Politics

Trump’s white supremacy refugee policy is in full effect

Published

3 weeks ago

April 12, 2026

Apr. 11, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

The United States once prided itself on being the final destination of people around the world seeking refuge from war and strife. The State Department reports that America has welcomed a total of more than 3.1 million refugees to its shores since the U.S. refugee program was established in 1980. But President Donald Trump has decimated the number of applicants who were granted refugee status — and those who made it through are overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of an insidious shift in policy to favor white South Africans.

Of the 4,999 refugees admitted, 4,496 were from South Africa; the remaining three newcomers were from Afghanistan.

Last November, the Trump administration announced it would be putting the lowest cap on the number of refugees that would be admitted in the refugee program’s decadeslong history. Only 7,500 applicants will be provided refugee status in fiscal 2026. That’s a 94% drop from the 125,000 cap the Biden administration had in place for each of the two fiscal years before Trump’s second term began.

The latest numbers from the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration only add insult to injury. As of March 31, there have been 4,499 refugees admitted to the U.S., more than half the annual cap. Of those, 4,496 were from South Africa; the remaining three newcomers were from Afghanistan.

“The largest share of South African refugees — over 500 — have arrived in Texas, followed by Florida and California,” The Christian Science Monitor reported last week. The bureau’s data doesn’t include race or ethnicity. But the memo in the Federal Register establishing the 7,500-person cap also required that those slots “primarily be allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa … and other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands.” It’s no great leap then to presume the South African arrivals this year are all white.

While Trump’s war on undocumented immigrants has hogged the spotlight since January 2025, the administration’s campaign against legal immigration has been no less pernicious. The White House’s chief anti-immigration hard-linerdeputy chief of staff Stephen Millerhas been busy both removing protections for those who have already made it to the U.S. and discouraging those who are hoping to gain entry.

The Guardian reported last fall that Miller, who is also the White House homeland security adviser, has made significant inroads into influencing operations at Foggy Bottom. A top anti-immigration ally, Christopher Landau, is second-in-command at the State Department. Much like his past calls haranguing Department of Homeland Security staffers about deportations and arrests, Miller has also reportedly instated daily calls “to drill the diplomats on visa and immigration issues.”

White South Africans have been one major loophole to Miller’s immigration gatekeeping. Trump has been yelling about the supposed plight of the country’s minority for years now, buying fully into far-right claims that a “genocide” is being carried out against Afrikaner farmers. The truth is that white farmers control about 75% of the country’s farmland and still make up the vast majority of senior positions in South African corporations. As the Rev. Nontombi Naomi Tutu wrote for MS NOW last year“If white South Africans are experiencing genocide, then it is truly an enviable genocide.”

Concerned for white South Africans’ imagined hardship, in the face of a new law that replaced an apartheid-era ruleTrump issued an executive order in February 2025 cutting off foreign aid to South Africa. He also directed his government to “prioritize humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement through the United States Refugee Admissions Program, for Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.” Three months later, even while busy stripping parolees awaiting asylum claims of their legal status, the first several dozen white South Africans landed in the U.S.

The cruelty of this racist policy is only exacerbated when you consider the compounded effect of the other actions Trump has taken.

The cruelty of this racist policy is only exacerbated when you consider the compounded effect of the other actions Trump has taken. The administration slashed the foreign aid budget to ribbons, leading to a projected spike in deaths worldwide. Thousands of applicants from the Global South who were told to wait in line have been shunted to the back in favor of an unoppressed minority whose skin just happens to be the right color for this administration.

None of this is meant to directly shame the white South African immigrants who have taken advantage of this policy. The opportunity to emigrate to the U.S. is a dream shared by millions across the world, so it is hard to fault them for taking an opportunity when presented to them. Their new communities should welcome them with open arms, as all newly arrived immigrants should be. It’s hard not to hope, however, that there is a twinge of introspection in the back of their minds when they tell the story of how they came to be so fortunate as to find themselves in America.

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House.

Politics

Poll: Americans uneasy with AI, crypto even as they spend big on midterms

Published

2 hours ago

May 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Deep-pocketed political groups tied to artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency are rapidly reshaping the midterm money landscape — but many Americans are uneasy with the industries behind the spending.

New results from The POLITICO Poll find broad public skepticism about crypto and AI, creating a possible conflict for candidates benefitting from an influx of contributions from the two industries. These groups are pouring millions of dollars into competitive 2026 races to elevate politicians who they believe will support their agendas in Washington.

Meanwhile, Americans have been slow to embrace either technology.

A 45 percent plurality of Americans say investing in cryptocurrency is not worth the risk, even if it can yield high returns, and a 44 percent plurality say AI is developing too quickly, according to the April survey conducted by independent firm Public First.

Nearly half of Americans say they trust a traditional bank with their money more than a cryptocurrency platform, while just 17 percent say the opposite. And two-thirds support lawmakers either imposing strict regulations or setting broad principles for the AI industry.

The results raise an emerging challenge for the industries as their aligned super PACs seek to translate financial might into political influence. Several of these groups are already becoming the most dominant players on the political battlefield, spending heavily for candidates on both sides of the aisle and in some cases rivaling the fundraising of long-established party groups.

