An H-1B denial can feel like the end of your...
Read MoreYasin Bilgehan Akalan
Attorney at Law
Immigration Law Expert – Akalan Law Firm
In late November 2025, an armed attack on two National Guard members in Washington, D.C.,carried out by an Afghan asylum seeker who had been admitted to the United States through Operation Allies Welcome during the Biden administration, reignited national debate over the structure and vulnerabilities of U.S. immigration law. The incident, viewed by many as highlighting a potential national security risk, brought renewed attention to the adequacy of existing security screening procedures used in vetting asylum seekers and other entrants.
In the days following the attack, statements made by Donald J. Trump and the Trump administration, particularly the claim that immigration from certain regions would face a permanent halt, intensified public scrutiny of current immigration policy. These declarations raised questions not only about the feasibility and scope of executive action, but also about the constitutional boundaries governing presidential authority.
This article analyzes the policy measures announced after the incident within the established framework of immigration law, examining the division of powers between the executive and legislative branches. It further assesses the legal uncertainties surrounding these proposals and the possible implications for the future of U.S. immigration governance.
On November 26, 2025, two National Guard personnel were targeted in an armed attack in Washington, D.C.; one service member was killed and the other critically injured. Federal authorities later confirmed that the alleged perpetrator was an Afghan national who had entered the United States as an asylum seeker through Operation Allies Welcome during the Biden administration, a program designed to facilitate the relocation of vulnerable Afghan allies following the U.S. withdrawal. (Reuters, 2025)
The incident reignited national debates over the effectiveness of security screening mechanisms applied to individuals entering the country through humanitarian pathways, including those filing asylum applications. It also prompted renewed scrutiny of the broader immigration policy framework governing the admission, vetting, and monitoring of such entrants.
In the aftermath of the incident, Donald J. Trump and the Trump administration announced a series of measures presented as urgent responses to what they characterized as a heightened national security risk. Through a public statement released on social media, Trump outlined a comprehensive shift in immigration policy, framed around what he termed an “immigration pause.”
First, the President declared that immigration from certain regions would face a long-term or even “permanent” suspension, signaling an expansive interpretation of executive authority over entry restrictions. As part of this approach, the administration emphasized the temporary halting of asylum applications, particularly those submitted by Afghan nationals, and the suspension of visa processing for individuals originating from countries deemed to pose elevated security concerns. These measures, he stated, would be implemented and overseen by DHS (Department of Homeland Security).
Second, Trump announced that existing immigration files—especially those approved during the Biden administration—would undergo renewed examination. This included the reopening of green card cases and previously approved asylum decisions, which would be subjected to intensified vetting procedures. According to the administration, USCIS would conduct expanded background checks and country-specific risk assessments as part of a broader “full-scale security review.”
Additionally, the President declared that forms of federal assistance and federal benefits would be restricted for non-citizens, framing such limitations as a matter of national interest. He further stated that certain immigrants who were deemed not to contribute sufficiently or who were defined as inconsistent with “Western values” could face deportation. In more extreme cases, he suggested that citizenship revocation might be pursued for individuals whose conduct allegedly posed risks to national security or public safety. (ABC News, 2025)
Taken together, these announcements reflect a sweeping recalibration of U.S. immigration enforcement priorities under the Trump administration, shaped by the rhetoric of heightened security risk and framed within a policy narrative centered on the concept of an immigration pause.
“Within the framework of Donald J. Trump’s 2025 immigration policies, a system was established to enable the rapid deportation of migrants.”
President Trump’s reference to a “permanent pause” on immigration implies an indefinite suspension of immigration to the United States. However, under U.S. law:
· The authority to establish immigration rules belongs to Congress. (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
· Immigration categories, annual visa numbers, per-country limits, and the structure of the immigration system may be regulated only by Congress. (INA §§1151–1153)
Therefore, the matter of a “Permanent Pause” on immigration falls under congressional authority; the President cannot unilaterally impose a permanent immigration ban.
The President may impose only temporary entry restrictions (INA §212(f)); however, this authority does not cover permanent, unlimited, or universal immigration shutdowns.
Trump’s statement that asylum applications—especially for Afghan nationals—would be suspended constitutes a temporary administrative action and legally falls within the authority of the executive branch.
· Evaluation of asylum claims is within the discretion of the executive. (INA §208(b)(1)(A))
· Administration of immigration procedures is delegated to DHS/USCIS. (INA §103(a))
Consequently, temporarily suspending asylum applications is within the authority of the President/DHS. However, completely and permanently abolishing the right to seek asylum is a power reserved to Congress.
The Trump administration’s announcement that green card and asylum approvals issued during the Biden administration would be re-reviewed falls within administrative review authority.
