Delaware & Cancelled Contracts: Resettlement at Risk
There are no more resettlement agencies in the U.S. Here's what we can do about it.
The U.S. Cannot Resettle Refugees
For decades, the United States has contracted with non-governmental agencies (NGOs) to resettle refugees.
On Wednesday, those contracts were terminated.
Prior to Wednesday, the U.S. would not resettle refugees. Now, the U.S. cannot resettle refugees.
The connective tissue between these NGOs and the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has been destroyed. The very contracts that make these NGOs “resettlement agencies” are now null and void.
There are no more resettlement agencies in the United States.
Pacito v. Trump: Preliminary Injunction
We’ve written about the need for Congress to reclaim their role in refugee admissions previously—and the recent terminations are just another instance of the Trump Administration’s attempts to override Congress, the courts, and the will of the states to end resettlement.
Only a day before America’s resettlement contracts were terminated, a Seattle judge granted a preliminary injunction in Pacito v. Trump—a court case challenging the Trump Administration’s suspension of resettlement.
You can watch the Press Conference following the oral ruling here:
Overriding the States
States like Delaware fought for this injunction, arguing that: “refugees are a benefit, not a “burden”, to our States. In Amici States’ experience, refugees, who by statute are required to have undergone rigorous security screening, are authorized to work, and are legally admitted to this country following consultation with States and localities, contribute to our States both socially and economically.”
Harming resettlement harms states—and overrides their prerogative to participate in the project of resettlement, as suggested by The Refugee Act.
Overriding Congress
Judge Whitehead ruled that the suspension constituted an “effective nullification of congressional will,” violating the intent of The Refugee Act of 1980.
The Refugee Act allows the President to set the maximum number of refugees that can be admitted to the U.S. each year, as long as it is in line with “humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”
While Judge Whitehead explained that the President “has substantial discretion...to suspend refugee admissions…But that authority is not limitless.” As the Refugee Act was drafted to establish a Refugee Program that would exist in perpetuity—equipping the U.S. with the tools to respond to humanitarian needs and U.S. interests overseas—the Trump Administration’s attempt to eliminate the Program, absent Congressional approval, violates the law.
Whether this Judge’s interpretation holds throughout a possible appeals process is in question—but wouldn’t be, if Congress enacted a statutory admissions floor.
In the absence of a floor, Judge Whitehead’s injunction would block “the enforcement of the Refugee Ban EO, the Agency Suspension, and the Refugee Funding Suspension in their entirety.” Resettlement would resume.
Overriding the Courts
However, resettlement cannot resume if there are no more resettlement agencies.
The Administration’s termination of resettlement contracts—the day after the preliminary injunction was issued—constitutes another deliberately “unlawful attempt” to circumvent the courts and “dismantle the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.”
Resettlement advocates have argued for and secured an emergency conference to discuss the termination orders with the courts on Tuesday. If you are interested in watching, you can keep an eye out for the link here.
While we hope the conference and any future appeals are successful, limits on the President’s ability to end resettlement should not be up for debate.
Only The GRACE Act can build a refugee program that America—and refugees—can rely on.
Volags: A Brief History
“It is through these organizations that the American public has traditionally expressed, and continue[s] to express deep concerns or the world’s refugees and makes available opportunities for these unfortunate people to find new homes and new hope in this country of ours.”
-Wells C. Klein, the Senior Vice Chairman of the Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs of The American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service
Today’s Volags
Why do these contractual terminations matter?
We’ve previously written about how the Refugee Program is a public-private partnership. The NGOs that serve as America’s resettlement agencies are the backbone of the private component.
Ten NGOs were contracted with the federal government as resettlement agencies: Bethany Christian Services (the newest!), Church World Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Ethiopian Community Development Council, HIAS, The International Rescue Committee, Global Refuge, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Committee for Refugee and Immigrants, and World Relief. These agencies were previously known as voluntary agencies or “volags.”
Sidebar: We’d link to their listing on Refugee Processing Center’s website—but the page on resettlement agencies has been taken down by the State Department.
If you are looking for lost WRAPSNET content, please shoot us an email. We have factsheets, page screenshots, affiliate info, and other resources downloaded on a separate drive.
Volags & The Refugee Act
These NGO’s programmatic expertise and commitment to refuge pre-dates even the passage of The Refugee Act in the 1980s. One of the reasons we have a Refugee Program in the first place is because of their advocacy.
