Far From Home: Climate Displacement and Immigration in the Trump Era

Author: Anissa Patel

Editor: Clara Conry

Our federal and state governments must recognize the reality of climate displacement and acknowledge the need for improved immigration systems that cater specifically to CDPs.

Many of the immigrants to the United States arrive fleeing persecution or dangerous conditions in their home countries. While these conditions are typically pressing, what happens when citizens of other countries face slower-onset circumstances due to climate change, like sea level rise (SLR)? Are “climate refugees” protected under international or U.S. federal law, and what might such protections look like in the future? 

Since his inauguration, President Donald Trump’s recent blitz of Executive Orders and other presidential actions have addressed a variety of political issues; among the most contentious have been immigration and climate change. Just weeks into Trump’s second term, thousands of ICE arrests and numerous deportation flights have occurred, with expansions to Guantanamo Bay and military bases further proposed for holding migrants. Given the actions taken by the federal government in such a short time period, this article will explore the policy outlook for a specific group of immigrants—those facing climate impacts.

International Climate Migration and Displacement

Currently, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHC) estimates that by 2050, more than 200 million people all over the globe will be displaced by climate-related disasters. These include extreme weather exacerbated by climate change, as well as direct impacts such as SLR and heat waves. Many of those displaced will be permanently so, especially as SLR leaves coastal communities underwater. In addition, “climate refugees” disproportionately come from the world’s most vulnerable countries and which have contributed the least to climate change. Low-income regions of the Global South are overwhelmingly affected, including the African Sahel, south of the Sahara Desert, and South/Southeast Asia. In small island developing states, or SIDS, traditional lands and ways of life are at risk. 

As countries around the globe are faced with the looming threat of displacement and immigration, we must seek to understand the policy ramifications of the definition of “refugee.” There is no consensus about the legal definition of terms like “climate migrant” or “climate refugee”, particularly because the UNHCR’s definition of “refugee” does not consider environmental impacts. Therefore, individuals displaced due to these reasons typically have no standing as refugees under international law. This issue complicates immigration policy for countries such as the U.S. who might otherwise accept CDPs. The Biden-Harris administration realized this complexity, and in 2021 it issued an Executive Order regarding climate change and migration, the first of its kind. 

In general, due to the historical context behind terms like “migrant” and “refugee,” the phrase “climate-displaced persons” (hereafter CDPs) is preferred. It is defined as an individual forced to leave their usual place of residence or unable to return due to the adverse effects of climate change, environmental degradation, or natural disasters. 

The Biden-Harris Administration’s Focus on Climate Migration

On February 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14013, “Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration,” which called for the preparation of a report on climate migration. The following report, published in October 2021, outlined recommendations for coordinating government efforts in response to climate change and migration. One such recommendation advised the federal government to “assess how climate change may intersect with the criteria for refugee status,” including claims based on climate activism, lack of a viable relocation alternative, denial of climate impacts based on identity, and ability to flee persecution.

This E.O. made the U.S. the first country in the Group of Twenty (G20) to consider creating legal protections for refugees or displaced persons based on climate impacts. The report, however, reaffirms that there is no legal standing for climate displacement or asylum protection based on such a claim under international law. Therefore, while the E.O. and the proceeding report reframed the U.S. federal government’s position on climate migration in a significant manner, it did not seek to create transformational, resilient change in the U.S. or global immigration systems. Furthermore, a few years after these actions were taken by the Biden-Harris administration, one court case set a precedent for “climate refugees” seeking asylum in the United States. Cruz Galicia v. Garland highlights the continuous struggles against the U.S. immigration system faced by CDPs, despite positive, climate-forward action by the presidential administration.

Cruz Galicia v. Garland

As previously mentioned, there is no United States or international legal category of “climate refugee” or CDP. To be eligible for asylum, applicants must demonstrate that they have suffered persecution or fear suffering persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. In 2021, Mr. Cruz Galicia and his family entered the U.S. from Guatemala, where “droughts, storms, and the Covid-19 pandemic [sic]” affected their ability to live and feed themselves. He argued that the government’s neglect in providing economic aid amounted to persecution and that he and his family belonged to the “particular social group” of “climate refugees.” An immigration judge denied the application, finding no sufficient evidence of government persecutory action and that there was no link between the social group of “climate refugees” and alleged persecution. In July 2024, the First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the challenge to the denial of asylum claim.

This decision sets a negative precedent for how the United States immigration system treats asylees based on climate impacts. However, looking forward, this decision should not discourage asylum applicants from making claims related to climate-related harm in the country they are fleeing from. When possible, such harm should be linked to another aspect of the applicant’s identity, such as race or tribal group. In general, though, Cruz Galicia sets a difficult precedent for those solely fleeing climate-related impacts and seeking asylum in the U.S. 

The Trump Administration—Where Do CDPs Go from Here?

Despite the decision made in Cruz Galicia, the Biden-Harris administration’s focus on climate migration gave the subject a positive outlook in the U.S. However, with President Trump’s recent upheaval to our immigration system, it appears that immigration to the U.S. due to climate impacts will not just be put on the back burner, but actively suppressed by policy. Three recent policy changes embody how the new administration’s outlook will impact climate immigration.

First, the resettlement of tens of thousands of refugees who were vetted and approved to relocate has been paused, and approximately 8,200 people have been detained and arrested by ICE. Though many of these refugees were fleeing war and conflict, they also come from places facing environmental harms such as Afghanistan and the Caribbean.

Next, the administration is promoting third-party asylum agreements, where the U.S. reaches agreements with other governments to send deported immigrants to places other than their home countries. So far, the U.S. has agreed to send immigrants to El Salvador, where they can seek asylum. This limits the ability of CDPs to seek refuge in the U.S. through asylum. For those facing persecution due to some aspect of their identity related to climate impacts, such as Indigenous peoples or farmers, options are now more limited. The countries that the U.S. has typically reached such agreements with are also vulnerable to climate change, including Honduras and Guatemala as well as El Salvador. 

Lastly, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem recently revoked one of two Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Venezuela. Since 1990, TPS has provided temporary immigration protection to migrants from nations deemed too dangerous to send deportees back; common reasons include war and environmental disasters. The U.S. granted Venezuelan migrants TPS in two waves over the past five years due to economic and social turmoil from the country’s authoritarian administration. Secretary Noem’s decision to revoke the most recent TPS designation from 2023 means that about 350,000 Venezuelans will have deportation protections removed. Though the decision itself is not strictly related to climate displacement, TPS has been used for those impacted by natural disasters and other climate-related impacts, particular in Central America and the Caribbean. Revoking TPS in this way creates apprehension about what options will be available to those who face extreme weather events and natural disasters in the future, especially as these conditions are exacerbated by climate change.

As countries in the Global South continue to experience extreme heat waves, SLR, devastating storms, and more, it is crucial that Global North countries such as the U.S. become resilient to both climate impacts and human mobility. Our federal and state governments must recognize the reality of climate displacement and acknowledge the need for improved immigration systems that cater specifically to CDPs. The United States needs robust, designated programs to facilitate climate migration in the face of climate displacement for millions. Otherwise, we will find ourselves faced with the dual challenge of both a literal and figurative flood—a catastrophe our country is not yet ready for.