It’s too early to say how candidates associated with these groups will fare in November — and the two industries could draw different reactions from voters. Still, in hypothetical head-to-head matchups, poll respondents were much less likely to choose candidates backed by a campaign group seeking looser regulations on artificial intelligence than candidates backed by a group advocating for more stringent rules on AI and tech companies. Those polled were also more likely to support a group advocating for policies to protect the environment and prevent climate change.

Skepticism of the industries, those results suggest, could turn into voter backlash if Americans grow fed up with the heavy spending.

“Democrats’ best approach is to make their spending an issue,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has been outspoken about the need for AI regulation. “People do not want AI companies to run them over culturally and economically. They don’t trust crypto.”

Some of the resistance to the AI and crypto groups may reflect broader American dissatisfaction with special interest groups’ spending. A 41 percent plurality say special interest groups have too much influence over politics in the U.S., while 23 percent say they have the right amount. Just 12 percent say they have too little influence.

But the AI and crypto super PACs are on a new level, and the rise of these groups is creating shockwaves throughout politics. These groups could easily become the biggest spender in any House or Senate race that they choose — or several.

Leading the Future, a pro-AI super PAC founded in August, has already raised more than $75 million since its launch, according to recent filings with the Federal Election Commission. Through a network of PACs, it has deployed money on primaries in North Carolina, Texas, Illinois and New York for Democratic and Republican candidates. Fairshake, a pro-crypto group primarily funded by Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz and Ripple Labs, is expected to back candidates in both parties and has already spent $28 million across several competitive primaries through its network of PACs.

Both industries are also spending big on Washington lobbyists to ensure their influence continues past Election Day. The AI lobby in particular has ballooned in recent years; OpenAI and Anthropic spent record amounts of money on lobbyists in the first quarter of 2026. The crypto industry has also poured millions into lobbying efforts in recent years to push Congress to enact a sweeping overhaul of how digital assets are regulated.

“The universal thread, from their perspective, is, I think an attempt to maintain a degree of bipartisanship and identify people whom they think will be champions on these issues,” said Jason Thielman, former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, of the crypto-aligned groups.

For the crypto industry, the super PAC spending is aimed at pushing through a market structure bill called the CLARITY Act that is pending in the Senate. Industry executives and lobbyists hope the proposed law would give the industry a stamp of legitimacy from Washington and deliver long-term certainty about how digital tokens will be overseen by market regulators.

The super PAC money acts as both carrot and stick: It could benefit lawmakers facing competitive reelection campaigns in 2026 who back the industry’s goals — and threaten those who stand in the way.

In 2024, a Fairshake-affiliated super PAC spent more than $40 million to help defeat then-incumbent Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown, a longtime crypto critic, is running again and could again be a major target for the crypto PAC network.

“Crypto groups are absolutely becoming a disruptive force in political spending, including in Ohio,” said former Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Renacci, who unsuccessfully challenged Brown in 2018. “But let’s face it, they’re not unique. It’s just the latest version of outside money.”

Fairshake declined to comment.

The AI groups spending big in elections want to ensure their nascent industry is regulated by one set of federal rules, not a state-by-state patchwork, as state legislators rapidly pass new laws regulating the technology. The White House and congressional Republicans have generally supported that goal, but have so far floated light-touch regulations that most Democrats believe don’t go far enough. While the tech sector leans toward the GOP’s deregulatory approach, some lobbyists are open to strong federal rules on AI in exchange for a ban on state laws.

“A national framework will prevent a patchwork of conflicting state laws from harming our ability to win the global AI race against China,” Leading the Future spokesperson Jesse Hunt said in a statement.

But the polling suggests these industries’ efforts may run into broader public skepticism.

More than half of Americans say they have never and would not consider buying or trading cryptocurrency. On artificial intelligence, nearly half of respondents say it is likely to eliminate more jobs than it creates, and a 43 percent plurality say the risks of the technology outweigh the benefits.

“There is a lot of work that needs to be done to help the voting public fully appreciate the national security threat that we face if we are not first in [the AI] race,” Thielman said of AI-affiliated groups. “It’s essential that [the] industry continue to invest very aggressively here, both to increasingly educate the public, educate policy makers because the issue is somewhat mixed from a public opinion perspective.”

The skepticism cuts across partisan lines, with pluralities of voters for both Trump and former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 saying that investing in crypto is not a risk worth taking, even if it gives high returns. A near majority of both groups — 49 percent of Harris voters and 46 percent of Trump voters — say AI is developing too quickly.

For now, many of the super PACs tied to the AI and crypto industries remain relatively unknown to many voters, allowing them to fly under the radar.

Americans associate political spending with more established industries, with a 29 percent plurality incorrectly identifying groups representing the oil and natural gas industry as the highest spenders in the midterms — ahead of AI and tech groups or crypto-backed organizations.

Just nine percent of Americans say they have heard of Leading the Future, the pro-AI super PAC, and only three percent have heard of Fairshake, the pro-crypto PAC. Meanwhile, 48 percent of Americans say they have heard of the National Rifle Association and 36 percent say they’ve heard of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

“Until people realize where the money’s coming in from, a lot of people don’t judge it,” Renacci said. “But I do think if they see somebody is backed by crypto, that’s always going to be a problem, because, let’s face it, the people that I talk to in Ohio, they don’t understand crypto, and most say they’re not comfortable with [it].”