Advocacy groups for refugees are considering legal action following President Trump’s recent announcement to significantly reduce the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. and prioritize white South Africans. Last week, Trump set the refugee cap at 7,500, marking a drastic 94% drop from President Biden’s target of 125,000. This move appears to have sidestepped Congress, as the White House published the official notice in the Federal Register a month after it was signed, without engaging with Congressional Democrats.
“The law doesn’t require the president to consult with party members in Congress, but it does require consultation with certain committees, including representatives from both parties,” said Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president of U.S. legal programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, during a call with reporters. “This creates multiple legal issues, especially since the document appears to establish a race-based system instead of one focused on humanitarian protection. We anticipate significant pushback against this.”
The cap introduced by Trump is lower than the previous low of 11,814 admissions during his first term and would represent the lowest numbers recorded. He also specified that admissions should mainly go to Afrikaners from South Africa. Critics claim this change represents a departure from the goals established by the 1980 plan meant to guide the U.S. in admitting those fleeing persecution.
House Democrats noted they were not consulted about this substantial cut in enrollment or the shift in focus for protections. This lack of consultation could potentially open the door for challenges, possibly under the grounds of violating the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While they can’t sue on behalf of Congress, they can express their concerns through court briefs.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, remarked, “Neither the Democratic nor the Republican leadership was consulted. That’s why we’ve formed a litigation group in the House to address the irregularities we observe in government, and we’ve already submitted briefs in various cases.” He emphasized their commitment to addressing what he considers a flawed process that has devastatingly impacted the refugee program, particularly for those outside the Afrikaner minority.
The exceedingly low caps are unusual in the context of the program’s history. “In 45 years, no president other than Trump has set a number below 60,000,” stated Erol Kekich, executive vice president of Church World Services, a refugee resettlement group. Advocates argue that this order unfairly favors race over the pressing dangers faced by refugees in their homelands, and it’s likely to face legal scrutiny. While Trump contended that the program should be available to those facing “unlawful or unjust discrimination,” this standpoint contrasts with the long-standing requirement of accepting individuals fleeing conflict or violence.
“The terminology used doesn’t align with the legal definition of a refugee according to U.S. and international law,” explained John Slocum, executive director of the American Refugee Council. “It’s not legally robust in the manner in which it defines who qualifies for this program.” Trump has reiterated his concern for the white minority in South Africa, citing “hateful rhetoric” and “unjustified violence” against them.
In February, Trump signed an executive order to accept Afrikaners, referencing a South African law allowing the expropriation of land for public use. While this law applies to citizens of all races, Trump suggested it targets the Afrikaner minority, alleging it leads to “the destruction of equal opportunity” in employment, education, and business.
South Africa, known for its high crime rates, has disputed Trump’s accusations, labeling them as “completely false.” The South African Ambassador to Washington, Ebrahim Rasul, remarked that Trump’s comments seek to “mobilize supremacy” and promote a narrative of white victimhood. The U.S. has already accepted over 50 Afrikaner applicants, with more applications expected to be reviewed shortly. Raskin cautioned that focusing solely on this group strays from the foundational goals of the refugee program. “This isn’t standard terminology expressing a credible fear of persecution. It appears tailored more for Afrikaners than for those in genuine peril,” he said. “I think it’s a significant weakening of established standards, and we should return to prioritizing individuals facing emergencies due to a variety of reasons, be they racial, ethnic, political, religious, or gender-related.”
