By: Rina Amiri

Read in: The Diplomat

Reports that Afghan evacuees currently housed in Qatar could be transferred to the Democratic Republic of the Congo mark a deeply troubling shift in U.S. asylum and migration policy – one that should raise alarm bells not only for those concerned about the fate of Afghans, but for anyone invested in human rights, the integrity of U.S. asylum systems, and the United States’ credibility as a global partner.

At the center of this issue are Afghan allies – people who supported U.S. missions as interpreters, civil society actors, contractors, and partners over two decades of engagement. Because these individuals and their families were assessed to be at risk, they were evacuated following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and brought to temporary processing locations, including Qatar, where they have remained in limbo, awaiting decisions on Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), asylum claims, or other legal pathways to resettlement.

The prospect of transfer to the DRC presents an impossible choice. On one hand, evacuees may be relocated to a country with which they have no cultural or linguistic familiarity, where legal protections for non-regional asylum seekers are far from certain and the risk of further instability high. The DRC itself is grappling with significant internal challenges, including ongoing conflict in its eastern regions and large-scale internal displacement. The alternative – returning to Afghanistan – means putting themselves and their family at risk of persecution, retaliation, or worse due to their affiliations with the United States.

As unconscionable as this proposal is, it should not be understood as solely targeting Afghans or viewed as an isolated case. Rather, it represents a potential test case for a broader restructuring of U.S. immigration and asylum policy – one that appears to be shifting away from protection and toward exclusion, and increasingly toward the outsourcing of responsibility for vulnerable displaced populations.

If implemented, such a move would signal that even those with the strongest claims to U.S. protection – based on service, risk, prior vetting, and established commitments – may be subject to relocation to third countries with limited capacity and significant challenges. In doing so, it risks normalizing a model in which the most vulnerable are treated as logistical challenges to be exported through transactions over which they have no meaningful choice, rather than as rights-bearing individuals.

The human consequences of such a shift are stark: prolonged uncertainty, family separation, lack of legal status, and exposure to new forms of insecurity for those already bearing the brunt of war and violence.

But the implications extend well beyond humanitarian concerns. In an era in which international actors increasingly rely on local partnerships to carry out complex missions – from counterterrorism to peacebuilding to humanitarian response – trust is a vital currency, critical to operational capacity.

This issue strikes at the heart of U.S. national security and foreign policy. For decades, U.S. operations abroad – whether military, humanitarian, or diplomatic – have depended on the willingness of local actors to support U.S missions. Without the expertise of community leaders and civil society organizations, and the support of fixers, interpreters, and local staff, none of this work would be possible. They do this work often at enormous risk. When those partners are later treated as expendable, the consequences are not confined to a single context – they reverberate globally. If Afghan partners – whom the world witnessed standing with U.S. forces for two decades – can be transferred from Qatar to the DRC, what assurance can the United States credibly offer to those it will rely on in the future?

There is still time to choose a different path. That path would involve reaffirming commitments to Afghan allies by prioritizing the processing of SIV applications and asylum claims in safe and stable environments, rather than transferring individuals to contexts where they risk further uncertainty and insecurity.

Concerns about managing migration systems are real and require thoughtful deliberation, policy innovation, and clear congressional oversight. An approach that exports responsibility by relocating asylum seekers to third countries without adequate safeguards, legal frameworks and viable future pathways risks undermining both humanitarian commitments and longer-term strategic interests.

If the proposed transfers move forward, the consequences – human, strategic, and reputational – will be severe and long-lasting. The treatment of Afghan allies is not only a moral test; it is a signal of how the United States honors its obligations and commitments in a world where American reputation, soft power, and trust have already been significantly eroded.