Nation/World

Trump plans 45,000 limit on refugees admitted to the U.S.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump plans to cap refugee admissions at 45,000 over the next year, according to current and former government officials briefed on the decision, setting a historically low limit on the number of people who can resettle in the United States after fleeing persecution in their own countries.

The limit, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, is the lowest any White House has sought since 1980, the year legislation was enacted giving the president a role in determining a cap on refugees; the ceiling has never slipped lower than 67,000, the number Ronald Reagan set in 1986.

Administration officials plan to inform senior lawmakers of the decision on Wednesday, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt a formal announcement.

Trump's decision follows a fierce internal debate among senior members of his administration. Military and foreign policy officials pressed for resettling more refugees as a national security and moral imperative, while other top officials, led by Stephen Miller, his top policy adviser, and backed by John F. Kelly, his chief of staff and former secretary of homeland security, advocated slashing the number to as low as 15,000 based on concerns about cost and safety.

Defense and State Department officials, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of the U.S. mission to the United Nations, had recommended that Trump admit at least 50,000 refugees during the next fiscal year, according to several people briefed on the debate.

That was the number that Trump had laid out in his original travel ban executive order issued during his first week in office in January, while the Department of Homeland Security had suggested 40,000.

Both numbers were far lower than the 110,000 limit President Barack Obama had placed on refugees last year, and the 75,000 limit resettlement agencies said was necessary to begin to meet humanitarian needs around the world.

ADVERTISEMENT

But Rex W. Tillerson, the secretary of state, ultimately lowered his recommended limit to 45,000, the people said, and that was the number presented to Trump.

The White House declined to comment on the decision or on the deliberations surrounding it.

Refugee assistance groups reacted with outrage to the anticipated cap, calling it a departure from the American tradition of welcoming immigrants in times of need.

"Today a dark shadow has passed across the great American legacy and promise of protecting refugees," said Linda Hartke, the president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, one of nine agencies — most of them faith-based — that partner with the U.S. government to resettle refugees. "The threat of a drastically low ceiling on refugee arrivals in the U.S. is contrary to American values and the spirit of generosity in American churches and communities."

The decision on refugees was the second time this month that Miller, a champion of the hard-line immigration policies that Trump made a centerpiece of his campaign, did not succeed in his effort to impose the strictest of policies. He also failed to persuade the president to immediately end the Obama-era program that protects immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, shielding them from deportation and allowing them to work.

But in both cases, Miller's efforts made a difference.

Trump did announce early this month that he would end the so-called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program within six months, although he said he would work with Democrats on a compromise measure to codify the protections. And while the president did not set the refugee cap as low as Miller had advised — at one point, he argued no more than 15,000 should be admitted — holding the refugee limit below 50,000 was a statement in and of itself.

Miller and other advocates of reducing refugee admissions had worked for months to justify doing so, even rejecting internal government research that found that refugees have a positive effect on the nation's fiscal condition. Instead, they argued that vetting refugees to ensure they do not pose a terrorism threat and adjudicating their resettlement applications are too costly and burdensome, and that once in the United States, they become a drain on American resources that could be better spent assisting persecuted people closer to their home countries.

Refugee resettlement groups say there is no evidence to support such concerns.

"Setting a record-low cap on refugee resettlement, the White House is showing a stunning cruelty toward those fleeing our common enemies — enemies who intend to paint the U.S. as indifferent to refugees' suffering," said Hans Van de Weerd, vice president of U.S. programs at the International Rescue Committee, another of the nine resettlement agencies.

He called on Congress to oppose "what would amount to an abandonment of U.S. global and strategic leadership, and decency."

On Monday, 34 senators — all Democrats except for John McCain of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — wrote to Trump pleading for a cap higher than 50,000, calling the refugee program "a critical pillar or our national security and our foreign policy."

"The current global humanitarian crisis requires strong American leadership," the senators wrote, calling for a "robust refugee admissions goal."

The same day, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee wrote to Kelly and Tom Price, the secretary of Health and Human Services, requesting more information, including a briefing with White House officials by next week, about whether the administration suppressed the agency's study finding that refugees were on balance a fiscal benefit.

Miriam Jordan contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

ADVERTISEMENT