How Trump’s Anti-Muslim Immigration Policies Undermine U.S. Influence in the Middle East

On September 30, the official White House rapid response account on X highlighted research from the libertarian Cato Institute showing that legal immigration from majority-Muslim nations plummeted by 96 per cent after US President Donald Trump took office. This policy targeted 19 countries, including Arab nations, the broader Middle East and North Africa, and Arab League member states in East Africa such as Somalia, Sudan, and Djibouti. By showcasing this data, the Trump administration framed it as a major victory, echoing the failed “Muslim ban” of 2017 but redirected toward legal immigrants rather than general travellers. This stance demonstrated that Mr Trump continues to view Muslims as primary targets for his brand of ethno-nationalism, even as the American public remains deeply divided over Muslim immigration.

According to a Pew Research Centre poll conducted in spring this year, 43 per cent of US adults viewed Muslims as less patriotic than other Americans, while only four per cent considered them more patriotic. Additionally, 42 per cent believed Muslim Americans had a negative impact on the country, compared to 17 per cent who saw a positive impact. Addressing these dynamics, journalist Rozina Ali recently published a prominent book on Islamophobia in the US, examining the phenomenon through the experiences of four families. While acknowledging the severe discrimination Muslims have faced—particularly since the 9/11 attacks—she concluded on a measured note, observing that while Islamophobia persists, it consistently meets a resolute refusal to accept it.

The White House social media post faced immediate backlash. David Biers of Cato, whose research generated the statistics cited by the administration, replied directly: “Thanks for citing my work. You are violating the law and harming Americans while making the country less safe, less free and less prosperous.” Mr Biers further highlighted that immigrants from majority-Muslim nations tend to be highly educated, work in skilled professions, and have contributed to reducing federal, state, and local deficits by $1.1 trillion over the past three decades.

These domestic immigration attitudes directly influence the stability and durability of the US-led geopolitical framework in the Middle East. While traditional security partnerships are ostensibly built on mutual interests rather than perceived social compatibility, the two are frequently intertwined. Successful alliances, such as Nato or the EU, have historically been anchored in shared values and common principles among member states. In contrast, America's relationship with the Middle East has never shared this foundation, with the notable exception of Israel, which many Americans view through an exceptional lens of a moral community and vulnerable state.

Because the security ties between the US and Middle Eastern states have remained strictly transactional, those foundations fracture rapidly when one party fails to deliver on its commitments. With the US security umbrella facing severe challenges in conflicts involving Iran, regional actors are increasingly exploring alternative security arrangements, such as the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement. Furthermore, Pax Americana lacks the deeper emotional and soft-power appeal that has historically sustained international alliances through difficult periods. When transactional benefits fall short and are compounded by public disdain and insulting rhetoric from US public figures toward Muslims—exacerbated further by US actions in Gaza—Arab societies have little motivation to support or defend these geopolitical arrangements.