Which U.S. agencies and programs managed Somali refugee resettlement in 2025?
Executive summary
In 2025, Somali refugee resettlement was managed through the traditional U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) architecture—led overseas by the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), with adjudication, security vetting, travel coordination, domestic benefits, and local reception handled by a network of federal agencies, international organizations, voluntary agencies, and community groups—but the year was defined by a presidential suspension of new admissions that paused many of those functions [1] [2] [3].
1. Federal program leadership: Department of State / PRM set priorities and referrals overseas
The Department of State’s PRM retained overall management responsibility for USRAP overseas in 2025, proposing admissions ceilings and processing priorities and working with international partners to identify and refer cases for resettlement, including engagements through consortia such as the Equitable Resettlement Access Consortium (ERAC) that were making direct referrals of marginalized populations [1] [4].
2. Security, adjudication, and vetting: USCIS and new vetting initiatives
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was the lead adjudicator for refugee claims and security vetting under USRAP; by 2025 USCIS had established intensified vetting mechanisms—illustrated in reporting about a new USCIS vetting center and initiatives labeled Operation PARRIS that conducted reinterviews and background checks and forwarded suspected fraud or criminal cases to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—placing adjudication and case review squarely within USCIS operations [1] [5].
3. Travel and pre-departure logistics: IOM and State Department contracts
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) contracted with the State Department to coordinate travel for approved refugee applicants and in many overseas locations served as the Refugee Support Center (RSC), arranging movements of refugees approved for resettlement to the United States [1].
4. International referral and protection role: UNHCR’s upstream identification
UNHCR continued to play the essential upstream role of identifying, protecting, and referring Somali refugees for resettlement consideration; UNHCR’s country operations and data portals remained the primary international source of case information and referrals feeding USRAP pipelines [6] [1].
5. Domestic benefits and integration: HHS/Office of Refugee Resettlement and State R&P funding
Once refugees arrived, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) administered domestic resettlement benefits and services, while the State Department’s Reception and Placement (R&P) program historically supplied initial funding to resettlement agencies for the first 30–90 days; reporting in 2025 noted ongoing debates over program lines and transfers, with some policy changes later in the year affecting the R&P funding posture [1] [7].
6. Ground-level implementation: Voluntary agencies (VOLAGs), Welcome Corps, and community providers
Non-governmental voluntary agencies contracted by the State Department (VOLAGs) and newer community-sponsorship models such as the Welcome Corps were central to placing and supporting Somali arrivals—helping with housing, medical access, schooling, and employment—while local community organizations like Somali Community Resettlement Services in Minneapolis provided direct paperwork and integration assistance to Somali newcomers [8] [2] [9].
7. Strategic shifts and operational pauses that shaped 2025 outcomes
Policy moves in January 2025—including an executive order that suspended new refugee arrivals and litigation and administrative pauses on processing—meant that while the institutional architecture (PRM, USCIS, IOM, UNHCR, ORR, VOLAGs, Welcome Corps, and community groups) remained the set of actors managing Somali resettlement, many of their activities were halted or narrowed in practice during 2025, leaving thousands of approved or in-process cases in limbo and prompting legal challenges and advocacy responses [2] [3] [7].
8. Points of contention and alternate perspectives
Government sources and humanitarian actors framed these agencies as complementary parts of USRAP; critics and some policy analysts emphasized intensified vetting initiatives—like Operation PARRIS—and suspensions as politically driven changes that shifted priorities from humanitarian access toward security and administrative reassessment, a tension reflected in nonprofit and think-tank reporting about halted travel plans and disrupted services [5] [3] [4].