Trump vows to pause people from entering from third world countries after the shooting in Washington

What Trump just said

and why it matters now

In the wake of a deadly attack near the White House in which a 29-year-old Afghan national allegedly shot two members of the National Guard, killing one and wounding another —Trump declared he would “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries.”

In that post, he also promised to end “all federal benefits and subsidies” to non-citizens, deport immigrants deemed “not a net asset,” and “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.”

He framed it as necessary for the U.S. to “fully recover,” linking immigration to social dysfunction — citing crime, housing shortages, and fiscal strain.

What actions are already underway

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has reportedly halted processing immigration requests for Afghan nationals. Asylum decisions are on pause while the agency conducts what it calls a “rigorous re-examination” of asylum and Green Card holders from certain “countries of concern.”

The freeze appears to extend beyond just Afghanistan. The administration is flagging the 19 countries listed under its travel bans previously — mostly nations in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia — as potential targets of the broader restrictions.

At the same time, there’s talk of accelerated deportations and broader enforcement, even for lawful immigrants previously accepted under earlier administrations.

What this means and what’s uncertain

The sweeping “pause” marks a major expansion of Trump’s previous immigration agenda, shifting focus from just undocumented border crossings to legal migration and asylum too.

Legal experts and immigrant-rights advocates warn that such broad measures especially ones that do not clearly define which countries qualify are likely to face court challenges, potentially like past bans under Trump’s first term.

On a human level, the rapid change threatens to throw thousands of ongoing asylum or immigration cases (from various countries) into limbo. It also risks eroding trust among immigrant communities, even those who entered legally or years ago. Meanwhile, critics say the decision conflates isolated incidents with entire populations.

Wider reactions domestic and global

Supporters argue the move is a necessary step for national security and preserving social infrastructure amid what they view as uncontrolled migration. Some officials welcome the vetting and stricter review process.

But many rights groups and refugee advocates along with international bodies are pushing back, warning the U.S. may be violating international refugee laws and abandoning long-standing protections for asylum seekers.

Moreover, critics see this as political opportunism: using a tragic, singular crime to justify sweeping policy changes that target entire nationalities or regions.