keeping the tariffs at those levels, probably we are not going to ask for Brazilian coffee.' Many roasters are reluctant to change longstanding blends on what could turn out to be a short-term policy. The country's dominant share makes its beans nearly irreplaceable, with few alternative origins able to match its volumes, according to Christian Wolthers, chief executive officer of Florida-based importer Wolthers Douqué. Roasters may also not want to alter the profile of the blends customers are accustomed to. Brazil is the world's top exporter of arabica, which is considered smoother than robusta and is the only bean used by coffeehouse chain Starbucks Corp. 'Roasters have blends that they like to keep as consistent as they can in any given cost environment,' Rabobank analyst Jim Watson said. Even so, coffee trade between the US and Brazil may continue to slow, in line with a trend seen so far this year. The Cuban-style coffee brand Café Aroma is among the roasters 'working to import coffees where the applicable tariff has more predictability,' vice president Bernadette Gerrity said. It's also buying more coffee futures to help protect against higher costs. Colombia, Vietnam and Honduras are the next biggest sources of coffee for the US in terms of quantity, according to the Department of Agriculture. Vietnam primarily produces robusta, a cheaper variety that most Americans only know from instant coffee. US imports of those beans could climb to 'historical highs' as tariffs on the nation are only 20%, according to Laleska Moda, market intelligence analyst at Hedgepoint Global Markets. The US could also boost imports from Indonesia and Uganda, which have substantially lower tariffs than Brazil, she said. Limited offers for Honduran coffee are already priced 30 to 40 cents per pound above the futures market, while Colombian exporters haven't been offering prices at all in case the market surges later, said Tomas Araujo, a senior trader at StoneX. A shift away from Brazilian beans in the US would likely divert more of those supplies to Europe, offering relief for buyers there that are seeking traceable beans to comply with the bloc's upcoming deforestation rules, according to Dave Behrends, head of trading at Sucafina SA. More beans would also go to the growing coffee market in China, leaving US roasters facing a pricier market. While New York-based Gregorys Coffee is lucky to have had its last shipment from Brazil arrive on Aug. 2 before the higher tariffs kicked in — leaving it supplied until mid-November — it will eventually need to import another batch it already contracted at the higher rate, said CEO Gregory Zamfotis. The company, as well as other smaller roasters, are bracing for the impact. 'Absorbing a 10% tariff is nearly impossible for a small business to do entirely on its own,' said Daria Whalen, the director of coffee at San Francisco-based Ritual Coffee Roasters. 'Some of that has to be passed to customers — and 50% feels staggering and insurmountable.' --With assistance from Anuradha Raghu. Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Women's Earnings Never Really Recover After They Have Children Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates Yosemite Employee Fired After Flying Trans Pride Flag ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rent to Issa at center of ethics complaint against House Speaker Johnson
An ethics complaint is accusing House Speaker Mike Johnson of illegally paying rent to San Diego-area Rep. Darrell Issa.


