October 15, 2025 | Wednesday
Tags: donald-trump, susie-wiles, jd-vance, gavin-wax
Commentator Nick Fuentes cited New York Times reporting that the Trump administration is considering an overhaul of the refugee program that would prioritize English-speaking Europeans and white South Africans while imposing stricter assimilation and enforcement measures. Leaked chat logs tied to Gavin Wax have led to multiple firings and ignited infighting among conservatives, prompting accusations of betrayal and calls for tighter operational security and loyalty vetting.
On Wednesday night commentator Nick Fuentes cited a New York Times account that “the Trump administration is considering a radical overhaul of the U.S. refugee system,” a proposal reportedly presented to the White House in April and July 2024 by officials from the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, according to Fuentes’s reading of the NYT language. Fuentes quoted the Times wording that the overhaul would “slash the program to its bare bones while giving preference to English speakers, white South Africans and Europeans who oppose migration,” and Fuentes repeated the phrase “white refugees” when describing the policy preference he said officials are advancing. Fuentes further relayed that President Donald J. Trump directed federal agencies on January 20, 2017 to suspend refugee admissions at the start of his first term, and Fuentes referenced that historical suspension as context for the current study he said the White House ordered on whether refugee resettlement serves “the interest of the United States.”
Fuentes supplied additional detail from the NYT reporting by citing specific policy mechanics, saying “the proposed changes would put new emphasis on whether applicants would be able to assimilate,” and Fuentes highlighted two operational elements he attributed to the proposals: mandatory classes on American history and values for incoming refugees, and a prioritization checklist that would favor English speakers and Europeans who have expressed online opposition to mass migration. Fuentes quoted the policy phrase “prioritize Europeans who have been targeted for peaceful expression of views online” and tied that phrasing to the broader administration goal he reported, which Fuentes described as turning “a decades-old program aimed at helping the world’s most desperate people into one that conforms to Mr. Trump’s vision of immigration.” Fuentes named “white South Africans” as a concrete example, repeating the NYT’s specific geographic reference while asserting a political test tied to “support for populist political causes” as a selection criterion.
Fuentes offered a running assessment of assimilation benchmarks, using concrete cultural metrics and historic timelines in his analysis by referring to “Polish, Italian, German immigrants in Pennsylvania and New York who have been here for 200 years” as comparators, and by asserting that the proposed refugee classes would teach “American history and values” as an assimilation prerequisite. Fuentes contrasted that proposed policy with what he described as “30 years of all Indians and Mexicans,” a numeric generational claim he used to argue for a shift toward “white people” as preferred arrivals, and Fuentes argued that “English speakers” from Europe or South Africa are “safer” for civic cohesion because they supposedly share language and cultural proximity. Fuentes also referenced operational actors inside the administration by name, citing “officials in the State and Homeland Security departments” as the bureaucrats who drafted the April and July proposals and claiming that some measures “have already gone into effect,” though Fuentes did not specify which pilot programs or which refugee cases have been adjudicated under those criteria.
Fuentes concluded his coverage of the proposed refugee overhaul with a mix of praise and demand for further action, saying “I like the program, it’s honest,” and calling for “more systematic” implementation while urging an expanded deportation and enforcement agenda citing ICE and DHS policy differences that he said “want workplace raids” versus Susie Wiles-style restraint inside the administration. Fuentes tied operational urgency to electoral timelines by noting “we’re already almost a year in the hole here, we’re coming up on January,” and Fuentes urged a far larger enforcement posture including “more detention centers” and “militarization of the cities,” referencing the prior deployment of “about 400” personnel to Chicago as an example while demanding “50,000 or 100,000 soldiers” in major cities if necessary. Fuentes’s final analytic perspective on the refugee overhaul was explicit: he endorsed the NYT-described preference for “white South Africans and Europeans” and called for fully staffed, uncompromising enforcement and assimilation programs to accompany any new refugee selection criteria.
