More than 80 members of the House of Representatives are urging the Trump administration to reconsider any plan that would relocate Afghan nationals who worked with U.S. forces to unsafe third countries, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The lawmakers, including Democrats and at least three Republicans, sent a letter to senior administration officials raising concerns about roughly 1,100 Afghans who remain stranded in Qatar while awaiting relocation. Many of those Afghans worked alongside U.S. forces during the nearly 20-year war in Afghanistan as interpreters, contractors, security personnel, or other support staff.
The group has been stuck in limbo more than four years after the U.S. withdrawal from Kabul. Lawmakers say the United States has a moral and national security obligation to protect people who helped American service members during the war and who could face danger if abandoned or sent to unstable countries.
Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat and former Army Ranger who led the letter, said the issue goes beyond immigration policy.
TRENDING TODAY
“It’s both a moral and a national security imperative that our country live up to its promise and watch out for those who put themselves in harm’s way to help keep us safe,” Crow said in a statement.
The letter was addressed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other senior Trump administration officials. It asks the administration to clarify its plans for the Afghans in Qatar and to avoid sending them to countries where their safety could be at risk.
Earlier this year, the administration was reportedly in talks to send the group to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That possibility alarmed advocates and lawmakers because the DRC is facing serious instability, armed conflict, displacement, and health concerns, including an Ebola outbreak.
Rubio was questioned during congressional hearings about whether the administration still planned to send the Afghans to the DRC. He said the United States was speaking with multiple countries about resettlement options and indicated that the administration did not intend to return the group to Afghanistan.
Still, lawmakers say they want clearer answers. Their letter asks for details about which countries are being considered, whether relocation would be voluntary, what legal authority the administration would use, and whether some Afghans could still be admitted to the United States.
The issue has become more politically sensitive under Trump’s second administration. After a 2025 attack in Washington, D.C., allegedly involving an Afghan immigrant, the administration pointed to concerns over vetting and national security. Trump later signed an executive order restricting Afghan refugee entry, including for some Afghans who had worked with the U.S. military.
Critics argue that a broad restriction punishes wartime allies who already went through screening or who are eligible for special immigration pathways. Supporters of stricter policy say the government must prioritize security and conduct additional reviews before allowing entry.
The stranded Afghans in Qatar are at the center of that debate. Many believed they were on a pathway to resettlement after assisting U.S. operations or being evacuated because of their connection to American forces. Instead, they have remained at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar while the administration looks for alternative destinations.
Advocacy groups have warned that forcing Afghans to choose between unsafe third-country relocation and continued uncertainty could amount to abandonment. They also argue that sending former U.S. partners to unstable countries could damage American credibility in future conflicts.
That concern is shared by some lawmakers from both parties. For years, support for Afghan interpreters and wartime partners was broadly bipartisan, especially among veterans in Congress. Many argued that protecting Afghan allies was essential because future local partners would be less likely to help U.S. forces if they believed America would leave them behind.
But that consensus has weakened as immigration and refugee policy have become more polarizing. Some Republicans who once backed special visa programs have stepped back amid broader concerns over migration and security.
The lawmakers’ letter attempts to revive the older bipartisan argument: that the United States made commitments to people who helped its military and should not move them into dangerous conditions simply to avoid admitting them.
The DRC option is especially controversial. The country has faced years of conflict, humanitarian crises, and mass displacement. Lawmakers and advocates argue it is not a suitable destination for Afghans who fled Taliban retaliation and are still awaiting durable resettlement.
The administration has not publicly confirmed a final relocation plan. Officials have said they are seeking safe third-country options and working with partners to resolve the situation. But lawmakers say that is not enough without transparency and guarantees that the Afghans will not be sent somewhere unsafe.
The letter also asks the administration to consider U.S. entry for some members of the group, especially those who may qualify under special immigrant visa programs or other protection pathways.
For the Afghans waiting in Qatar, the outcome could determine whether they are allowed to rebuild their lives in a safe country, remain stuck indefinitely, or face transfer to a country they did not choose.
For Washington, the debate is about more than one group of refugees. It is a test of whether the United States will keep faith with foreign nationals who risked their lives to support U.S. missions abroad.
Why It Matters
This matters because the Afghans stranded in Qatar include people who worked with U.S. forces and may face danger because of that service. Lawmakers argue the United States has both a moral duty and a national security interest in protecting wartime partners.
It also matters because future U.S. military operations may depend on local allies. If those allies believe America will not protect them after a mission ends, it could become harder for U.S. forces to find trusted partners in future conflicts.
What Comes Next
The Trump administration is expected to face more pressure from Congress to explain its relocation plans. Lawmakers want answers on which countries are being considered, whether transfers would be voluntary, and whether some Afghans can still enter the United States.
If the administration continues exploring third-country relocation, the DRC option and any similar proposal will likely face continued opposition from lawmakers, veterans’ groups, and refugee advocates.
Refugees International said more than 1,000 Afghans remain stranded in Qatar while the administration considers third-country relocation options, including the DRC.
The U.S. promised refuge to Afghan allies. But +1,000 remain stranded in Qatar, with the admin reportedly considering sending some to the DRC.
Hear from an Afghan woman living in limbo & former U.S. envoy Rina Amiri on the latest episode of #ForcedFromHome https://t.co/9ZCCiIuakz pic.twitter.com/OH9DYshYuJ— Refugees International (@RefugeesIntl) June 12, 2026