· Green card approvals may be reopened or reconsidered for administrative reasons. (INA §205; 8 CFR §205.2)
Therefore, the President/DHS may place green card and asylum files under “re-examination.” However, mass or automatic revocation is not permissible. Each file must be evaluated on the basis of individualized evidence.
Trump stated that federal assistance would not be granted to “non-citizens.”
· The allocation of federal benefits to non-citizens is determined by the 1996 PRWORA statute.
Under this law, Congress defines which categories of non-citizens are eligible for federal benefits. (8 U.S.C. §§1611–1623 (PRWORA))
Accordingly, altering the scope of federal benefits is not within the President’s authority. Unless Congress enacts new legislation, federal benefits cannot be fully terminated for non-citizens. The President cannot unilaterally repeal, modify, or impose new prohibitions on these provisions.
Determining deportation priorities pertains to national security risk management.
· “Managing national security risks” is within the authority of the executive branch. (INA §212(a)(3))
For this reason, the President may determine deportation priorities. However, revocation of citizenship is permissible only under conditions explicitly listed in statute. (INA §340)
The Trump administration’s assertion that it would “permanently suspend” immigration from all so-called “Third World Countries” introduces a significant degree of legal ambiguity, as the term lacks any recognized definition within immigration law or federal policy. No statute, regulation, or judicial precedent identifies which states fall under this classification, making its application inherently uncertain and vulnerable to arbitrary interpretation by the executive branch.
In parallel with these statements, USCIS issued a separate announcement indicating that applicants from 19 specific countries would be subject to enhanced vetting measures, including intensified national security risk assessments and expanded background checks coordinated with DHS. However, the agency’s statement did not reference an “immigration pause,” nor did it invoke the terminology promoted by the administration. The 19 countries listed for heightened review therefore do not correspond to any defined category resembling “Third World Countries,” further underscoring the conceptual disconnect.
This divergence between public rhetoric and agency practice reflects deeper tensions within U.S. immigration policy, where politically charged terminology can obscure legal standards and complicate administrative implementation. Because the term lacks grounding in immigration law, its use raises concerns over inconsistent enforcement and the potential for discriminatory or ad hoc decision-making.
Ultimately, the reliance on an undefined and non-legal category highlights the challenges posed by broad, security-framed policy declarations that are not supported by statutory language. In this context, the ambiguity surrounding the term “Third World Country” exemplifies the risks associated with imprecise policy signaling within the immigration system.
The measures introduced by the Trump administration in response to the November 2025 attack have intensified longstanding debates surrounding U.S. immigration law, executive power, and national security. While the incident itself was framed as evidence of a heightened national security risk, the policy proposals that followed exposed deeper structural tensions between the authorities of Congress and the executive branch in shaping the direction of immigration policy.
Many of the announced actions—such as the suspension of asylum applications, the reopening of green card cases through expanded administrative review, and the tightening of DHS- and USCIS-led vetting procedures,fall within the operational discretion of the executive. However, these measures remain subject to statutory limits and judicial oversight, and they cannot be implemented in a blanket, automatic, or retroactive manner. More sweeping steps, including any long-term halt to immigration or significant restructuring of eligibility for removal or deportation, lie firmly within congressional authority and would require formal legislation.
Moreover, the use of imprecise terminology—particularly references to “Third World Countries”—introduces substantial legal ambiguity, as such classifications have no foundation in immigration statutes or regulatory frameworks. The absence of clear legal definitions increases the risk of inconsistent or arbitrary enforcement and complicates the work of agencies such as DHS and USCIS tasked with implementing federal immigration rules.
In sum, while the proposals put forward reflect a moment of intensified administrative enforcement and expanded security screening, they do not alter the fundamental statutory structure of immigration law. Any permanent changes to the system can only be achieved through explicit congressional action. During this period of uncertainty, it remains essential for non-citizens to maintain updated documentation, remain prepared for potential file reassessments, and seek legal guidance where necessary.
Reuters. (2025, November 26). Two National Guard members shot in Washington, DHS chief says. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/two-national-guard-members-shot-washington-dhs-chief-says-2025-11-26/
ABC News. (2025, November 28) “Trump administration announces pause…” https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-permanently-pause-migration-countries-after-national-guard/story?id=127942078&
An H-1B denial can feel like the end of your...
Read More
The article examines how the recent Afghan asylum incident has...
Read More
A comprehensive immigration strategy has become essential for healthcare institutions...
Read More
Strategic immigration planning can determine whether an AI startup accelerates...
Read MoreAkalan Law Firm, PLLC
All Rights Reserved © 2024
