Blog post by Grace Benson, PhD, Visiting Scholar, Research on International Policy Implementation Lab (RIPIL), School of International Service, American University
Refugees and migrants across the United States are being denied access to vital protections. Thousands of people are being detained or deported, many without trial or cause. Children are losing access to legal representation in immigration courts. Detention centers are at or over capacity, with widespread reports of inhumane conditions. Hundreds of refugees who arrived shortly before President Donald Trump assumed office in January are waiting in precarious situations after their resettlement funding was abruptly rescinded. And after years or even decades of waiting, thousands of refugees who were offered resettlement to the U.S. are now being denied entry.
This upheaval of long-standing immigration policies has been met by a surge of legal challenges and generosity from individuals and organizations across the country. Yet this shift toward restricting immigration and reducing resettlement is not unique to the United States. Across the globe—whether in reaction to U.S. policies or preceding them—other countries have also taken steps to restrict refugee resettlement.
Germany famously accepted 1 million refugees during the 2015–16 European migration crisis, but has recently extended its border controls and suspended its resettlement program. Sweden has historically offered relatively generous and extensive resettlement services, but the coalition government established in 2022 has reduced resettlement numbers and implemented more restrictive migration policies. Likewise, the United Kingdom (UK), Belgium, and Denmark have all introduced legislation that effectively limits the acceptance of and support for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) estimates that 2.5 million refugees will need resettlement in 2026, but likely less than 30,000 spaces will be offered – the lowest number in more than two decades. These massive global changes have fostered fear and uncertainty about the future of refugee resettlement.
This article examines the current state of refugee resettlement in the U.S. and explores what lessons other countries may offer going forward. Australia, Scotland, and New Zealand provide examples for retaining expert knowledge on resettlement. Complementary pathways in places like Canada, such as community sponsorship or labor mobility pathways, can also offer opportunities for refugees to achieve safety and protection. These international programs offer important models to help guide the future of refugee protection amidst global uncertainty.
The Global Importance of Refugee Resettlement Programs
These national and global policies indicate a trend towards limiting refugees’ ability to seek protection and safety in other countries. While there are dangers to restricting movement and protections for all migrants and asylum seekers, this article highlights the implications for refugee resettlement specifically. As of June 2025, there are 36.8 million refugees worldwide who have been forced to flee their countries due to a legitimate fear of persecution based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a certain social group, or political opinion. Less than 1% of people who are granted refugee status are ever resettled. Refugees may wait for over 20 years, undergoing mandatory and extensive background and medical checks, before a select few are finally accepted for resettlement to a third country. Resettlement is therefore a solution for a small minority of displaced persons who have proved they have no other option. It represents a crucial and life-saving opportunity for people to find peace, rebuild, and contribute to their societies.
Resettlement is a cornerstone of U.S. humanitarian policy, as the United States has historically resettled more refugees than the rest of the world combined (although not when compared per capita or when including asylum seekers). It is an essential program to help address the global need for solutions to provide safety for forcibly displaced people. Resettlement has long garnered bipartisan support, and recently Republicans and Democrats have made moral, ethical, and humanitarian arguments in support of its continuation. Extensive literature has also identified the overwhelmingly positive economic and social benefits associated with accepting refugees. Over the span of 15 years, refugees and asylees contributed a net $124 billion to the U.S. economy, and refugees are significantly more likely than citizens or other migrants to become entrepreneurs. Research shows that resettled refugees can also foster cross-cultural understanding, cooperation, and security in host countries.
Resettlement programs are vital for refugees and host countries alike. But what is the future of resettlement in the United States? At least two opportunities remain open for the refugee program under the Trump administration. First, U.S. policymakers could study resettlement programs in other countries to learn how to better restructure departments and retain existing expertise. Second, the U.S. could start opening more alternatives to resettlement, known as complementary pathways.
Retaining Vital Knowledge and Expertise
Resettlement in the United States is a public-private partnership, meaning the federal government provides funding for resettlement programs that are carried out by private organizations. These organizations include community and faith-based groups that heavily supplement federal funding through volunteer hours, monetary donations, and in-kind donations. At the federal level, resettlement is first administered by the Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), which is responsible for funding and overseeing resettlement services for the first 90 days after arrival. Resettled refugees are then eligible for additional services and funding for up to 5 years after arrival through the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services.
An executive order that Trump issued on January 20, 2025 halted all resettlement and services for refugees, pending a 90-day review of PRM and ORR. This review should have been completed by April 20, but no public report has been released. The administration has since slashed federal funding for migrants, fired thousands of employees, and proposed eliminating or restructuring many departments. Some proposed changes include establishing an Office of Remigration to “reverse the flow of migrants” and creating a new umbrella department called the U.S. Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance.
