Naturalization is at the center of a new White House message that said legal immigration from majority-Muslim nations was cut 96% since 2024. The White House Rapid Response 47 account posted the claim on the basis of a Cato Institute analysis. CAIR said the post should push courts and Congress to look harder at how the restrictions were applied.
The Cato Institute analysis said monthly immigrant visa issuances and refugee admissions for nationals of 45 Muslim-majority countries fell from 21,096 in December 2024 to 808 in February 2026. The expanded Muslim and African travel ban took effect on January 1, 2026, placing the drop after the policy change and before the February figure the White House promoted.
Rapid Response 47 post
The White House Rapid Response 47 account wrote, “Legal Immigration from Majority-Muslim Nations Was Cut 96% Since 2024.” CAIR said the administration was presenting exclusion from Muslim-majority nations as success. Robert S. McCaw, CAIR Government Affairs Department Director, said, “Behind these numbers are spouses separated from their partners, children separated from their parents, and refugees seeking safety. These are human beings pursuing lawful immigration pathways. Their faith and national origin should never make them targets of collective punishment.”
McCaw also said, “By openly celebrating the exclusion of legal immigrants from Muslim-majority nations, the White House is admitting the bigoted motivation behind its immigration decisions despite years of denials under oath in courtroom litigation.” CAIR said the latest post cut against the administration’s earlier position that the policy was not about religion.
CAIR and Congress
CAIR said all members of Congress should sponsor the NO BAN Act. It also said Congress must investigate the implementation and consequences of the restrictions, demand the underlying decision-making records, and advance the NO BAN Act. The group linked that request to its filing of Sarsour v. Trump on January 30, 2017, one day after Trump said in a White House statement that the policy was not about religion.
CAIR also pointed to a 2018 Supreme Court brief in Trump v. Hawaii, where the administration argued that the proclamation was religion-neutral and did not target people based on religion. McCaw said, “During the first and current Trump administration, government lawyers have denied the discriminatory purpose of the Muslim and African travel bans. The administration cannot continue to credibly claim religious neutrality while presenting exclusion associated with Muslim nations as a measure of success.”
Trump v. Hawaii
CAIR said courts reviewing the legality of the administration’s immigration policies should consider the White House statement and reevaluate whether anti-Muslim animus has unconstitutionally motivated those policies. The group’s dispute is now tied to a public White House post, a numerical drop in lawful entry, and the question of what produced the change from 21,096 monthly arrivals and admissions to 808.
