President Donald Trump has pledged to “permanently pause” migration from all “Third World Countries” after a deadly ambush on National Guard soldiers steps from the White House, instantly escalating one of the most hardline immigration agendas in modern U.S. history.

Below is a quick guide to what Trump actually promised, what triggered it, what “Third World Countries” means in this context, and what could happen next.

What exactly did Trump announce?

Trump’s new immigration push arrived via a late-night Thanksgiving post on his social media platform, Truth Social, shortly after he phoned National Guard troops and the family of Sarah Beckstrom.

Across that post and follow-up remarks, Trump laid out several headline promises:

• “Permanently pause” migration from all “Third World Countries” so that the U.S. system can “fully recover.”
• Terminate “millions” of recent admissions, including cases he claims were approved with insufficient review, and re-examine asylum approvals from the previous administration.
• End all federal benefits and subsidies for non-citizens, without clearly distinguishing between undocumented people, visa-holders, refugees or permanent residents.
• Denaturalize migrants who “undermine domestic tranquility” and deport any foreign national deemed a “public charge,” security risk, or “non-compatible with Western civilization.”
• Pursue broad “reverse migration”, aimed at shrinking what he describes as “illegal and disruptive populations.”

In short, he is promising both a near-total halt on future migration from a vaguely defined slice of the globe and a much more aggressive effort to strip status and remove some people already in the country.

For now, this exists as political rhetoric, not finalized legal text. The White House has not yet published an executive order or bill that spells out concrete legal steps, timelines or definitions. Agencies, however, have already been instructed to tighten reviews and pause some processing streams.

What triggered the announcement?

The immediate spark was a daytime ambush in downtown Washington, DC on November 26, 2025. Two West Virginia National Guard members on patrol near the White House were shot with a revolver in what officials describe as a targeted attack.

Twenty-year-old Specialist Sarah Beckstrom later died of her wounds; 24-year-old Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe remains in critical condition.

Investigators identified the suspect as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who:

• Entered the United States in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome, a program created to evacuate and resettle at-risk Afghans after the Taliban takeover.
• Previously worked with a U.S.-backed Afghan paramilitary unit, according to U.S. officials.
• Applied for asylum in late 2024 and was granted asylum in 2025.
• Was living in Washington state with his wife and five children before allegedly travelling to DC.

The FBI has described the case as a terrorism investigation and says early evidence suggests he acted alone.

Within hours of the attack, the administration moved on several fronts:

• USCIS halted processing of certain immigration applications from Afghan nationals.
• The Department of Homeland Security began a review of recent asylum approvals, especially those granted after the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal.
• Officials announced a “rigorous” re-examination of green cards issued to citizens of selected “countries of concern.”

Trump’s Thanksgiving-night promise to freeze migration from all “Third World Countries” is the most sweeping political response so far, using a single — though horrific — incident to justify a much broader crackdown.

So what does “Third World Countries” mean here?

One of the biggest questions is simple: which countries is Trump actually talking about? The short answer is that we do not know, because he has not said.

In his posts and subsequent coverage, Trump repeatedly refers to “Third World Countries” but never supplies a list or an official definition.

Historically, the phrase “Third World” dates back to the Cold War. In 1952, French demographer Alfred Sauvy used it for countries that were not aligned with either the U.S.-led capitalist bloc or the Soviet-led communist bloc. In that original sense, some neutral European states counted as “Third World” alongside newly independent states in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Over time, everyday usage shifted. Today the term is often used — loosely and controversially — as shorthand for poorer or “developing” countries, even though that was never the original meaning and does not map neatly onto any modern list.

Because of this, many scholars and policymakers criticize the label as:

• Outdated and imprecise, blurring together countries with very different economies and political systems.
• Implicitly hierarchical, suggesting “first” versus “third” as better versus worse.
• Potentially stigmatizing, especially when used to justify exclusion, punishment or collective blame.

International bodies instead rely on clearer categories like “low-income,” “lower-middle income,” “developing” or “least developed countries (LDCs)”, based on indicators such as GDP per capita and the UN Human Development Index.

Bottom line: there is no official U.S. legal category called “Third World Countries.” Until the White House publishes actual legal text, no one can say with certainty which passports or regions would fall under the promised “permanent pause.”

Could he actually do this legally?

Trump does have broad powers over immigration, but there are real legal limits — particularly on some of the most sweeping ideas in his post.

1. Halting migration from a broad set of countries

U.S. law allows presidents to restrict entry of non-citizens they deem “detrimental” to national interests. Trump used this authority in his earlier “travel ban” policies, portions of which survived Supreme Court scrutiny.