As seen above, Church World Service, HIAS, USCCB, LIRS (now Global Refuge), and The IRC (among others) all lobbied Congress to establish the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program through a coalition known as The American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service.
They emphasized the critical role NGOs play in resettlement: “[I]t is the voluntary resettlement agencies which, working in partnership with the States and Federal Government, actually resettle refugees in this country. The recent GAO report refers to the resettlement agencies as the ‘major actors’ in the resettlement process.”
Congressional Defense of Contracts
They also staunchly defended the very contracts the Trump Administration recently terminated.
After issuing recommendations for improving the Refugee Act’s proposed structure of the Refugee Program, Wells C. Klein, the Senior Vice Chairman of the Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs of The American Council of Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service, remarked:
“We believe that the one exception to this is the reception and placement grant which is paid to the voluntary agency on a per capita basis by the Department of State, at this point under contracts that we have with the Department of State. There are four major reasons that we feel strongly that no change should be made in this system for the time being.”
Those four reasons described the efficiency of the Reception and Placement contracts: the cost efficiency (estimating that it only costs $120 to support a refugee as they prepare to travel to the U.S. in 1979), the bureaucratic efficiency of administering these contracts through the State Department, the ability of the Reception and Placement program to respond to local concerns, and the empirical efficiency of these contracts.
Congress listened to the coalition’s request and kept these contracts as is, indicating their desire for perpetual contractual continuity—even, and especially, as Administrations try to remake federal bureaucracy in the name of efficiency.
Several states, including Delaware, recently reaffirmed the importance of these contracts in Pacito v. Trump:
“Resettlement agencies have worked with Amici States for decades to perform the essential functions of refugee resettlement, placement, and integration…Resettlement agencies are therefore essential partners for Amici States in ensuring that refugees are socially and economically successful.”'
-Pacito v. Trump
Volags & The Future of Resettlement
These NGOs shaped the U.S. Refugee Program in profound ways.
In addition to framing the Reception & Placement contracts that make a resettlement agency a resettlement agency, they are also the reason why “uniform procedures relating to the granting of asylum” were included in the Refugee Act—the first time that asylum is codified in U.S. law.
During the 1979 Congressional hearings, the American Council of Voluntary Agencies took “the liberty of appending to [their] testimony suggested language which we believe would strengthen the human rights aspects of this bill for dealing with questions of asylum, exclusion and deportation.”
They can—and are—doing so today. The equivalent organization to the American Council of Voluntary Agencies in 2025 is Refugee Council USA. Members of Refugee Council USA are currently joint plaintiffs in Pacito v. Trump.
Change has only ever come the way it will come now: through every constituent, every agency, and every coalition pushing towards a resettlement program that America—and refugees—can rely on.
Coalitions like RCUSA will be critical in the passage of a statutory admissions floor. You can learn more about how to get involved with RCUSA here.
The GRACE Act
As we’ve written before, the only way to fortify the U.S. Refugee Program against gross executive overreach is to seal America’s commitment to the persecuted in law.
Congress must pass the Guaranteed Refugee Admissions Ceiling Enhancement, or GRACE, Act—a law that would require that the U.S. resettle a minimum number of refugees each year.
States like Delaware have told us the cost of failing to pass The GRACE Act:
“While the Refugee Funding Suspension is purportedly temporary, it has already gutted the resettlement agencies, forcing many to furlough or lay off much of their workforces. Agencies are furloughing up to 40 percent of their staff funded through these federal programs. They will need to restructure their departments to operate with far fewer employees. Many of these employees are skilled staff who are highly effective in their roles and whom the agencies have already invested in training. Additionally, many of the organizations’ staff come from the same refugee communities they serve, so these community members lose opportunities to conduct this important work. These cuts are detrimental to the ability of Amici States to successfully welcome and integrate refugees, because this knowledge, expertise, and infrastructure, once lost, may be gone forever.”
The GRACE Act would make any judge’s interpretation of the Refugee Act crystal clear:
The President cannot indefinitely suspend refugee admissions.
The President cannot universally terminate resettlement contracts.
And the President cannot override Congress, the courts, and the states to the detriment of America’s interests—and the interests of the world’s refugees.
Click here to contact your members of Congress about The GRACE Act.
Thanks for reading Save Resettlement.
Next week, Florida & Parole Programs.
To keep you going: We’d recommend the documentary Silent Trees. The film paints a stunning portrait of the Polish-Belarusian border crisis through the eyes of a Kurdish teenage girl—a story of resilience & the importance of keeping our dreams alive.
It is available on HBO Max in some territories.
