Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1462041728-1-scaled

Democrats should pledge to stop creating refugees

At their convention next week, Democrats have a real opportunity to show they're serious about the changes in U.S. foreign policy that will be required to alleviate human suffering around the world.

Analysis | Washington Politics

The Trump administration will be remembered for enacting many policies that exacerbate human suffering, particularly its inhumane handling of immigration and refugees. In addition to packing people into cages at detention centers, tearing children from their mothers, and banning travel to the U.S. from several predominantly Muslim nations, Trump’s team eviscerated the U.S. refugee intake program. This year, it capped intake at a miserly 18,000 refugees (down from 110,000 in the last year of the Obama administration), during a time when more people have been forced to flee their homes than any period since the inception of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program in 1980.

Joe Biden’s campaign website lays out a plan detailing how his administration would seek to “secure our values as a nation of immigrants.” He promises to reverse Trump’s policies, raise the number of refugees the U.S. will resettle to a morally more respectable 125,000, and tackle what he calls “the root causes of migration,” mainly through economic assistance.  

This is a good start. But a future Biden-Harris administration should recognize that U.S. foreign policy has been one of the primary drivers of migration. Leaving aside the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya and support of the Saudi/UAE-led war in Yemen were catastrophic blunders that displaced and endangered millions of people. If the Democrats really want to help refugees, they should announce at the Democratic National Convention next week that they will stop making more of them. 

To do this, they would need to double down on the party platform’s position of “not impos[ing] regime change on other countries” and commit to refraining from interventionist military or economic policies, including the Democratic Party’s historic infatuation with misplaced sanctions. Comprehensive economic sanctions by the U.S. have exacerbated the humanitarian crises in Venezuela and other countries, driving millions from their home and country, while failing to achieve the stated policy aims of regime change. A Biden administration should pledge to undertake an honest accounting of the humanitarian and policy impacts of economic sanctions.

Suffering from the region’s sustained destabilization, Syria remains the source of more refugees than any other country today, with 6.7 million Syrians displaced across the globe. The threat of continued mass exodus from Syria and neighboring Turkey hangs over Europe. Mitigating the drivers of Syrian displacement requires a fundamental shift in America’s existing approach to the country.   

In the face of futile efforts to spur regime change, including the Obama administration’s half-hearted support for the Syrian opposition, the war has festered and morphed into a prolonged conflict. The U.S. fixation on removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad impeded the battle against America’s real adversary, ISIS, and resulted in the rise of extremism now concentrated in Syria’s Idlib province.  

The Trump administration has done little to improve on this situation, and the looming refugee crisis is set to worsen alongside the threat posed by the unresolved presence of thousands of ISIS fighters and their dependents in and around the Al Houl Camp in Northeast Syria. Preventing the expansion of our adversaries’ interests in Syria requires bold diplomacy, not short-sighted and untenable tactical military moves disguised as “containment.”  

Finally, to minimize the refugee crisis, the Biden-Harris campaign should strongly condemn and seek to weed out systemic corruption in the United States, which often drives reckless U.S. foreign and military policies. Key Members of Congress have close ties to powerful arms corporations. Nearly one in three members on the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee owns stock in weapons contractors. The Democrats should announce a plan to end conflicts of interest by enforcing all members serving on key oversight or budget committees as well as those occupying executive branch roles to divest in military stocks, and to refuse campaign contributions from the defense industry.

Under the Obama administration, the White House approved over $100 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia in support of its war in Yemen. Arms manufacturers successfully lobbied both the White House and Congress to support these sales, which have fueled the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Three million Yemenis have been forced to flee since the start of the war in 2015, and more than 60 percent of Yemenis are acutely food insecure, all while the country is dealing with COVID-19 and a cholera endemic. The United States has taken in just 50 refugees from Yemen since 2015. In 2019, it took in one. 

The DNC platform rightly pledges to end support for this war. And emergency humanitarian assistance, development assistance and refugee intake will all help. But to get to the real roots of many of the world’s refugee crises, the Biden team should look closer to home.  


Photo: Miroslav Tomoski / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Washington Politics
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.