Trump administration quietly upends decades of bipartisan refugee policies

President Trump came to power promising a tougher immigration policy. One consequence of this has been a plunging decline of refugees admitted into the US, with tragic consequences for those fleeing war and persecution.

Shannon Stapleton/Reuters
Aden Hussein Hassan poses outside his apartment in Columbus, Ohio, Aug. 8, 2018.

On Jan. 19, 2017, Aden Hassan’s long wait to start a new life ended when he stepped off a plane in Columbus, Ohio, half a world away from the Kenyan refugee camp where he had lived for a decade.

Years earlier in Mogadishu, Somalia, Hassan’s father, a community organizer, was shot dead by the Islamist militants he opposed. A few years later, a younger brother and sister were killed by gunmen while walking home from school. After Hassan's mother survived an assassination attempt, she fled with her surviving children to neighboring Kenya.

The Midwestern winter chill could not dampen Mr. Hassan’s hope, as he left the airport with his wife, their two young children and his brother, that Ohio would provide a security and stability the family had not known in years. All that remained was for his mother, her second husband, and Hassan’s brother and sister to join them, which refugee officials assured him would happen soon.

"When we landed at the airport, we felt we could start a new life," said Hassan, now 27. "We were very hopeful, very grateful."

The next day, Donald J. Trump was sworn in as US president. Nineteen months later, Hassan's mother, Fatuma Diriye, a diabetic with heart problems, and his other relatives remain in Kenya's Kakuma refugee camp. Although they were approved for resettlement in the United States at the same time Hassan was, their plans have been repeatedly delayed by the Trump administration's dismantling of longstanding US refugee policy. The State Department declined to comment on Ms. Diriye's case.

A week after his inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order temporarily banning travel from several Muslim-majority countries and halting all refugee admissions. Since then, through procedural changes made largely out of public view, the administration has reshaped the US refugee program, slashing overall admissions and all but halting entry for some of the world's most persecuted people, including Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians, and Somalis.

This year, with a record high 68.5 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, the United States is on track to take in about 22,000 refugees, a quarter the number admitted in 2016, the last year of Barack Obama's presidency, and the fewest in four decades.

In interviews with Reuters, more than 20 current and former US officials described how the Trump administration has abandoned policies established over decades and embraced by Republican and Democratic administrations alike. The officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, say the administration has rejected internal findings that refugees could be admitted safely and with little expense. Two senior staff members who questioned the administration's policies were removed from their positions.

The administration has instituted opaque and complicated new security vetting procedures that have bogged down admissions and eliminated many candidates for resettlement who would previously have been accepted, many of the officials said. It has extended the strictest kind of vetting to women as well as men from 11 countries, mostly in the Middle East and Africa. And it has reduced by nearly two-thirds the number of officials conducting refugee interviews, reassigning about 100 of 155 interviewers to handle asylum screenings for people already in the country, including those who crossed the border illegally.

"They're just stuck," said Angie Plummer, executive director of Community Refugee and Immigration Services in Ohio, the group that welcomed Hassan and his family last year. "It's blocking people who absolutely would have been here two years ago."

The Trump administration says the changes were necessary.

"Security improvements in the refugee program made in recent years to mandate additional screening for refugee applicants undoubtedly makes Americans safer," said Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security.

In addition to far lower admissions overall, the type of refugee admitted has changed under Trump, a Reuters analysis of government data shows. The percentage who are Muslim is now a third what it was two years ago; the percentage who are Europeans has tripled.

Somalis like Hassan and his family now have little chance of getting in. As of Sept. 10, 251 Somali refugees have been resettled in America this year, a 97 percent drop from the 8,300 admitted by this point in 2016.

A predictable path suddenly changed

When Hassan and his family started the refugee process, the path was grueling and lengthy, but largely straightforward.

Granted refugee status by the United Nations in 2008, Hassan and his family were assigned to the United States for resettlement in 2016. Family members were then interviewed by US refugee officers to establish whether they faced a serious threat if they returned to Somalia.

They then had to undergo rigorous security checks put into place after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Because of his age, gender and country of origin, Hassan was subjected to extra vetting.

