Share & more
Should an aid organisation accept US cash to resettle only white Afrikaners?
Inklings explores how aid works in the wilds of humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the dark corners of aid punditry.
It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: US refugee resettlement dilemmas, the Grand Bargain’s next steps, and ICRC’s missing whistleblowing policy.
On the radar |
The Trump administration has confined US refugee admissions to white Afrikaners, and is paving the way to detain, strip of legal protection, and deport already-settled refugees, advocates warn.
This is a dilemma for the non-profits providing federally funded refugee resettlement services. Do you speak out? Do you walk away? Do you try to continue the work? Some of these US organisations appear to be making different choices.
The International Rescue Committee appears to have been awarded a $20 million grant to provide education and career services to some 1,334 people described as refugees who arrived in the US in September, according to a notice posted on the government’s Federal Register. All but two of the people admitted to the US under refugee status in September are from South Africa, federal stats show. Each eligible person will receive up to $12,000 in financial aid for education and training. Some $3.9 million is for IRC staff, supplies, and overhead.
The IRC did not respond to questions asking to confirm the grant and discuss the issue. It has previously said it is “deeply troubled” that resettlement slots would be given to one nationality. A 1 October statement called for refugee admissions to be based on humanitarian need; it did not discuss funding for its own resettlement programme.
The IRC has previously said it intended to help resettle South Africans: “Across the US, we serve thousands of newcomers from dozens of countries based on their individual and family needs. Service to these new arrivals would be no different,” a spokesperson told the Montana Free Press in May 2025, commenting in an article about one newly arrived family.
In the past, the IRC has called itself the largest refugee resettlement agency in the US. Before the Trump administration’s federal upheaval, it was among 10 organisations offering federally funded resettlement services. Other organisations may be making different decisions:
- Some have explicitly ended their government agreements:
- The Episcopal Migration Ministries, for example, announced in May 2025 that it would stop accepting federal resettlement grants, after being told it was expected to resettle white Afrikaners. “In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step,” said Sean Rowe, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the US. “Our government-partnership operations wound down in September 2025, and we pivoted toward other ways of supporting migrants,” a spokesperson told us.
- The US Conference of Catholic Bishops also decided not to renew its agreements with the federal government. An April 2025 statement and Washington Post op-ed did not mention the race-based US policy to resettle mainly white Afrikaners. Instead, it framed it as a financial decision, where government funding cuts made the work unsustainable.
- At the state level, the Connecticut-based Integrated Refugee and Immigrant Services chose not to work with the government on resettlement, since resettlement slots appeared to be bound for Afrikaners alone. “We’re not a relocation company. We resettle the world’s most vulnerable people,” its executive director, Maggie Mitchell Salem, told CT Mirror.
- Some critique the Trump policy, but have not indicated their stance on funding: Several organisations that have previously received federal resettlement funding have been outspoken on the race-based admissions policy. HIAS, which calls itself the world’s oldest refugee agency, has said it’s “appalled” by the Trump plans to limit refugee admissions to mainly white South Africans. Church World Service said the policy abandons at-risk refugees. Both organisations have participated in legal challenges against the ”discriminatory preference for white Afrikaners”. It’s unclear whether either organisation has helped resettle Afrikaners or plans to accept new federal resettlement funds. We sent requests to discuss the issue to both organisations. Spokespeople did not respond to specific questions or follow-ups before publication.
- Some are less clear: We attempted to reach 10 organisations that have partnered with the US government on resettlement to discuss the considerations and pressures they’re dealing with, and what they’re doing to ensure refugee resettlement continues outside of US government funding. Only the Episcopal Church and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops confirmed their current status. None of the organisations contacted responded to other questions. We didn’t receive any responses from Global Refuge, World Relief, Bethany Christian Services, or the Ethiopian Community Development Council before publication.
- Is there a plan? US non-profits are explicitly under attack by the Trump administration, and there are few easy decisions. Several organisations appear to be coordinating some of their efforts and messaging. But as with the international humanitarian sector’s reaction to Trump’s US aid cuts last year, cohesive action and strategy may be more elusive – especially when money is on the table. Some organisations have protested publicly, some have gone to court, two have refused to participate, and at least one (the IRC) appears to be speaking out while still taking the money.
- The stats: Some 16,292 people described as refugees arrived in the US in 2026, according to government stats as of the end of September. Of these, 16,287 are from South Africa. Five are from Afghanistan.
- The law: Afrikaners have “no legally valid refugee claim”, or evidence of persecution under national or international laws, according to the FW de Klerk Foundation, which was established by the former South African president (who was also an Afrikaner).
Palantíri |
Everyone is (still) talking about Palantir, except for humanitarians. Here are more tidbits from an ever-bulging manila folder:
Switzerland: Switzerland’s defence department turned down Palantir five times, in part due to concerns about data security, according to a new investigation by Swiss outlet Republik. Palantir launched a lawsuit against Republik after a previous article.
Europe: The Republik story is part of a new continent-wide investigation by Follow the Money, detailing how European governments are spending at least €1.4 billion on Palantir. Check out the handy interactive map.
United Kingdom: More than 44,000 people filed legal objections demanding that England’s National Health Service block a controversial Palantir-powered data platform from handling their info, the Guardian reported. Question: Would World Food Programme beneficiaries be able to make a similar request of their data?
Acronymage |
CAP4GB: The humanitarian sector has an active reform agenda endorsed by most major aid organisations, global networks, and donors – and it’s not called the reset. Participants in the Grand Bargain will meet in Geneva to finalise next steps for the decade-old reform package. The new version will be ever-slimmer and more focused on country-level change. It will also get a brand new acronym fit for a sector allergic to brevity and clarity: Collective Action Platform for the Grand Bargain.
NEAR and A4EP: Localisation discussions are often an exercise in perception. How else to explain how big aid agencies give themselves high marks when self-reporting metrics on direct funding and risk-sharing, while independent analysts and local agencies find less flattering figures? Ahead of next week’s Grand Bargain meetings, civil society networks NEAR and the Alliance for Empowering Partnership shared this perception survey.
ICRC: Did you know the International Committee of the Red Cross has no standalone whistleblower protection policy in place? A recent independent assessment notes it as “an area for improvement”. The ICRC plans to develop one by the end of 2027, the report says.
End quote |
“There is a risk of creating a climate of fear among staff. The required impartiality of international civil servants does not oblige them to remain silent when serious breaches of international law and of the [UN] charter’s values are at stake.”
Benjamin Davis was ousted from his senior position at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, in part for participating in moments of silence for Gaza, and for an FAO briefing connecting Israel’s starvation of Gaza to international humanitarian and human rights law.
His departure was accompanied by unusual comments from FAO boss Qu Dongyu threatening to fire staff for “playing the game… of human rights”.
This week, some 22 special rapporteurs released a statement critiquing the UN agency’s leadership, urging them to protect staff. “Any measures that could be perceived as reprisals and intimidation would risk undermining the trust and integrity of the organisation,” they wrote.
Davis spoke to TNH contributor Thin Lei Win on the first day after his contract ended. Read the interview here:
A senior FAO official on the price he paid for speaking out on Gaza
Benjamin Davis says the FAO forced him out because of his work on Gaza. In an interview, he discusses why he’s not staying silent and what others can do.
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]
