Under former President Donald Trump, changes to the U.S. refugee program have resulted in a significant shift in admission priorities, most notably benefiting white South Africans, particularly Afrikaners, who claim racial persecution in their home country. Since early 2025, more than 6,000 South Africans—predominantly white—have been granted refugee status and resettled in the United States under a process accelerated by this policy overhaul.

Charl Kleinhaus, a white South African who fled South Africa’s Mpumalanga Province, is among those who have resettled in the U.S. Citing concerns over violence and laws designed to promote Black economic empowerment, Kleinhaus described his move as a response to what he called a “reverse apartheid” in his homeland. He said his business suffered under policies requiring white-owned companies to cede ownership stakes to Black shareholders, and he expressed fears over security for himself and his relatives amid rising crime. After gaining refugee status in a matter of months—a process that typically takes years—he and his family settled in South Dakota, where he has found part-time work and plans to establish a new business.

The Trump administration defended the program’s changes as a humanitarian effort targeted at a community it described as “being raped, maimed, killed and driven off their property” in South Africa. Officials argued that the revised policy prioritizes refugees who can “quickly assimilate” and contribute to American society, framing their approach as aligned with the country’s national interest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that refugee admissions must benefit Americans and allow for successful integration.

However, critics—including former U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials and refugee advocates—have condemned the policy as racially and politically motivated. They argue that the program effectively excludes many refugees from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan, and Ukraine, who remain in limbo while the U.S. prioritizes white South Africans. Jason Marks, a former senior refugee officer who resigned in protest, described the policy as a “moral and legal inversion” that rolls out the “red carpet” for Afrikaners at the expense of others with equal or greater need.

Further complicating the narrative, South African government representatives and independent researchers reject claims that white South Africans face systemic targeting or genocide. While acknowledging high levels of violence nationally, they note that Black South Africans are disproportionately affected by murders and that racial equity laws aim to address historic inequality rather than discriminate. The African National Congress’s Black Economic Empowerment policy, which incentivizes Black ownership and leadership in business, has been a particular point of contention for Afrikaner migrants who say these measures have harmed their livelihoods.

Some Afrikaner refugees have reported challenges adjusting to life in the U.S., including delays in receiving support from local resettlement agencies, difficulties navigating health and social services, and housing problems. A few have alleged discrimination by agency staff, and several have returned to South Africa citing these struggles or family needs.

The U.S. State Department does not publicly disaggregate refugee data by race but has confirmed that nearly all South African refugees admitted under the program are white Afrikaners. Other ethnic minorities from South Africa, including those of Indian descent, British heritage, and mixed race, have had limited admissions. Long before this program adjustment, many white South Africans traveled to the U.S. on seasonal work visas, although obtaining permanent residency remained difficult.

Among those observing these developments is Kobus Van Den Berg, a South African who has worked seasonally in North Dakota for several years while navigating immigration processes without special refugee status. He questions why white Afrikaners have been fast-tracked when others, including Africans of different races, continue to face long waits and obstacles.

The controversy surrounding this policy highlights the complex intersections of immigration, race, and refugee protection amid shifting U.S. priorities. It also raises questions about fairness and the legal and moral frameworks governing refugee admissions as global conflicts and crises persist.