After Hassan's family all passed the checks, they were told they would be sent to Ohio in two groups, one traveling first and the second soon after. President Trump's January travel ban disrupted that plan.

In addition to suspending travel from some majority-Muslim countries and all refugee admissions, the order capped the maximum number of refugees in 2017 at 50,000, less than half the number Mr. Obama had set a few months earlier.

Courts eventually barred implementation of the order. The administration replaced it with a less comprehensive version in March of 2017, followed by additional temporary restrictions on some nationalities. Today, no country's refugees are under an official ban, but several nationalities are nevertheless almost entirely blocked.

Syrian refugees, for example, were singled out in the first executive order as "detrimental" to the nation's interests. In the 10 months since the ban lapsed, only 27 Syrian refugees have been resettled in the United States. By contrast, the United Nations counted 6.3 million Syrian refugees as of 2017, by far the single largest nationality of refugees.

Current and former US officials say the new policies have been driven by a small core of top administration officials, including White House senior advisor Stephen Miller; Gene Hamilton, a former advisor at the Department of Homeland Security; and John Kelly, former secretary of Homeland Security and now White House chief of staff.

The remaking of the refugee program began with a full examination of screening procedures, something called for in the travel ban. Conducted in the summer and fall of 2017, the review concluded that refugees from all countries could safely be allowed to enter with some tightening of vetting, according to seven current or former US officials who helped formulate or were briefed on the findings.

White House staff, including Miller and Kelly, were not happy with that conclusion, said one current and two former officials. In particular, the White House wanted to continue barring refugees from Somalia, Hassan's home country, for reasons that were unclear, the two former officials and a second current official said. That posed a problem: The working group had found no evidence that Somali refugees presented a unique threat.

Homeland Security officials proposed that when admissions were resumed, the government would conduct a further 90-day review of refugees from 11 countries, including Somalia. During that time, refugees from the countries would remain effectively blocked.

The 11 countries – Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – had been identified as potential threats as far back as the early 2000s, and their refugees had long been subject to more rigorous screening. But previous administrations still admitted refugees from those countries. Between 2002 and 2016, they accounted for 36 percent of US refugees. 

Since the end of the 90-day review, when admissions of refugees from the 11 nations were supposed to continue with additional screening, refugees from the countries have made up fewer than 2 percent of admissions.

Through Sept. 10, 564 refugees from the countries have been admitted since the start of the fiscal year in October, a 98 percent decrease over the same period in 2016, when nearly 34,000 refugees from the 11 countries came to America.

Fatuma Diriye, who cannot read or write, does not follow the details of US policymaking. Her son, who does, realized the new procedures posed huge obstacles for his mother.

"I lost a lot of hope that I had before," he said.

Setting next year’s caps

Each September, the president must determine the maximum number of refugees the United States will admit during the next fiscal year. Last year, Trump set the cap at 45,000, the lowest since the modern refugee program was established in 1980. State Department data suggests it is unlikely actual admissions will reach half that number, if they continue at the current rate.

With October a few weeks away, the administration now must decide next year’s ceiling. In early meetings, the Pentagon and State Department have supported maintaining a cap of 45,000, one current and one former official said. Refugee advocates fear it will be set lower.

Hassan and his family are learning to navigate their new life. They live in a modest apartment furnished with donations. He has gotten a driver's license and a job on the overnight shift at an Amazon warehouse, and his English is improving. Last month, Hassan’s wife gave birth to their third child, a girl. They take the older children to a nearby park to ride bicycles.

But he worries about his family in Kenya. Diriye, her husband and Hassan’s 10-year-old brother and 14-year-old sister remain in a two-room shelter at the Kakuma camp, home to nearly 150,000 refugees. Their home has no running water or electricity. They survive on UN-supplied rations and whatever money Hassan can send each month.

Diriye does not know when or if she will meet her new granddaughter. Recently, the online portal tracking her case had additional information: Her required medical exam was no longer current and needed to be repeated, but she must wait to be contacted about a new appointment.

"Please be patient," it says.

This story was reported by Reuters. Additional reporting by Abdi Sheikh in Mogadishu, Somalia.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Trump administration quietly upends decades of bipartisan refugee policies
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today