States Urged to Defend Vital Protections for Refugees A new move by the United States government has raised alarm among human
A new move by the United States government has raised alarm among human rights advocates and refugee experts. According to a US State Department concept note, the Trump administration is hosting a high-level meeting alongside the UN General Assembly to discuss what appears to be a major shift in global refugee policy—one that critics say could undermine decades of international protection standards.
The concept note notably omits the principle of nonrefoulement—the cornerstone of the 1951 Refugee Convention that prohibits returning refugees to countries where they could face persecution, torture, or death.
Instead, the US proposal emphasizes that “every nation has the absolute right to control its borders.” While international law recognizes state sovereignty, it also upholds obligations to protect people fleeing danger. Stripping away nonrefoulement would effectively allow governments to push refugees back into harm’s way.
The concept note also redefines asylum as a “temporary status,” suggesting refugees should eventually return to their home countries. However, human rights experts, including Bill Frelick, Director of the Refugee and Migrant Rights Division, argue that forced returns are unlawful when the conditions causing flight remain unchanged—or worsen.
The note further asserts that “sovereign states, not transnational bodies,” should decide when it is safe for refugees to return home—undermining the authority of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), whose mandate is to assess and guide international protection standards.
As the UN General Assembly convenes, human rights advocates are calling on world leaders to reject any attempt to weaken refugee protections and instead reaffirm the values of solidarity and compassion that have guided the post–World War II refugee system for over seven decades.
“The global refugee system is built on the idea that humanity has a shared responsibility to protect the persecuted,” said Frelick. “That principle must not be rewritten.”