Are White Nationalists Driving Trump’s Immigration Policies?

At the end of November 2025, President Donald Trump permanently paused migration from nations he described as ‘Third World Countries.’” Then he followed up by halting all asylum claims, pausing visa issuances for Afghan nationals, and in December, he began calling Somalis “garbage.” He particularly targeted Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, who came to the United States from Somalia as a refugee and became a citizen 25 years ago.

Trump’s negative attitude toward immigrants, especially Black immigrants, was openly evident during his first term, when he questioned why the U.S. would accept immigrants from Haiti and African countries, which he called ‘shithole countries,’ instead of from mainly white nations like Norway.

During his first full month of the second term, Trump used funds from the Department of Health and Human Services to airlift white Afrikaners, whom he claimed, without evidence, faced “genocide” in South Africa. Once they arrived, additional funds were allocated to them that had previously been designated for the world’s most vulnerable refugees.

Trump is restricting immigration from countries with predominantly Black populations. Meanwhile, white Afrikaners and Norwegians are seen as suitable candidates to become Americans. Trump justified his actions as protecting our national security. Was he viewing Black people from the poorest countries as threats to our safety?

Trumpian Republicans, if not openly supporting his restrictions, have not criticized them.

Who is a Trumpian Republican?

It’s more than just those who voted for Trump as president; it’s also those who have consistently defended him and his policies because they see themselves as part of the populist MAGA movement, to Make America Great Again, that Trump sparked through his 2016 presidential campaign slogan.

Liberals overlook MAGA’s historical significance. When was the last time a president began a populist movement that lasted more than a decade? As popular as John F. Kennedy was, he did not establish a new movement; he built upon the existing civil rights movement. FDR served four terms, yet he did not create a new movement. Even Teddy Roosevelt, who ran as the populist Progressive Party’s candidate, did not spark a completely new movement.

But there have been past movements that combine nationalism with racial identity, much like how they shaped the rise of the MAGA movement. The pre-Civil War Know-Nothing movement, officially known as the American Party, also promoted restricting immigration and naturalization laws. They targeted minorities such as the Irish and German Catholic immigrants for potentially undermining American institutions and taking jobs away from lower-income workers, just as the MAGA movement does with Mexican and African immigrants.

Although MAGA supporters come from diverse backgrounds, including evangelical Christians and free-market atheists, they share a common opposition to liberalism, which they view as a threat to traditional family values and a barrier to profitable investments. They seek to return to a past era free from the influx of current immigrants.

America promoted immigration through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Cellar Act), which abolished discriminatory national origins quotas. Twenty years later, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 offered amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants and strengthened enforcement of registration. These pro-immigration laws were passed under both Democratic and Republican Presidents, showing a bipartisan effort to open the door for immigrants from outside Europe.

As the MAGA movement enters its tenth year, the political elite debate whether it will remain a unified force beyond Trump’s final term as president. Although a Politico poll released on Nov 28 shows that only 55% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 see themselves as MAGA. Nevertheless, they are still pursued voters by Republican Party leaders, despite them favoring policies that have been labeled as White Nationalism by establishment media.

Republican Politicians Reject Being Tagged as a White Nationalist.

White Nationalism is a losing strategy at the polls. Republicans who have openly embraced white nationalism have found themselves shunned by their party. Sen. Tommy Tuberville had said he considered those calling themselves white nationalists as Republicans and “a good American,” and not racist. However, under political pressure, he later explained that he actually opposes a white supremacist ideology.

Similarly, Reps. Paul Gosar and Marjorie Taylor Greene were both criticized by Republican leaders for attending an America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), hosted by known white nationalist Nick Fuentes. In late November, on CNN’s “NewsNight,” Kate Miller criticized her host, Abby Phillip, for having someone on her show who accused her husband of being a white nationalist. Her husband is Stephen Miller, Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, and considered to be the architect of Trump’s immigration policies.

These and other Republicans closely linked to President Donald Trump do not want to be seen as white nationalists. However, when asked in 2018 about the meaning of white nationalism, he claimed he had never heard of that term. As the leader of the Republican Party, this is a surprising statement, considering more than two dozen Republicans on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee knew enough about white nationalism to refuse to join Democrats in signing a letter denouncing “white nationalism and white supremacy.” So, what exactly is a white nationalist?

Who are the White people?

On the most basic level, a white person is someone who appears white. A non-white person is someone with a different skin color. That’s the definition that led to the formation of the NAACP in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Although it was created in response to racial violence and discrimination against Black Americans, its founding mission was to fight racial prejudice by ensuring equal access to the democratic process for all non-white citizens.

Using skin color to assign people to a racial category raises issues about where to draw the line between color and race. Someone with a distant relative who was a Black American might still be considered Black even if their skin was light.

For instance, the well-known actresses Diana Shore and Carol Channing in the sixties were both considered Black, who “passed for white” by some because they looked white! But they had a black ancestor! Still, those believing that Black blood is different from White’s blood see them as Black, not as White. Seeing white was not enough.

