Remigration: A Far-Right Idea Influencing U.S. Immigration Policy

Over the past year and a half, the Trump administration has fundamentally reshaped the U.S. approach to migration. The administration has essentially put refugee resettlement on indefinite pause, imposed new travel bans, restricted access to asylum and due process in immigration courts, expanded immigration enforcement, detention and deportation efforts, and pursued policies aimed at reducing the number of people able to enter and remain in the United States.

These changes represent more than a shift in immigration policy priorities. They reflect a broader transformation in how the administration understands immigration: not simply as a process to regulate, but as something to reduce and reverse.

At the same time, the administration has adopted language that until recently was largely associated with far-right movements in Europe and the United States. Among the most notable examples is the increasing use of the term “remigration”.

Where does the term “remigration” come from?

The word remigration can sound like a simple reference to people returning to their countries of origin, but in reality, it is much more insidious than that. The term and its corresponding policies promote ethnonationalism: the belief that nations should be defined by a particular ethnic, cultural, or religious identity.

Remigration gained prominence through Europe’s Identitarian movement and has been spread by nationalist groups that argue that immigration is threatening the identity of “western” societies. The ideology includes the political position that governments should encourage or force the departure of broader groups of people, specifically non-white immigrants, they view as incompatible with countries’ identity and the survival of “western” culture.

The concept is closely tied to the Great Replacement Theory, a racist, white nationalist, and antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims Jews, governments, or other hidden forces are deliberately engineering demographic change, replacing white populations in “western” countries with non-white immigrants

These ideas were once largely confined to extremist spaces. In recent years, however, language associated with these movements has increasingly entered mainstream political conversations.

How is remigration shaping U.S. immigration policy?

The Trump administration has slowly, but surely, made remigration one of the driving principles of its policies. The Department of Homeland Security’s official X account has posted a call for remigration and top officials, including the Vice President, have fanned the flames of anti-immigrant zealotry by claiming that immigrants are “causing civilizational decline.” It’s not just rhetoric. Many of the Trump administration’s policies reflect a similar underlying approach: shuttering pathways for people to enter the country, while expanding mechanisms to remove people already in the country.

The shift is visible across the immigration system. The administration has sharply curtailed the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, reducing opportunities for people fleeing persecution to seek safety through established legal pathways. It has restricted asylum access, ended or limited humanitarian parole programs, and imposed new travel bans affecting people from numerous countries.

At the same time, the Trump administration has dramatically expanded deportation, removing hundreds of thousands of people. The administration has increased immigration enforcement nationwide often with violent tactics, spread fear and intimidation so that people make choices to leave on their own, and pursued agreements that allow the U.S. to remove people to third countries, including countries where they may have no family, community, or previous connection.

What is the Office of Remigration?

The administration’s commitment to remigration can be seen in the State Department’s establishment of an Office of Remigration, within the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM). For decades, PRM has been responsible for refugee protection, humanitarian assistance, and supporting displaced people around the world. Its work represented a longstanding American commitment to helping people forced from their homes by war, persecution, and violence.

This office represents a significant change in mission. A government office historically dedicated to protection would now include a structure focused on facilitating return and removal.

Why does this matter?

The debate over immigration policy is not new. Countries have always wrestled with questions about borders, enforcement, and who should be allowed to immigrate. Remigration, however, is about the question of belonging, and who is considered part of a nation in the first place.

History shows the danger of political movements that define belonging through exclusion. Immigrants and refugees are often among the first groups targeted, but these ideas frequently expand to include religious and ethnic minorities as well.

For Jewish communities, the warning signs are familiar. Antisemitic conspiracy theories such as the Great Replacement Theory have long blamed Jews for social and demographic changes and portrayed newcomers as threats to national identity.

HIAS rejects the idea that refugees and immigrants are problems to be solved.

For more than 140 years, HIAS has stood with people forced to flee their homes because we believe that every person deserves safety, dignity, and the opportunity to rebuild. The rise of remigration rhetoric is not simply a change in vocabulary. It reflects a broader debate about the kind of country the United States will be—and whether we choose protection and inclusion, or fear and exclusion.