Ideally, federal restructuring to allow one department to manage resettlement could potentially improve national coordination and streamline some of the cumbersome bureaucracy currently reported by resettlement organizations. Internationally, some other countries do have specific departments that are responsible for resettlement, such as Sweden’s Migration Agency (Migrationsverket), Australia’s Department of Home Affairs, and Brazil’s National Committee for Refugees (Comitê Nacional para Refugiados, CONARE). However, the administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. refugee program so completely and so quickly not only harms migrant communities, but also risks losing the valuable expertise gained over decades of resettlement experience.
The U.S. resettlement program has resettled over 3 million refugees since its inception in 1980. Each level of the resettlement program in the United States represents a wealth of knowledge and experience: federal employees, state refugee offices, and resettlement organizations and caseworkers, many of whom have experienced resettlement themselves. Thousands of these experts have already lost their jobs due to the funding freeze. If the changes to the resettlement system are truly going to improve efficacy and efficiency, it is vital to retain this expertise.
Several international approaches for collecting input and advice from the resettlement community could serve as useful models to rebuild and reshape the U.S. resettlement system. In 2024, Scotland launched the New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy, representing perspectives from various levels of national and local government representatives, resettled refugees, resettlement organizations, and academics. The Integration Strategy offers guiding principles, target outcomes, and a framework to provide robust support for refugees despite the UK government’s restrictive migration policies. In 2023, Australia introduced a framework designed to enhance collaboration and improve support for migrants and refugees across several domains, including education and training, employment, health and well-being, civic participation, and family and social support. The framework identifies a shared strategy for resettlement across Australia and was developed through months of extensive consultation with refugees, resettlement organizations, and government agencies. New Zealand has also created a similarly robust and practice-informed resettlement strategy. All of these frameworks help to strengthen resettlement programs by identifying common goals, standardizing services offered, and improving coordination among existing support networks.
These examples highlight the importance of collaborative strategies to help guide the design and implementation of resettlement programs. It seems unlikely that the Trump administration will carry out a collaborative consultation process on proposed changes, in which case it will be extremely important for the next administration to do so. Alternatively, nongovernmental refugee advocacy or resettlement organizations (such as Refugee Council USA, the International Rescue Committee, HIAS, Global Refuge, etc.) could take the lead by proposing an alternate restructuring of the U.S. resettlement program that retains the valuable existing knowledge and experience.
Extending Complementary Pathways
Another potential avenue to expand refugee protections is to strengthen and extend existing complementary pathways. These are alternate legal routes that allow refugees to settle in the United States without necessarily requiring resettlement services or government funding. One path is through community sponsorship, where groups of volunteers can sign up to provide services and support for displaced refugees in lieu of government support. Canada is an excellent model for this: it established the world’s first private sponsorship program in 1976 and now resettles more refugees through this program than traditional government-based resettlement programs. Although Trump terminated a similar program that began under the Biden administration in 2023, Welcome Corps, this option seems to align with the current administration’s interest in privatizing social services and requiring actors to “opt in” to providing humanitarian aid.
Community sponsorship models have potential risks, such as variation in the services provided, but they also offer important opportunities for communities to work together to offer support. These programs can also enable refugees to sponsor friends and family members, thereby reuniting families and strengthening networks of culturally and linguistically tailored support for refugees.
Labor mobility pathways also allow refugees to gain access to different countries through specific offers of employment. There are already organizations established to help refugees access these opportunities, such as Refuge Point, which helps refugees living in Kenya relocate to Canada through work-based visas. Another successful model is Talent Beyond Boundaries, which maintains a database of refugees’ contact information, relevant skills, and industry experience, and connects displaced people in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon to job opportunities in places like the UK, Canada, and Australia. This model can also help address labor shortages in critical industries, such as by supplying nurses and other healthcare professionals to the UK’s National Health Service.
Displaced refugees bring a wealth of diverse professional experiences and can offer significant contributions to host economies. Labor market pathways cannot replace humanitarian efforts to resettle refugees, in part because they could undermine or erase protections for people who have been denied access to education or employment opportunities, or who cannot work due to age or medical disabilities. But if a dedicated resettlement program is not feasible in the near future, expanding these labor pathways could provide mutually beneficial opportunities for refugees and the United States.
Narrow Windows of Opportunity
The future of the U.S. resettlement program remains uncertain, and countries that were once welcoming to refugees are now imposing increasing migration restrictions. With resettlement opportunities disappearing, it is vital to consider the future of this institution and what possibilities might still exist during the remainder of the Trump administration. The first important action is to retain the knowledge and expertise of the current U.S. resettlement system. Resettlement organizations could take on the challenge of capturing these diverse perspectives, learning from successful models of community consultation and resettlement strategy creation in places like Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia. Other options include increasing and establishing alternate visa pathways through community sponsorship programs and labor mobility pathways.
Refugees have legally demonstrated an urgent need for international protection, and people who have been accepted for resettlement have already undergone meticulous background checks and years of waiting in precarious situations. Given that under the Trump administration, the U.S. resettlement program is unlikely to continue as it has for the last 45 years, it is vital to consider these other options to promote safety, security, and dignity for refugee communities.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.