
White South Africans Granted Refugee Status by Trump Arrive in the U.S.
The first plane carrying white South Africans who received refugee status from the Trump administration landed at Washington Dulles International Airport on Monday morning, according to a flight tracking website.
The arrival marks a drastic reversal in the United States' refugee policies, which have long focused on helping people fleeing war, famine and genocide. President Trump essentially halted all refugee admissions programs on his first day in office before creating a pathway for Afrikaners, a white ethnic minority that ruled during apartheid in South Africa, to resettle in the United States.
The group that arrived Monday on a U.S.-funded Omni Air International charter flight say they have been discriminated against, denied job opportunities and have been subject to violence because of their race. 49 Afrikaners boarded the flight on Sunday, according to a spokesman for South Africa's airport authority, after more than 8,000 people expressed interest in the program. There are scant details available about the individuals who arrived in the United States.
The South Africans who reached the United States on Monday had received expedited processing by the Trump administration — waiting no more than three months. Refugee resettlement before the first Trump administration took an average of 18 to 24 months, according to the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group for immigrants.
Mr. Trump said on Monday that the United States was extending citizenship to these individuals, who he said were victims of a genocide.
'Farmers are being killed,' he told reporters. 'They happen to be white. Whether they are white or Black makes no difference to me. White farmers are being brutally killed and the land is being confiscated in South Africa.'
Police data does not support the narrative of mass murder. From April 2020 to March 2024, 225 people were killed on farms in South Africa, according to the police. But most of the victims — 101 — were current or former workers living on farms, who are mostly Black. Fifty-three of the victims were farmers, who are usually white.
The refugee program has exacerbated tensions between the United States and South Africa, whose government has rejected the Trump administration's claim that the Afrikaners are eligible for refugee status.
'It is most regrettable that it appears that the resettlement of South Africans to the United States under the guise of being 'refugees' is entirely politically motivated and designed to question South Africa's constitutional democracy,' Chrispin Phiri, a spokesman for South Africa's foreign ministry, said in a statement.
Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff who has overseen the administration's immigration policy, said the situation in South Africa 'fits the textbook definition of why the refugee program was created.'
'This is persecution based on a protected characteristic — in this case, race,' he said, 'This is race-based persecution.'
In February, Mr. Trump signed an executive over suspending all foreign assistance to South Africa and announced his administration would work to resettle 'Afrikaner refugees' because of the South African government's actions that 'racially disfavored landowners.'
Mr. Trump was referring to a law, known as the Expropriation Act, which allows the government in some cases to acquire privately held land in the public interest without paying compensation. But that step can be done only after a justification process subject to judicial review.
Ronald Lamola, South Africa's foreign minister, has likened the law to eminent domain in the United States. Analysts say the law has many checks and balances to prevent abuse. The most likely application, analysts say, will be to take land that is not in use.
The Trump administration has also criticized the South African government for its condemnation of Israel over the war in Gaza and its close relationship with Iran. South Africa has brought a genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
20 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '
'Shoot a couple, the rest will go home,' said a meme circulating on Telegram channels of groups affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys. 'You just have to impale a few of them…' another local chapter posted. One disseminated an online gun tutorial, illustrating optimal shooting techniques with the caption: 'Riot season again!' Organizers in more than 2,000 cities are mobilizing for 'No Kings' rallies Saturday in opposition to President Trump and his military parade in Washington. Among those watching closely: extremist organizations on social media.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Associated Press
27 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Consumer sentiment rose in June for 1st time this year as inflation remains stayed tame
WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer sentiment increased in June for the first time in six months, the latest sign that Americans' views of the economy have improved as inflation has stayed tame and the Trump administration has reached a truce in its trade fight with China. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan's closely watched consumer sentiment index, released Friday, jumped 16% to 60.5. The large increase followed steady drops that left the preliminary number last month at the second-lowest level in the nearly 75-year history of the survey. Consumer sentiment is still down 20% compared with December 2024. 'Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,' Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a written statement. 'However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.' Americans have largely taken a darker view of the economy's future after President Donald Trump unleashed a wide-ranging trade war, imposing steep tariffs on China, the European Union, and dozens of other countries. Yet in April Trump postponed a set of sweeping tariffs on about 60 nations and last month reached a temporary truce with China, after both sides had sharply ratcheted up tariffs on each other. U.S. duties remain elevated compared with historical levels, but so far they have not worsened overall inflation.