How did refugee resettlement agencies decide which states received Muslim refugees?
Executive summary
Refugee resettlement destinations are set through a combination of federal oversight (State, DHS, HHS) and operational decisions by ten national resettlement agencies under State Department agreements; referrals and vetting are federal (USCIS interviews, PRM oversight) while local placement relies on agencies’ capacity and local partners [1] [2]. Recent policy shifts — including an January 2025 Executive Order that suspended USRAP and directed review of state/local roles — have disrupted placements and raised questions about which jurisdictions receive Muslim refugees [3] [4].
1. Federal gatekeepers decide who qualifies, not which state at first
Initial decisions about refugee eligibility, nationality or religion, and referral into the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) are made through federal channels: UNHCR/other referrers submit cases, USCIS officers interview applicants, and the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) oversees admissions; those cleared are eligible for resettlement assistance [1]. These federal steps determine who is admitted as a refugee — they do not, at that stage, assign a U.S. state based on religion or country of origin [1].
2. Ten national agencies place refugees based on local capacity and networks
Once refugees are approved, domestic placement is handled through the Reception and Placement (R&P) program: each refugee is sponsored by one of 10 nonprofit resettlement agencies that hold cooperative agreements with the State Department. Those agencies — working with local affiliates, faith-based groups, and community partners — secure housing, enroll children in school, and connect clients with services; placement decisions reflect available housing, caseworker capacity, local service networks, and sponsor relationships rather than a federal map keyed to religion [2] [1].
3. Practical factors shape where Muslim refugees end up
Resettlement agencies place people where culturally appropriate services, language supports, jobs, and affordable housing exist. The creation of new affiliates with community ties (for example a Muslim-affiliated office partnering with Islamic Relief USA and IRC in Northern Virginia) shows agencies explicitly consider cultural fit and community supports when preparing local reception capacity — which affects where refugees from Muslim-majority countries are directed [5] [2].
4. Policy shifts and politics have recently altered placement mechanics
A January 2025 Executive Order suspended USRAP and instructed DHS and State to examine “the extent to which … State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement” in placement decisions; the order also allowed case-by-case admissions in the national interest [3]. That directive interrupts normal operations and opens the door for more state or local input — though how that will be implemented remains subject to future rulemaking and litigation [3].
5. Litigation and court orders constrain the administration’s actions
Resettlement agencies sued over the funding halt and program pause, and courts have enforced processing for certain groups — for example orders requiring the government to process refugees who were conditionally approved and had travel scheduled before Jan. 20, 2025 [6] [7]. Those judicial interventions preserve some placements already underway but do not create a new public process that allocates refugees to states by religion.
6. Competing perspectives: federal uniformity vs. local control
Advocates for a robust federal program emphasize a nationwide public-private system that distributes arrivals based on agency capacity and community needs and cautioned that politicizing placements harms refugees and local economies [2] [8]. The January 2025 executive branch position favors more state/local involvement in determining placements, framed as giving jurisdictions a say — supporters argue this addresses local concerns, critics warn it could be used to block or limit arrivals from certain nationalities or religions [3].
7. What the available reporting does not say
Current reporting in these sources does not provide a documented formula or evidence that resettlement agencies systematically assigned refugees to particular states because they were Muslim; nor do the sources show a federal directive that routes Muslim refugees differently from others (available sources do not mention a state-by-state allocation explicitly based on religion). The materials do show, however, that cultural/community ties and agency capacity affect placements [5] [2].
8. Why this matters going forward
Placement processes determine refugees’ access to services and long-term integration; recent suspension of USRAP and the White House’s instruction to explore greater state/local authority signal potential structural change that could shift who decides placements and how localities accept or resist arrivals [3] [4]. Watch litigation outcomes and subsequent DHS/State guidance for concrete changes to where, and by what criteria, refugees — including those from Muslim-majority countries — are resettled [7] [3].