Trump Plan to Send 1,100 Afghan Allies to Congo Sparks Outrage

The Trump administration is reportedly considering sending more than 1,100 Afghan wartime allies— including U.S. military interpreters, Afghan Special Operations forces members, family members of American service members, and over 400 children—from Camp As Sayliyah (CAS) in Qatar to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).[1][5] These individuals, evacuated from Afghanistan after supporting U.S. forces against the Taliban, have been awaiting U.S. resettlement for years.[1][4] The plan, first reported by ABC News, emerged as the State Department seeks third-country options for voluntary resettlement, though it did not confirm specific destinations.[1] Advocacy groups and Afghan support organizations decried the proposal as a betrayal of U.S. commitments. Shawn VanDiver, president and founder of a San Diego-based group aiding Afghan refugees, called it "a great American injustice" that endangers lives and undermines long-term national security by eroding trust in U.S. promises.[1][4] Human Rights First labeled the transfers "immoral and deeply shortsighted," arguing they put at-risk Afghans in peril in the unstable DRC, comparable to returning them to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.[5] Democratic lawmakers swiftly condemned the move. House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory W. Meeks and Subcommittee on South and Central Asia Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove issued a joint statement blasting President Trump's plan to ship Afghan allies at CAS to the DRC, vowing to hold the administration accountable.[2] Other U.S. lawmakers echoed the outrage, highlighting the refugees' sacrifices during two decades of war.[3] The 1,100 Afghans currently in Qatar face an uncertain future amid ongoing resettlement delays since the chaotic 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.[1] Advocates argue the DRC, plagued by armed conflict, poverty, and human rights abuses, offers no safe haven for those who risked everything for America.[1][5] The State Department has not detailed timelines or alternatives, leaving the allies in limbo.[1] This controversy underscores lingering tensions over the U.S. evacuation and promises to Afghan partners, with critics fearing it signals a broader retreat from moral obligations forged on the battlefield.[4][5]