With the instruction of the President of the United States (USA), Donald Trump, the suspension of the green card lottery program known as the Diversity Visa (DV1) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not only a security measure; it is also a symbolic and political step that indicates the renewed intensification of long-standing immigration debates in the United States.[i] The decision was taken immediately after the armed attack at Brown University, in which two students lost their lives. The fact that the attacker entered the United States through the DV1 program led to the program itself being framed as a security risk.
The information that the Portuguese citizen Claudio Neves Valente, who is stated to be the perpetrator of the attack, entered the United States in 2017 under the DV1 program and received a green card has been placed at the center of the political debate. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, stated that the program was suspended under Trump’s direction, described this mechanism as a “disaster,” and emphasized the protection of American society.[ii] This discourse reflects a classic example of security-based anti-immigration arguments: an individual act of violence is used to question the legitimacy of an entire immigration program.
A striking element in the statements of Trump and Noem is the reminder of some past attacks by specifically linking them to the DV1 program. In the 2017 truck attack in New York, in which eight people lost their lives, it was emphasized that the perpetrator entered the country through the DV1 program. In this context, the example of Sayfullo Saipov was brought back to the agenda. However, this approach also brings the problem of selective memory in security debates. Because the overwhelming majority of armed attacks in the United States are carried out by U.S. citizens or people born in the country.
The nature of the places where the attacks took place is also important. The targeting of globally respected academic institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brown University has brought the debate on the security of university campuses in the United States back to the agenda. The fact that Valente was a doctoral student at Brown University in the past, but had no current active connection, has also opened the way for discussions on “institutional responsibility.” Despite this, the university administration especially emphasized that there was no institutional connection to the incident.
At this point, it is also important that no clear explanation has been made about the motivation of the attack. Official authorities are using cautious language regarding the reason for the attack. Despite this, political decision-makers have not avoided making a direct link to immigration policy, even with this uncertainty. This situation strengthens the question of to what extent the security justification is being politicized.
Although the suspension of the DV1 program is technically presented as a temporary measure, in practice it represents a continuation of Trump’s anti-immigration political line. Since 2017, Trump has mostly framed immigration as a national security threat and has institutionalized this discourse through policies such as the Mexico border, travel bans targeting Muslim countries, and the restriction of asylum procedures.
Another dimension of this decision is the approaching election atmosphere in the United States. Immigration is a strong mobilization tool, especially among the Republican voter base. The suspension of a program like DV1, whose technical details are not well known by the public, makes it possible to give a message of “toughness” with low political cost. The limited political representation power of the groups directly affected by the program also makes this calculation easier.
The suspension of the DV1 program also raises questions about the role of the United States in the global migration regime. The program is seen as one of the legal migration channels to the United States, especially for countries in Africa, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. The closure of this channel has the potential to indirectly increase the risks of irregular migration. It can also be read as a step that contradicts the U.S. discourse of “diversity.”
From a legal perspective, although the executive has the authority to suspend such programs, long-term cancellations require approval from Congress. For this reason, whether the decision will be permanent or temporary will depend on political negotiations in the coming period.
Although the suspension of the DV1 program is perceived by the public as a regulation only related to new applications, the decision may also bring legal uncertainties for existing green card holders through its indirect effects. Technically, the statuses of individuals who already hold green cards are not automatically put at risk by such administrative decisions. In U.S. immigration law, the principle of acquired rights provides strong protection against retroactive punitive practices. However, the hardening of political discourse and the institutionalization of a security-centered approach increase the possibility that existing immigrants may be subject to more intensive controls and administrative reviews.
Especially in recent years in the United States, it has been observed that security screenings have been tightened in green card renewals, citizenship applications, and re-entry into the country after travel. In this context, labeling the DV1 program as a “risky” mechanism may result in individuals who entered the country through this program being indirectly pushed into a category of suspicion. Although the loss of legal status is a low possibility, the perception of psychological insecurity and legal uncertainty creates a discouraging effect on immigrant communities. This situation shows that immigration policies produce not only legal but also sociopolitical consequences.
Another important dimension of the suspension of the DV1 program is its medium- and long-term effects on the U.S. labor market. The green card lottery program often brings into the U.S. economy not highly skilled migrants, but rather medium-skilled migrants employed in the service sector. Areas such as healthcare, logistics, construction, the care sector, and non-academic university staff are among the sectors where immigrants from this program are concentrated. Therefore, limiting immigration has the potential to deepen structural problems, especially in sectors that already have labor shortages.
The U.S. economy has long shown a structure that depends on foreign labor due to demographic aging and low fertility rates. In this context, although reducing the acceptance of immigrants may strengthen the perception of security in the short term, it can lead to results such as loss of productivity, wage pressure, and an increase in informal employment in the long term. In addition, narrowing legal immigration channels can have an encouraging effect on irregular migration rather than discouraging it. For this reason, the suspension of the DV1 program should be evaluated not only as a security policy but also as a decision directly related to the economic sustainability of the United States.
As a result, the suspension of the DV1 program can be evaluated as a symbolic step that strengthens anti-immigration discourse rather than a concrete security policy directly aimed at preventing the attack. The use of single and tragic events to reshape comprehensive immigration policies is controversial both academically and legally. The instrumentalization of the relationship between security and immigration in this way also brings the risk of further stigmatization of immigrant communities in the United States.
In this framework, the decision can be read as a continuation of an approach in U.S. immigration policy in which the production of political messages outweighs rational risk analysis.
[i] Santos, Sofia Ferreira. “US Suspends Green Card Lottery Scheme after Brown Shooting”, BBC News, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp4ze002mo, (Date Accessed: 21.12.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
