The U.S. refugee resettlement program remains paused, but federal funding to state agencies helping refugees already in the country is still flowing, and local officials are hopeful that it will continue.
The Trump administration suspended new refugee arrivals indefinitely and terminated agreements between the federal government and the 10 national non-governmental organizations that help abroad with resettlement. As long as there aren’t new refugees, there isn’t likely to be any new money.
Funds have continued, however, for refugees who are already in the U.S. Resettled refugees receive assistance temporarily after coming to the U.S. to help them find employment, housing and generally become integrated to the community Officials from the state agencies that manage refugees locally told NOTUS they are keeping their federal funding, as far as they know, and may be asked to take a larger role in refugee resettlement going forward.
That could be a heavy lift, particularly for the 14 states that previously contracted out refugee resettlement. Some states, including Alaska, have little to no refugee infrastructure at the state level but now appear to be required to take on the matter. But it could also mean that resettlement isn’t gone forever.
In January, the Trump administration sent a letter to the 14 states that used nonprofits to handle resettlement directing them to start accepting federal funds for resettlement again in fiscal year 2026.
“The fact that they’re doing this, to me, shows a positive sign,” said Paul Costigan, the state refugee coordinator in Missouri, which turned over refugee work to the nonprofit International Institute of St. Louis in 2018.
“If the federal government just wanted to get rid of the refugee program, they’re not going to go through this whole process,” he continued. “So to me it provides a spark of optimism that refugee programming will continue in some form.”
President Donald Trump’s day-one executive order pausing the refugee admissions program directed the secretary of homeland security and the U.S. attorney general to explore how states and municipalities might have “greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions” and “promote” that involvement. (The pause on new arrivals has no specific end date but the executive order requested a review of the program every 90 days.)
The State Department and the Administration for Children and Families, which manages resettlement, did not comment.
Costigan said that in Missouri, federal funds seem secure but the state will have to administer them. The state is currently working on its 2026 budget and needs to allocate funds for the refugee program, but it’s difficult without any info on how much federal aid will come or how much will be needed.
“It’s been a little bit of a bumpy start,” he said.
Rachele King, resettlement programs director for the Minnesota Department of Human Services, told NOTUS by email that she has not heard of any change to direct funding allocations to the state agency from the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement. Contracts were canceled for the five nonprofit organizations that contract with the U.S. State Department and operate in Minnesota, King said.
The first Trump administration explored letting state and local governments decide whether to resettle refugees after many Republican governors said they did not want to accept Syrians. But a court blocked the change, saying it violated the federal structure of refugee resettlement set out by the Refugee Act of 1980.
Matthew Soerens, vice president of the national refugee resettlement agency World Relief, said that he has heard rumors about the administration seeking to turn over refugee resettlement to the states, but he doesn’t know what that means yet.
Soerens said any effort by the administration to bring refugees at all is a good sign, as there’s no shortage of anti-refugee sentiment in Trumpworld. But he doesn’t know whether it’s legal for states to take up the mantle or whether individual states can bear the brunt of the funding and administration.
“I see that as a little bit helpful, because I think a lot of people presume that the president will decide there’s not a U.S. interest in resuming refugee resettlement,” Soerens said. “To the extent that there is a resettlement program going forward … how will local governments be involved? And again, will resettlement agencies be involved?”
Federal lawmakers and state resettlement workers told NOTUS it could be a strain on state and local governments to take on more refugee work if the federal government permanently ended its support for resettlement. For one thing, the major resettlement nonprofits have global reach that state and local organizations don’t.
“States don’t have any infrastructure or any antenna into overseas, right?” Tracy Dolan, director of the state refugee office in Vermont, told NOTUS. “So states won’t be able to do that aspect. There would still need to be some arm of the U.S. government actually doing the vetting and sending folks over.”
As the federal government slashes other funding and programs that states rely on, there may be even less money left over to take on more of a role in refugee resettlement.
“The state of Alaska is certainly not in a place where it’s even feasible or likely in the coming years that any additional state, federal resources would be used to support the refugee resettlement program,” said Issa Spatrisano, state refugee coordinator in Alaska.
U.S. lawmakers were skeptical of the idea of putting more resettlement on states.
“I don’t know that our state, frankly, is in a position financially to be able to step up and to backstop a lack of federal resources,” Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas said. “It’s really something that the federal government is responsible for.”
Rep. Deborah Ross, Democrat of North Carolina, said resettlement is a federal responsibility and accused the Trump administration of “failing” refugees.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley said he doesn’t expect his state of Missouri to take on much more resettlement responsibility.
“They don’t have the money for that,” Hawley said.
—
Helen Huiskes is a NOTUS reporter and an Allbritton Journalism Institute fellow.