The U.S. government grappled for years with its census forms trying to differentiate whites from those not quite as white. Before 1970, most Americans who weren’t “black” or “colored” were classified as “white” on the census. However, “Japanese” and “Chinese” were listed as ethnic categories. “Hispanic” was not an option until Mexican American activists requested that the term be added to the 1970 census as an ethnic group.

In the 2020 census, people could choose from six races: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and “Some Other Race.” Our culture and government categorize citizens by race, and the public generally does too. But here’s the truth: There are no separate races based on scientific evidence. We are all the same species, human beings, with different physical features inherited from various regional groups.

Over time, these features have blended as much of the world and America’s population have intermixed. Using skin color to determine race became too difficult, so the census department now relies on self-identification of race on its forms. By including more than one race as an option, 11% of the population now selects it.

Since 1950, when the U.S. population was 90% white according to the census, it is now rapidly approaching a point where whites will comprise less than 50%. During this period, racial restrictions were legally eliminated, while the white middle class faced increased economic instability. The hope for a return to better days for some whites is reflected in the idea of making America great again, which Trump used as a campaign slogan that evolved into a movement. Perhaps unintentionally, but the underlying message of the MAGA movement can be seen as an attempt to maintain America as a nation primarily of white people.

Could A Nativist America be a Colorblind Society?

In trying to prevent a country divided by skin color, writer Colman Hughes, in his book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America, promotes a “colorblind” society that treats people equally regardless of race, both in personal interactions and public policy. Conservatives are drawn to this idea, possibly because it allows them to dismiss the need for DEI programs, which they claim amount to reverse racism by making white people atone for past wrongs. Liberals are often more cautious about building a colorblind
democracy since discrimination based on skin color has historically shaped laws that have restricted voting rights and economic opportunities.

While a colorblind society without racial bias is an admirable aim, it overlooks the cultural aspect that sustains a racial identity beyond skin color. This is reflected in the idea of “nativeness,” which throughout our history has been the belief that the founders of the U.S. were a homogeneous community of white Christians from Europe.

In fact, painted images of the Continental Army encamped at George Washington’s Valley Forge winter headquarters show that roughly 11% of his fighters were Black militias fighting for our freedoms. Additionally, thousands of American Indians fought in the Continental Army despite the Declaration of Independence calling them “merciless Indian Savages”.

Nativists, from the American Party to the Ku Klux Klan, have rejected the unique American idea of a nation built from a melting pot of races, ethnicities, and faiths. Instead, they prioritize the interests of native-born residents over those of immigrants, whom they see as disruptive to our perceived “native” culture and way of life.

In essence, nativeness is a mindset that defines a nation as the homeland of a tribe. Their goal is to protect it from others trying to enter and replace the native inhabitants, as the colonialists did with Native Americans. The dominant white tribe’s status is now more threatened than ever. Being colorblind would result in a more diverse population of ethnic groups and religions, which Trumpian Republicans would see as a threat to their homeland.

What is a Nationalist? 

A self-proclaimed nationalist in America today can be seen as believing in the core principles of national conservatism that influence both foreign and domestic policies. In promoting his foreign policy, Trump supports a national conservative approach that puts our interests ahead of those of other countries and international law.

Trump claims that he is a “proud” nationalist, compared to previous presidents who did not place our interests above those of other nations regarding international laws and agreements. Attacking and sinking non-military civilian boats in open waters without warning, with the intent to kill their occupants, ignores international law but is justified as protecting America from drug smugglers.

On the domestic front, national conservatism is rooted in our country’s shared language and family-centered culture. The family is seen as a model for the state. Some MAGA supporters call Trump “daddy,” and he reinforces that image by saying, “Daddy has to sometimes use strong language” in reference to Israel and Iran as “two kids in a school yard.” Overall, as Austrian political scientist Sieglinde Rosenberger wrote, “national conservatism praises the family as a home and a center of identity, solidarity, and tradition.”

Academics describe National Conservatives as emphasizing the preservation of national and cultural identity. Trump’s immigration orders stem from that effort when he posted on social media, “I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover.”

In other words, immigrants have undermined our identity as a strong world leader by allowing the world’s undesirables and criminals to enter. This contradicts the successful effort of America’s colonial founders to unite the thirteen independent colonies into a government that acknowledged their religious and ethnic differences.

Trump is not the only one claiming that immigrants admitted through the Democrats have harmed our national culture. For example, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar suggested that Democrats were “changing our culture” with their open border policies.

The Way Forward

White nationalistic groups, causes, and laws have been around since the founding of America. They peak but then ebb as the public and politicians recognize that enacting their laws harms the nation’s ability to maintain a stable society. The narrowness of white nationalism’s objectives to limit cultural influence and political power to just one stratum of the population only spawns a dysfunctional government, because its popular support will shrink.

Until it is removed from controlling government policies, civil unrest will grow, and the country, as a whole, will suffer. The only solution is to educate the public and political leaders that embracing white nationalism will not achieve the perceived brightness of a past era. It will only lead to a darker future.

The post Are White Nationalists Driving Trump’s Immigration Policies? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.