Pretoria: A controversial refugee program introduced by former U.S. President Donald Trump has come under fresh scrutiny as internal diplomatic communications reveal confusion over whether the program’s benefits are limited solely to white South Africans or extend to other marginalized racial groups. The program, launched in February 2025 under an executive order, was initially marketed as a humanitarian rescue for white Afrikaners allegedly facing racial discrimination and violence in post-apartheid South Africa.
However, internal cables accessed by Reuters show that U.S. diplomats stationed in South Africa sought urgent clarification about the racial eligibility of applicants. On July 8, David Greene, the top-ranking American diplomat in Pretoria, asked the State Department whether other Afrikaans-speaking communities particularly “coloured” South Africans and members of the Khoisan indigenous population could qualify under the criteria set for persecution-based resettlement.
An initial response from Spencer Chretien, a high-level official within the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, suggested that the program was specifically intended for white applicants. This interpretation reflected the language and political intent behind Trump’s executive order, which cited “anti-white discrimination” as a justification for targeted refugee admissions.
Nevertheless, days later, the department issued a broader guidance, stating that while white South Africans are the primary beneficiaries, individuals from other racial groups could be considered on a case-by-case basis provided they can substantiate claims of past or future racial persecution. This expansion of the policy came as a quiet shift from its original framework, implicitly acknowledging the diversity within Afrikaans-speaking communities and the complex racial realities of South African society.
Since the rollout of the program, around 88 individuals have been granted resettlement in the United States. The first group composed mostly of white Afrikaner families arrived in May. But according to Reuters, at least one family of “coloured” South Africans has also been relocated under the program, raising questions about the actual implementation versus the public messaging of the initiative.
Critics argue that the refugee policy is ideologically motivated, favoring white communities based on political narratives rather than on humanitarian need or verifiable persecution. Human rights groups have warned that such race-specific policies risk undermining the credibility of the U.S. refugee system and could damage diplomatic relations with multiracial democracies like South Africa.
The South African government, for its part, has firmly rejected claims that white South Africans face systemic persecution. Officials in Pretoria have described the Trump-era narrative as exaggerated and misleading, emphasizing that all citizens regardless of race are subject to the same laws and protections under the constitution.
This latest development highlights a deeper challenge within U.S. foreign policy how to reconcile political ideology with the principles of non-discrimination and equity in humanitarian action. As the United States continues processing refugee applications under the “Mission South Africa” initiative, the State Department now finds itself balancing executive directives with diplomatic sensitivities and international norms.
The unfolding controversy underscores the broader implications of racially framed immigration policies and their potential impact not only on bilateral ties but also on America’s global moral standing.