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats need to start using AI to help save democracy
As American democracy unravels at the hands of President Trump and his enabling congressional and Supreme Court majorities, millions of Americans are desperate to identify whatever possible countermeasures remain to slow the country's descent into fascism. The outcome of the 2026 midterms is unlikely to produce meaningful change, even if the Democrats take control of the House. Without a cooperative Senate, it will be impossible either to pass legislation or secure a conviction on impeachment charges. Oversight hearings can bring public attention to things like rampant corruption, but the threats Trump poses to the rule of law and democracy are already well-known. The courts can only do so much. There's another emerging tool, however: artificial intelligence. Trump seems to understands the transformative power of AI. Last month, the administration announced an ' AI Action Plan ' for 'winning the AI race.' Among other measures, it promises to remove 'onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.' As part of this initiative, the General Services Administration and OpenAI announced earlier this month that the company will be 'providing ChatGPT to the entire U.S. federal workforce' under a 'first-of-its-kind partnership.' Participating agencies will pay a nominal cost of $1 each for the first year to enable federal employees to 'explore and leverage AI.' The company is also 'teaming up with experienced partners Slalom and Boston Consulting Group to support secure, responsible deployment and trainings.' Last week, the AI company Anthropic likewise announced it had struck the same deal with GSA to enable federal agencies' access to its Claude model. The Trump administration's effort to streamline the federal government with AI models makes some sense. Research has shown that generative AI — particularly large language models, which consume vast amounts of data to understand and generate natural language content — can enhance government efficiency in data processing, analysis and drafting, among other potential advantages. But AI systems also increase the risk of widespread government surveillance, personalized misinformation and disinformation, systematic discrimination, lack of accountability and inaccuracy. According to a recent academic paper, 'although many studies have explored the ethical implications of AI, fewer have fully examined its democratic implications.' Trump's alliance with OpenAI head Sam Altman goes back to start of his second term, when he announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle and Softbank to build up to 20 large AI data centers. Trump called the venture 'Stargate.' The deal's details are murky, including who will have access to Stargate and how it will possibly benefit taxpayers. Although a spokesman for OpenAI told Fox News Digital that 'Sam Altman sort of planted a flag on democratic AI versus autocratic AI,' let's not forget that Altman is not a government official or employee. As a legal matter, it is unclear whether these ' fast-tracked ' deals will fully comply with traditional oversight and procurement laws and procedures. No major AI company is currently approved under the Federal Risk And Authorization Management Program, for example, which is the process for authorizing the use of cloud technologies by federal agencies. According the GSA website, the program aims to ensure 'security and protection of federal information' by imposing strict cybersecurity controls to protect against data breaches, hacking and unauthorized access, and requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. Given that the GSA is reportedly working on 'developing a separate authorization' for generative AI systems like ChatGPT and Claude, the potential threats to national security and private citizens' personal information are significant. The Trump administration's lack of transparency also risks creating a black-box government run by proprietary algorithms that the public cannot inspect — centralizing control over federal AI in two companies whose interests clearly lie in market dominance, not the public good. This is why these kinds of decisions are best made through established legal procedures — including the Federal Competition in Contracting Act (requiring fair and open competition), the Privacy Act of 1974 (limiting how agencies can collect and disclose personal data), the Federal Records Act (requiring the proper retention and archiving of public records) and the Administrative Procedure Act (requiring public comment and input into major policy decisions). For now, OpenAI has promised that its 'goal is to ensure agencies can use AI securely and responsibly. ChatGPT Enterprise already does not use business data, including inputs or outputs, to train or improve OpenAI models. The same safeguards will apply to federal use.' This promise from Altman's company is no substitute for actual legal standards enforced by the federal government. Whether AI tools embedded in federal government systems could one day be used to sway elections to favor Trump and his cronies is a vital question. For now, what's clear is that Democrats need to get into the AI game, and fast. A Democratic political action committee called the National Democratic Training Committee recently unveiled on online course entitled 'AI For Progressive Campaigns,' which is designed to teach candidates how to use AI to help create social media content, draft speeches, craft voter outreach messaging and phone-banking scripts, conduct research into their constituencies and opponents, and develop internal training materials. The founder and CEO of the group, Kelly Dietrich, stated that 'thousands of Democratic campaigns can now leverage AI to compete at any scale.' This effort, although laudable, does not go far enough to capitalize on AI's potential to help outmaneuver authoritarianism in the U.S. There's much more that might be done, including using AI to educate citizens on the benefits of democracy, how institutions work and the facts underlying important issues; to create large-scale, moderated public deliberation and consensus around divisive issues; to detect and alert the public to manipulated media, thus combatting misinformation and disinformation and fostering public trust in an alternative to Trump; and to create and implement effective messaging strategies for alternative visions for the future of the country. AI could be American voters' best friend, not their enemy. It just needs to be asked.