- The Trump administration now requires all legal refugees to return for mandatory detention and re-vetting one year after arrival.
- This new policy reverses a 2010 rule that protected refugees from detention over green card status.
- Officials say the step is necessary for national security and public safety.
- Refugee advocates condemn the move as a reckless betrayal that will harm vulnerable people.
- The shift aligns with a broader surge in immigration enforcement and detention under the administration.
The Biden administration’s catastrophic border policies have created a national security and humanitarian disaster, with millions of illegal immigrants flooding into the country. Now, the Trump administration is moving to tighten the vetting of those who entered legally, focusing on a group often held beyond scrutiny: refugees. A newly revealed Department of Homeland Security memo authorizes immigration officers to detain legal refugees for re-inspection one year after their arrival, a significant reversal of a 2010 policy that protected them from detention solely based on their green card status.
The directive, dated February 18, mandates that refugees must return to government custody for “inspection and examination” one year after being admitted to the United States. This is when they are required by law to apply for lawful permanent resident status. The DHS stated the “detain-and-inspect requirement ensures that refugees are re-vetted after one year, aligns post-admission vetting with that applied to other applicants for admission, and promotes public safety.”
A reversal of long-standing policy
This move explicitly rescinds a 2010 memorandum which held that a refugee’s failure to obtain a green card was not a “basis” for removal and was not a “proper basis” for detention. The new policy frames the initial admission as “conditional,” subject to this mandatory review. Refugees who submit their adjustment paperwork and appear for appointments may be “considered to have voluntarily returned to custody” for the duration of this re-vetting process.
The administration argues this step is necessary for national security. The memo claims the previous policy “created a population of conditional refugees who had not been fully re-screened, with associated public safety and national security risks.” This comes in a context where concerns about who is entering the country have reached a fever pitch, following years of unchecked illegal immigration under President Biden that included, as previously reported, individuals with suspected terrorist ties.
Advocates react with alarm
Refugee resettlement organizations have reacted with swift condemnation. Shawn VanDiver, president of AfghanEvac, called the directive “a reckless reversal of long-standing policy” and said it “breaks faith with people the United States lawfully admitted and promised protection.”
HIAS, formerly known as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, stated the policy “will cause grave harm to thousands of people who were welcomed to the United States after fleeing violence and persecution.” Beth Oppenheim, CEO of HIAS, accused the administration of acting in secret, stating, “This policy is a transparent effort to detain and potentially deport thousands of people who are legally present in this country, people the U.S. government itself welcomed after years of extreme vetting.”
The policy shift is already facing legal challenges. In January, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim in Minneapolis temporarily blocked a separate Trump administration action targeting roughly 5,600 lawful refugees in Minnesota awaiting green cards. In his ruling, Tunheim said federal agents likely violated multiple federal statutes by arresting some refugees for additional vetting.
This memo arrives as ICE detention levels have surged under President Trump, reaching approximately 68,000 detainees in February in a rise of around 75% since he took office last year. The administration’s hardline immigration stance was a cornerstone of his 2024 campaign, and this move signals a continued focus on scrutinizing all immigration pathways, legal and illegal.
For ordinary Americans whose communities are being strained by illegal immigration while their safety concerns are dismissed, this policy may resonate as a necessary check. It underscores a fundamental question in the ongoing immigration debate: does the government’s primary duty lie in protecting its current citizens and the integrity of its laws, or in maintaining unconditional promises to those it admits?
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.