How do you tell an Afghan father that his wife and children must remain under Taliban rule because the door closed just before their turn came? What do you say to a persecuted Christian who believed America was a refuge, only to be told there’s no room at the inn? What message are we sending when Afghan allies, Venezuelan dissidents and Rohingya genocide survivors are pushed aside while others leap the line?
There was a time when the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” felt like a roadmap. The Refugee Act of 1980 transformed those immortal words into law, creating the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. A lifeline for millions of families fleeing persecution, the program welcomed nearly 75,000 people per year since its inception.
Yet with the recent posting of a federal notice, the Trump administration disavowed that legacy, ratcheting down the annual refugee cap to 7,500, the lowest level in U.S. history.
Despite clearing extensive biometric, medical and security screenings by multiple national security agencies, these family reunifications have been delayed indefinitely, if not derailed entirely.
This alone would be a shocking retreat from the values that once defined American leadership. But paired with the administration’s decision to prioritize a single population — white Afrikaners from South Africa — while sidelining people fleeing armed conflict, political repression, religious persecution and ethnic cleansing in volatile, war-ravaged countries such as Myanmar, Sudan and Afghanistan, it becomes something else: a redefinition of who counts as worthy of protection.
At Global Refuge, the nation’s largest refugee resettlement agency, we’ve seen firsthand the human cost of policy whiplash since the near-total suspension of refugee admissions in January, as well as fallout from the recent cap. Among those we serve are families who’ve waited years to reunite with loved ones, all of whom have navigated a rigorous vetting process. Despite clearing extensive biometric, medical and security screenings by multiple national security agencies, these family reunifications have been delayed indefinitely, if not derailed entirely.
In South Carolina, our client Zumbe, a Congolese father, had fled war and was about to reunite with his wife and three young children after two long years. But on the administration’s first day in office, refugee admissions were frozen by executive order, so their travel was canceled. A family that had followed every rule and cleared every hurdle now watches others pass them by, not because their need is any less, but because the rules suddenly changed.
Zumbe’s wife and children cried when they learned. “They felt so hurt and very disappointed,” he shared. “I don’t know what to do right now.”
Another client, a former combat interpreter who served alongside American troops in Afghanistan, feels helpless as his sister and her young family remain stranded in Qatar. After the Taliban killed his only brother, he fought for years to bring his surviving relatives to safety. But their long-awaited reunion was derailed days before their flight — and now, under a refugee cap of just 7,500, their chances of resettlement grow even dimmer.
These are far from the only families left in limbo: More than 130,000 refugees were in various stages of the application process and 12,000 were conditionally approved for travel when the Trump administration suspended resettlement flights. Many had already sold their belongings, left temporary housing or taken their children out of school in preparation for imminent departures, only to discover their dreams deferred by an executive order.
To some, the new admissions cap may sound like tough-minded realism: a necessary correction to an overstretched system. But that view ignores the rigor of the refugee process and the returns it yields.
For example, refugees contribute significantly more than they receive — $124 billion in net tax revenue over 15 years, according to a 2024 federal study — while filling critical jobs, opening businesses and revitalizing communities. We have the infrastructure, staff and community capacity to welcome far more than 7,500 refugees this year. The question is: Why won’t we? The U.S. refugee program was never just about who we let in; it mirrors our character as a country. Those numbers come to life in ways big and small. Bhuwan Pyakurel, once a Bhutanese refugee for nearly two decades, serves on the city council in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Wilmot Collins fled Liberia’s civil war and became the first Black mayor of Helena, Montana. A Somali mother of three was honored in October as student of the year by the North Dakota Association for Lifelong Learning because of her perseverance and determination to build a new life. The U.S. refugee program was never just about who we let in; it mirrors our character as a country. For decades, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, it has been proof that a nation can be both secure and compassionate, faithful and pragmatic. Refugee families need a pathway to protection that is consistent, principled and grounded in the promise that every life matters equally — not just the few who fit a favored profile. Abandoning that system is turning away from a proud American legacy. Lowering the refugee admissions ceiling diminishes our moral standing, dimming the light that once guided those yearning to breathe free.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah is president and CEO of Global Refuge, a national refugee resettlement nonprofit. 
