News & Resources
When it comes to crafting new policy solutions to address the growing nexus of climate change impacts on human mobility, the United States is currently operating at a deficit. With attacks on the rights of immigrant communities and wide scale destruction of global development programs, the Trump administration has set back progress on this issue significantly. And yet, as the devastating impacts of a changing climate continue to mount, putting new pressures on food and water security, economic livelihoods, and peace and security worldwide, many factors are combining to push more people from their homes in search of stability worldwide.
This situation has put the United States in an increasingly difficult position. The United States has pulled back its climate adaptation assistance that was helping communities improve their resilience and ability to stay in their homes, at the same time that global migration and forced displacement is on the rise. This is true within communities in the United States as well as globally, and is projected to increase as climate change impacts worsen. Some estimates have suggested that the growing costs of climate-exacerbated displacement may already be in the tens of billions of dollars annually. This creates a widening gap between existing policies and the growing need that future U.S. actions will need to fill.
Recently, IRAP hosted a conversation on what a new U.S. policy agenda for climate mobility should address. Speakers from across nine partner organizations – experts on global migration, refugee, development, and environmental policy – addressed the lessons learned from attempts by the Biden and Obama Administrations to approach this growing problem, as well as new opportunities to pursue. (See here for a full summary of this event).
Here are four overarching takeaways from this conversation.
I. A future U.S. administration will be starting from scratch institutionally and must have comprehensive plans ready to implement, immediately and for the long-haul.
The Trump administration has ended programs meant to address global migration, food security and famine, economic development, climate resilience, global health, and many other related issues that have strong interaction with displacement and migration. Similarly, they have retreated from the global institutions looking to advance new agreements and solutions to these problems. This leaves a growing gap where there were once ongoing programs, policies, and conversations to advance.
Some experts pointed to the bright spot in this new reality: that a future administration will have the opportunity of a “blank slate” on which to innovate and craft new policies, without having to be bound to the constraints of past practices. But many underlined the need not just to have plans in place to create new structures, but long-term implementation plans for their success. While a lot of new policy can be set in an administration’s first 100 days, robust coordination mechanisms and policy leads must continue to prioritize the matter past this early period.
In one example highlighted by experts, the Biden administration announced within its first weeks in office an executive order to prioritize the climate-mobility nexus, including through a published White House report. However, little policy was planned beyond these initial executive actions, and so progress stalled in later years. Speakers underscored that future policymakers should learn from these lessons and craft policy implementation plans that extend well beyond the initial governing transition moment.
II. Existing legal migration pathways can be repaired and expanded to better address climate-exacerbated mobility.
A number of the experts advocated for a “patchwork approach” to expanding migration pathways, which may be a more realistic and practical way to improve existing policies without needing to create entirely new approaches, categories, or legislation. For example, updating and safeguarding the Temporary Protected Status process is a broader priority of the immigration community, and fixes can be made to specifically address disasters and climate-related events in the process. Similarly, expanding visa opportunities under the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically for countries and geographies facing climate disasters could provide more slots for those facing intersecting risks in their home countries.
Taking this approach, while also exploring opportunities for new dedicated climate mobility legislation, categories, or designations means pursuing a full spectrum of potential fixes to the system in the face of growing need. Experts on the panel encouraged not overlooking the “patchwork” approach in pursuit of a “comprehensive” fix that may face significant political battles and delay. Similarly, they underscored the need to set-up guardrails in existing programs, which can better prevent future administrations from backtracking on the progress made.
III. In the meantime, look to city and state actions as innovative models and find new entry points in international cooperation.
Progress need not wait for a new Presidential administration in the United States, and indeed, local governments across the country and national governments across the world are developing new solutions to learn from. Experts highlighted the great work being advanced by American mayors to better position their cities to welcome and integrate new residents into their economies. Cincinnati, for example, launched a new Climate Migration Readiness Plan this year, which aims to prepare the city to welcome half a million new residents by 2050. The plan recognizes the relative climate resiliency of the city, and seeks to turn this into a strength by investing preemptively in the housing supply, infrastructure, and neighborhood planning that can ease its growth. This type of forward municipal planning is a model that a future administration could expand and incentivize through complementary federal policy.
Similarly, at the global level, many new approaches are being advanced which could provide both new models and entry points for a new U.S. government seeking to rebuild bridges with the global community. Australia has launched a new form of “climate visa,” allowing citizens of the low-lying pacific nation Tuvalu a pathway to permanent residency in the country. The European Union has signed a new Pact on Migration and Asylum, and while it does not advance policies specific to climate-related migration, it advances several new foresight and early warning tools that can be applied in these cases. Speakers also highlighted a few ongoing processes: negotiations for a new Treaty on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters; the update of the UNHCR refugee law handbook; and the initial funding decisions of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage. In all of these cases, experts noted, the United States should recognize that it is one of many countries facing shared climate mobility challenges, and should preference the needs and desires of those people displaced in policy design and negotiation.
IV. Good policy isn’t enough: advancing and sustaining solutions will require new political coalitions, messages, and strategies.
Many of the expert speakers on the panel were self-reflective on the limits of advocacy that does not extend beyond a small-group of dedicated champions. In order to widen the political opportunities to secure new policies and budgets dedicated to climate mobility, the advocacy community must also broaden its appeal to a wider range of stakeholders. This means using more broadly appealing narratives, focusing on intersections with economic and other priorities, and building coalitions with more diverse communities who have different but overlapping agendas.
In reality, a new U.S. administration will likely face multiple fiscal, security, and technological challenges that may crowd out other important issues on the priority list. It will also need to put significant emphasis on domestic concerns, as opposed to foreign policy and global development needs. These are not constraints to ignore, but realities to work within to advance solutions. As in the Cincinnati example, there exist real economic and local growth opportunities in expanding services to prepare for new migration flows. Any expanded migration pathways should similarly focus on extending the benefits beyond those directly impacted to strengthen entire communities. This can also help broaden the political support beyond traditional allies.
Overall, this initial conversation marked the opening of a new, clear-eyed dialogue about the mounting challenges and opportunities in U.S. policy towards climate mobility. As both domestic and international displacement from climate disasters grow, so too will the need to respond to many more people on the move. These are no longer debates about future trends, where advocates can afford to stay wedded to theoretical or academic demands.
Instead, the expert community can best use the next few years to prepare a comprehensive menu of potential policy options that a future government could act upon, and broadening the political appeal for concrete solutions to multifarious problems. IRAP’s Immigration Solutions Accelerator, a policy and advocacy approach dedicated to advancing lawful pathways rooted in the rights of displaced peoples, plans to do exactly this. In 2027 the Accelerator plans to publish a U.S. climate mobility policy playbook concretizing core recommendations.