The Trump administration has announced a major shift in U.S. immigration policy, directing federal officials to conduct a comprehensive review of all green cards previously issued to immigrants from 19 designated “countries of concern.” This unprecedented step targets individuals who already hold lawful permanent resident status and are living in the United States, signaling a broader and more aggressive approach to national security screening.
Joseph Edlow, the head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), confirmed that President Donald Trump instructed him to launch what he called a “full-scale, rigorous re-examination of every green card for every alien from every country of concern.” The statement marks one of the administration’s most sweeping immigration actions to date, reaching backward into past admissions rather than focusing solely on new applicants.
When asked about which nations are on the list, USCIS officials directed reporters to a White House proclamation issued in June. That earlier document identified several countries where the U.S. government has long-standing concerns about terrorism, unstable governance, or unreliable identity-verification systems. The list includes Afghanistan, Haiti, Cuba, Iran, Somalia, and Venezuela, as well as others previously cited in immigration restrictions. Additional countries such as Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Libya, and the Republic of the Congo also fall under the same security-related categories referenced in past policy actions.
According to the administration, green card holders from these countries will now undergo renewed vetting to determine whether the information used to grant their permanent residency was accurate, complete, and free of security risks. Federal officials have not yet laid out the exact procedures for this re-evaluation, leaving many immigrants uncertain about what the process will involve, how long it will take, and whether lawful residents could ultimately face revocation of status.
The administration cited national security as the driving force behind the decision. In his statement, Edlow emphasized that “the protection of this country and of the American people remains paramount, and the American people will not bear the cost of the prior administration’s reckless resettlement policies.” His comments suggest that officials believe past admissions—particularly those processed during President Biden’s term—did not adequately assess security threats.
The June proclamation that USCIS referenced described the federal government’s obligation to restrict entry from places with high rates of visa overstays, weak documentation systems, or significant terrorist activity. The document specifically noted that Afghanistan, now controlled by the Taliban—a U.S.-designated global terrorist organization—“lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents” and does not maintain reliable screening mechanisms. These conditions, the administration argues, increase the possibility of admitting individuals who cannot be fully verified.
Other affected countries are those where civil conflict, extremist networks, or limited cooperation with U.S. agencies have raised longstanding concerns. Immigration analysts say that this new review could impact tens of thousands of residents across the United States, many of whom obtained green cards years ago and have since built stable lives, families, and careers.
Despite the announcement’s scale, USCIS has not disclosed what criteria it will use to reassess eligibility or how cases will be prioritized. It remains unclear whether the review will focus on individuals with criminal histories, those flagged in intelligence databases, or all green card holders from the listed nations without exception. This lack of clarity has already created anxiety among immigrant communities, advocacy groups, and legal experts who warn that sweeping retroactive reviews could lead to errors or wrongful targeting.
Triggered by Washington DC Shooting and a Larger National Security Debate
The decision comes in the aftermath of a violent attack in Washington, DC, that quickly escalated political pressure over U.S. immigration policy. Earlier this week, an Afghan national, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, allegedly opened fire on two National Guard members, gravely injuring both soldiers. The incident took place during routine duties, and authorities say the attack appeared deliberate. One of the soldiers later died from her injuries, intensifying public scrutiny.
Lakanwal arrived in the United States in 2021 under a program designed to offer special immigration protection to Afghan allies after the U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan. The emergency resettlement initiative, created during the Biden administration, allowed tens of thousands of Afghans to enter the country due to the Taliban takeover and collapsing security conditions in Kabul.
Following the shooting, President Trump described the incident as a stark warning of what he called the “greatest national security threat” facing the nation. He said that “the last administration let in 20 million unknown and unvetted foreigners from all over the world, from places that you don’t even want to know about,” suggesting that the new review was necessary to correct what he views as years of lax immigration control. Although immigration experts dispute the accuracy of the figure cited by the president, his remarks reflect the administration’s position that the current system has allowed excessive risk.
Edlow’s social-media post announcing the green-card review did not directly mention the DC shooting but echoed similar concerns about past resettlement policies. Within hours of the announcement, USCIS also confirmed that it had suspended all pending immigration requests from Afghan nationals, citing the need to review security and vetting protocols before processing further applications. This pause affects refugees, asylum seekers, and green-card aspirants who were still awaiting decisions.
The administration has recently taken multiple steps aimed at tightening immigration controls, including a review of all refugees admitted into the U.S. under the previous administration. This wider campaign suggests that the green-card re-examination is part of a broader realignment of the U.S. immigration system, with security taking precedence over humanitarian or family-based considerations.
Critics argue that applying retroactive scrutiny to lawful permanent residents could undermine the stability of the immigration system, erode trust, and expose long-time residents to sudden legal vulnerability. Immigration attorneys say many of these individuals have gone through years of checks, interviews, and background screenings. They now fear losing their status due to shifting policies or the political climate rather than any wrongdoing.
Supporters counter that global threats have evolved and that the U.S. must use every tool available to identify potential risks. They argue that re-checking records from unstable or conflict-torn nations is a reasonable measure, especially when governments in those regions cannot guarantee reliable documentation.
For now, thousands of green-card holders from the listed countries are waiting for clarity. Some worry that the review could limit their ability to travel, renew documents, or eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. Others fear that any discrepancies—such as minor errors in old paperwork—could be used against them. The absence of specific guidelines from USCIS has only deepened the uncertainty.
As the administration prepares to roll out the re-examination process, immigration groups expect legal challenges, congressional debates, and a wave of community outreach efforts to help affected residents navigate the potential consequences. The policy’s scope, its real-world impact, and the fairness of applying new standards retroactively are expected to remain central issues in the national conversation over U.S. immigration practices.
