President Donald Trump’s second term has been defined by a series of contentious moves, but few have sparked as much outrage as his government’s refugee policy prioritizing White South Africans and closing the door for refugees fleeing persecution and war. The policy formed part of a larger trend in conduct prioritizing personal interests over public interest and has rung alarm on America’s waning moral leadership on the global platform.
These moves, according to critics, reflect a painful embrace of racial discrimination and transactional leadership and undermine the country’s founding ideals of justice and compassion.
A Selective Exception for Refugees
At the heart of the scandal is the Trump government’s decision to close off refugee admissions but notably excepting 59 Afrikaners who escaped from South Africa. These relatively wealthy grandchildren of European colonizers who dominated through apartheid were welcomed at Washington’s Dulles International Airport on May 16, 2025, by the No. 2 man at the State Department, Christopher Landau. Landau’s words describing Afrikaners as “quality seeds” who would “blossom” in America brought eugenics movement talk, a pre-World War II movement associated with racial superiority, rapidly to mind. The term was criticized as insensitive and an echo from history.
Landau justified the exemption based on the argument Afrikaners were victims of “egregious persecution” on racial grounds, reflected in Trump’s argument of a “genocide” against them. These arguments hold no facts. South Africa’s “expropriation” law has taken nothing away from Afrikaners who comprise 7% of the country’s population but own most of the country’s agricultural lands. Even as South Africa boasts the world’s highest levels of violence, Black South Africans endure even more, debunking this myth of racial persecution. Critics allege this policy reflects thinly disguised white supremacism and prioritizes one group over others who fled deplorable conditions in Afghanistan, Sudan, and Congo.
The irony here is heightened in part because Landau’s own family history consists of his grandparents and father having fled Nazi persecution in Austria and his other relatives who did not flee dying in the Holocaust. Landau’s role as a representative of a policy which excludes most refugees but allows a class of privilege has been criticized as a betrayal of his own family’s heritage of seeking asylum.
Religious and Humanitarian Backlash
The policy has outraged religious and humanitarian organizations. The Episcopal Church, led by Presiding Bishop Sean W. Rowe, announced it would withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program on account of their “steadfast commitment to racial justice.” Rowe criticized the Afrikaners receiving preferential treatment as “painful” and “shameful” against the backdrop of shutting out refugees who aided American military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan or who were victims of religious persecution, including Christians. He called for prayers for the “vetted refugees” who were denied entry and invoked the ethical cost of the policy of the administration.
This ruling echoes a wider sentiment from activist groups, who argue the policy contradicts America’s long tradition as a sanctuary for the persecuted. The barring of individuals who endangered their own lives in the interests of the U.S., like Afghans who worked as interpreters for American troops, has been especially contentious, with critics pointing to the risk that those individuals face as a consequence of their collaboration with American troops.
A Pattern of Moral Erosion
The refugee policy represents but a small slice of what critics depict as a systematic attack on morals in the era of President Trump’s presidency. During this latest Middle East tour, the president abandoned long-standing American advocacy for democracy and human rights and lavishly lauded authoritarian rulers like Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), whose command U.S. intelligence agencies placed on the 2018 assassination of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The president’s gushing praise of MBS as an “incredible man” and waiving sanctions on Syria on his behalf exemplify a policy based on building personal relations over ethical concerns.
At home as well, Trump’s policies came under a comparable backlash. House Republicans tasked with rushing through what Trump labeled a “big, beautiful bill” proposed $715 billion in Medicaid cuts and $290 billion in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), taking away 10.3 million their medical coverage and millions their food assistance. Republican Senator Josh Hawley even called the Medicaid reduction “morally wrong,” and hard-line members of the House Freedom Caucus groused they weren’t deep enough. A proposed 5% remittance tax on cross-border money transfers, used extensively by immigrants to take care of family members abroad, also affects the vulnerable.
Ethical issues related to foreign gifts
The acceptance of a $400 million Boeing 747 by Trump from Qatar has also raised ethical issues. Presented as a gift from the U.S. Air Force, the aircraft would upon his departure from office be donated to Trump’s presidential library, prompting charges of personal aggrandizement. The approval will be given by Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former Qatar lobbyist herself, as some conservative commentators, such as Ben Shapiro, criticized the gift as “skeezy.” The argument by Trump—that the gift is the same as France’s gift of the Statue of Liberty—does not hold water since the latter had Congressional approval and it was for a public good.
This follows bonanzas for pro-Trump insiders. The parent of Truth Social, Trump Media, paid its chief, ex-Congressman Devin Nunes, $47.6 million in 2024 as the company raked in only $3.6 million in revenue. Trump friend Shahal Khan harvested $15 billion of Saudi investments when the president visited Riyadh, raising conflict-of-interest concerns.
Erosion of Democratic Institutions
The behavior of the administration goes far beyond policy and threatens democratic institutions. The White House’s top adviser, Stephen Miller, has even suggested suspending habeas corpus if the court rules against Trump, and the solicitor general’s refusal to pledge support for accepting appellate court rulings on birthright citizenship has shocked lawyers. Trump’s sweeping invocation of emergency authority, having already declared at least eight states of national emergency, has left judges questioning where his authority lies.
The government has also acted against science and the development of free thought. The elimination of $450 million in grants for Harvard University has been seen as a reprisal for resisting government overreach, and proposals to phase out the Energy Star system, California’s emissions regulations, and keep “forever chemicals” out of the country’s drinking water also reflect a retreat from environmental defense. The dismissal of the librarian of Congress and the exclusion of wire service journalists from Air Force One also reflect disrespect for government traditions.
Exaggerations and facts about economics
Trump’s own record has continually been exaggerated by his own hyperbole. “Historic” trade agreements with China and the UK, described as modest at best by analysts, including The Wall Street Journal, were achieved through tariffs reducing consumer prices at a cost, as validated by Walmart. Promises of cutting prescription drug prices by 30% to 80% mirror a failed 2020 executive order cancelled by the courts and refused by the Biden administration. Similarly, promises of $1 trillion in savings through Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service were reduced to a share of the $170 billion now anticipated having seen many government operations restored after a partial cut.
Trump’s promises of “no inflation” and a reduction in illegal border crossings of 99.999% were dismissed as baseless and generated even more uncertainty around his leadership. The obsession of self-interest in seeking material wealth, like demanding a newer and fancier Air Force One, stands in contrast to the economic sacrifice endured by the millions who suffer from his policies.
A call for a Moral Revival The combined impact of everything so far has been a rising chorus of demands for a return of moral leadership. America’s critics like opinion columnist Dana Milbank hold the view that America’s greatness derives from goodness—a quality exemplified in the form of leaders like Pope Leo XIV who were well known for their compassion for immigrants and the needy. Donald Trump’s policies present a very different image: heartlessness and callousness and a prioritization of money and authority over the cause of the vulnerable. The apologists of the administration justify its policies as pragmatic commitment to the interests of the nation, but facts speak otherwise. Afrikaner preference, the embrace of authoritarian regimes, and the dismantling of social safety nets betray the freedom, justice, and compassion which previously gave America a leading role on the globe. As the nation wrestles with these challenges, the question remains: will America restore its moral compass before what’s unfolding becomes unalterable?