In theory, the same statute could be used to curtail visas and refugee admissions from a large group of countries, especially if framed around security concerns.

But a global, open-ended, “permanent” freeze on migration from what might be dozens of states would almost certainly face a sterner test in court, especially if challengers show it is driven more by politics or prejudice than by evidence-based security assessments.

2. Ending all federal benefits for non-citizens

Trump also promises to cut off federal benefits and subsidies for all non-citizens. The reality is more complicated:

• Congress already bars undocumented immigrants from most federal welfare programs.
• But lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees and some other groups do receive federal support under existing law.
• A blanket ban on benefits for “all non-citizens” would likely require new legislation and could face constitutional challenges, especially if it affected children, people with disabilities or groups protected by treaties.

The details will determine how far this idea can go: which programs, which categories of migrants, and what justification the administration offers.

3. Denaturalizing migrants and “reverse migration”

The most explosive promise is to denaturalize migrants who “undermine domestic tranquility” and to engineer “reverse migration” to sharply reduce the immigrant population.

Under current law, citizenship is extremely difficult to strip. Denaturalization is usually limited to cases where officials can prove that someone lied or hid key facts in their citizenship application, or to very narrow national-security circumstances. Courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to treat loss of citizenship as a routine punishment.

Trying to denaturalize people because they allegedly threaten “domestic tranquility,” or are “non-compatible with Western civilization,” would almost certainly be challenged as unconstitutionally vague and discriminatory. Even some conservative legal voices expect such attempts to face years of litigation.

In practice, Trump can intensify enforcement, narrow legal pathways and expand deportations — but the most sweeping parts of the “reverse migration” vision are best read, at least for now, as maximalist political goals rather than ready-to-implement policy.

Who could be affected if it went ahead?

Without a formal definition of “Third World Countries,” it is impossible to draw a precise map. Based on how the term is commonly used, a freeze could touch:

• Prospective migrants from many parts of Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean.
• Refugees and asylum seekers fleeing conflict, persecution or climate-driven disasters in those regions.
• Students, workers and family-reunification applicants whose visas could be suspended or delayed.

Trump has placed particular focus on Afghan nationals, tying the DC shooting suspect to the 2021 evacuation.

Under Operation Allies Welcome and related efforts, tens of thousands of Afghans entered the U.S., many of whom supported U.S. forces or worked for allied organizations. Advocacy groups and veterans’ organizations argue that punishing this entire community for one individual’s alleged crime would break promises made during the withdrawal and could endanger remaining allies abroad.

Beyond Afghans, leaders across the Global South are asking whether their citizens’ ability to study, work or join family in the U.S. is now at risk. International media coverage already reflects anger and alarm at both the language and the potential economic and human impact.

What happens next?

Right now, Trump’s pledge lives in three places: a viral social-media post, internal agency directives and a rapidly forming political fight.

• Inside government: DHS and USCIS are already reviewing asylum approvals and green cards from certain countries and have paused parts of the Afghan processing pipeline. Further guidance to consulates, border agents and refugee agencies could arrive before any headline executive order.
• In Congress: Expect hearings, messaging bills and attempts by supporters and critics to frame the policy as either a necessary security step or an unprecedented assault on immigrant rights and humanitarian obligations.
• In the courts: Civil-rights and immigration groups are signalling that any sweeping ban or mass denaturalization drive will be challenged on constitutional and human-rights grounds, likely producing a lengthy legal battle similar to — but broader than — earlier travel-ban cases.
• Globally: Governments whose citizens rely heavily on U.S. remittances, study visas and work permits will weigh diplomatic pushback as they assess whether their nationals might be caught up in a “Third World Countries” net.

For now, the crucial point is that nothing like Trump’s full blueprint is law yet. The U.S. immigration system is already shifting in response to the DC shooting — but how far it moves toward a full “permanent pause” and “reverse migration” will depend on the exact policies the White House issues next, and on how courts and Congress respond.

Quick FAQ

Sources

This brief draws on reporting and analysis from a range of outlets, including:

• Reuters – breaking coverage of the DC National Guard shooting and Trump’s immigration response.
• The Guardian and Al Jazeera – context on the attack, the suspect and the “permanent pause” language.
• Official U.S. government releases – background on Operation Allies Welcome and existing vetting procedures.
• United Nations and World Bank – definitions and data on “developing countries” and income groups.

Note: This piece summarizes fast-moving events. Details of any eventual executive orders or legislation may change as new information is released.

Related on ReadGlobe

Hong Kong’s Wang Fuk Court fire: what we know so far