Legal Immigration Faces a Dramatic Reversal
According to figures obtained by The New York Times and subsequently reported by Breitbart, the State Department issued approximately 26,000 immigrant visas in February 2026.
That figure was reportedly around half the monthly average during the final year of Joe Biden’s presidency.
The numbers arrive against the backdrop of an extraordinary period for legal immigration. During fiscal year 2024, the United States granted approximately 1.36 million green cards, according to the Pew Research Center’s analysis of federal data.
That total reflected the combined effects of new arrivals and immigrants already living in the country who adjusted their status to lawful permanent residence.
The Trump administration has sought to reverse that trajectory through expanded screening, tougher eligibility assessments, and restrictions affecting nationals of numerous countries.
However, the precise scale of the decline requires careful interpretation. Monthly visa issuances can fluctuate, and a single month does not establish a long-term trend. The administration also has not released a complete, comparable set of figures covering every category of immigration.
The broader policy direction, nevertheless, is unmistakable: the White House wants immigration decisions to place greater weight on security, eligibility, and the interests of American citizens.
New Screening Rules Put Applicants Under Greater Scrutiny
One of the administration’s most consequential changes involves how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services evaluates certain immigration benefit requests.
In August 2025, USCIS updated its policy guidance to expand consideration of anti-American activity, support for terrorist organizations, and antisemitic conduct in cases where immigration officers have discretion over whether to grant benefits.
The agency also expanded social media screening for certain applicants.
Under the revised guidance, officials may treat evidence that an applicant has supported anti-American or terrorist ideologies as an overwhelmingly negative factor in applicable discretionary decisions. The policy does not mean that every applicant automatically faces denial based on political opinions alone; the rules apply within the relevant legal framework and the circumstances of individual cases.
USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser defended the administration’s position in direct terms.
“America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti American ideologies,” Tragesser said.
He added that immigration benefits “remain a privilege, not a right.”
For the White House, the argument is straightforward: individuals seeking permission to live and work in America should undergo meaningful screening, and applicants who present legitimate security concerns should not receive automatic approval.
The policy has also attracted criticism from immigration advocates, who question how broadly concepts such as anti-American activity might be interpreted and warn that vague standards could create uncertainty for applicants.
Those competing concerns are likely to remain central as the administration continues implementing its immigration agenda.
Country-Based Restrictions Add Another Layer
The administration has also imposed sweeping restrictions on visa issuance affecting nationals of multiple countries.
A State Department announcement published in February 2026 described full or partial suspensions covering 39 countries under a presidential proclamation that took effect on January 1.
Separately, the department announced a January pause in immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries over concerns about potential reliance on public assistance.
That broader pause was subsequently lifted following a court order effective August 21, 2026. The legal development is important because it means the January restrictions cannot accurately be described as a blanket policy that remains fully in force today.
Even so, the administration continues to emphasize stricter vetting and financial self-sufficiency as key components of its immigration strategy.
Africa and the Middle East have featured prominently in the debate over country-based restrictions. Claims that immigration from Muslim-majority countries has fallen by more than 90 percent, however, require a clearly defined comparison period and supporting country-by-country data before they can be independently confirmed.
The distinction matters. Security screening and restrictions based on nationality are separate policy mechanisms, and their effects should be evaluated using reliable figures rather than broad assumptions.
The Economic Argument Behind Trump’s Approach
Immigration has long been a contentious issue in debates over wages, employment opportunities, public spending, and the availability of housing and public services.
Supporters of tighter controls argue that reducing the supply of foreign labor in certain sectors could improve bargaining power for American workers. They also contend that slower population growth could ease pressure on some local services and infrastructure.
Critics counter that immigrants contribute to economic growth, fill hard-to-staff positions, establish businesses, and help address labor shortages. They warn that restricting immigration too aggressively could raise costs for employers and consumers.
David Bier, an immigration researcher at the Cato Institute, criticized the administration’s approach by arguing that it had reduced legal immigration even more sharply than illegal immigration.
Bier complained that “illegal entries are down under Trump, but he’s cut legal immigration even more than illegal immigration.”
His observation highlights a central tension in the administration’s strategy: a government can tighten border enforcement while also restricting lawful pathways, but the consequences of those two approaches are not necessarily identical.
Vice President JD Vance has framed the broader objective in terms of national unity and shared civic identity.
Vance told CBS that he wanted a country with “some baseline of social cohesion and sense of community.”
That argument reflects a longstanding conservative position that immigration policy should consider more than the number of people entering the country. Supporters say cultural integration, respect for American laws, and the ability to support oneself should also factor into decisions.
Opponents argue that social cohesion can coexist with substantial legal immigration and that overly restrictive policies risk shutting out qualified workers, students, and families.
What Comes Next for Legal Immigration?
The administration’s next challenge will be determining how far its restrictions can go without creating unintended economic consequences or running into additional legal obstacles.
Temporary immigration programs, employment-based visas, refugee work authorization, and permanent residency applications all operate under different legal requirements. Changes to one category do not automatically produce identical results across the entire immigration system.
The administration’s policies have already prompted legal challenges, and further disputes over eligibility rules, executive authority, and the treatment of individual applicants remain possible.
For Trump’s supporters, the central measure of success will be whether the government can establish a more selective immigration system that prioritizes security, economic self-sufficiency, and the interests of American citizens.
For critics, the question is whether the restrictions will prove excessively broad and undermine the benefits that legal immigration can bring to the country.
The political stakes are substantial. Biden’s final year in office saw green-card issuance reach approximately 1.36 million, while the Trump administration has made reducing immigration and strengthening screening central priorities.
The coming months should provide a clearer picture of whether the latest restrictions produce a sustained decline in legal immigration—and whether the administration can defend its approach in court while balancing national security, economic needs, and the longstanding American tradition of welcoming lawful immigrants.
One thing is already clear: the battle over who gets to enter and remain in the United States is no longer confined to border crossings. It now extends deep into the legal immigration system itself.