In analysis, Fuentes presented the NYT’s April and July policy drafts and President Trump’s earlier 2017 suspension as the factual backbone for a proposed migration shift, and Fuentes argued specifically that a refugee program that favors “English speakers” and “white South Africans” who “oppose immigration” would best deliver assimilation and national cohesion, while urging additional enforcement steps including workplace raids and mass deployments of federal forces, a package of concrete policy preferences Fuentes characterized as necessary to make the refugee overhaul meaningful.
Fuentes reported that the Politico story about the New York Young Republicans exposed a seven-month archive of private chat messages that resulted in the termination of multiple staffers “as of today, every single one of those people has been fired,” a concrete employment outcome Fuentes attributed explicitly to the leaked material. Fuentes said the leak followed a personal dispute over a committee assignment in the New York Young Republicans involving Gavin Wax, with Fuentes stating that Wax “was passed over for some stupid committee position” and that in retaliation “he blew up everybody that’s working for the other guy” by passing chat logs to Politico, a named publication. Fuentes described the leaked content as “edgy jokes” referencing “gas chambers” and other offensive material, and Fuentes noted that the personnel consequences have included “lawyers and a state representative” losing jobs, naming the tangible career losses he said resulted from the Politico dissemination.
Fuentes connected the Politico leak to broader political reactions by citing statements from public officials and political figures: he reported that California Governor Gavin Newsom “said that the House should investigate the people in the group chat,” and Fuentes reported that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer “is running with this,” meaning Fuentes claimed congressional pressure to subpoena and examine conservative group chats; Fuentes added that Senator J.D. Vance “said the right thing” by defending the young conservatives, explicitly naming Vance as a partisan voice that opposed the mass firings described. Fuentes characterized Wax’s actions as “treachery” and repeatedly called for organizational sanctions, stating “Gavin Wax needs to pay a price” and urging activists who hold his phone number to “text him and call him and say fuck you,” a direct call for ostracism that Fuentes framed as a demanded political sanction in response to the leak.
Fuentes also made claims about Wax’s affiliations and protections, stating “Gavin Wax, unlike these kids, has very powerful friends” and identifying Wax as “a delegate for the Zionist Organization of America” and saying Wax “has taken photos with Chuck Schumer,” which Fuentes used to argue that Wax would not face accountability because of his connections, an assertion Fuentes repeated when he said “Gavin will never be held accountable, never” and blamed what he called institutional favoritism on Wax’s religious and organizational ties. Fuentes named media and movement figures in his account of the fallout, saying “Mark Levin dines with the president” and citing other named conservative personalities like Laura Loomer and Josh Hammer to describe a protective network Fuentes alleged shields Wax from consequences while the younger operatives remain exposed to termination.
Fuentes turned the Wax episode into operational lessons for activists and staffers, providing two specific recommendations he said listeners should adopt immediately: first, “better opsec” operational security, with Fuentes advising group chat users to set disappearing messages on Telegram and Signal immediately, and second, a political discipline he summarized as “take your own side,” telling young conservative staffers that they cannot rely on the institutional protection Wax allegedly enjoys. Fuentes also referenced historical analogs by naming prior leaks and targets—he cited the 2018 email leak related to Katie McHugh and the damage that “nuked” careers like Scott Greer’s—as precedents to argue that the Wax leak is part of a recurrent pattern when internal records circulate publicly. Fuentes concluded this section by calling for internal purges and loyalty vetting he said Trump should have performed during his earlier transition, specifying a desired scale of “at least 5,000 Trump hires” and “loyalty tests” across White House and cabinet agencies as concrete personnel reforms.
In concluding analysis, Fuentes presented the Gavin Wax leak and the Politico revelations as a concrete example of what he called a structural weakness inside conservative organizations and the federal government, asserting that Wax’s alleged leak produced immediate employment firings for named staffers while Wax himself remains insulated by named institutional ties to the Zionist Organization of America and by photographs with Chuck Schumer, and Fuentes recommended specific operational fixes—use of Signal and Telegram disappearing messages, workplace ostracism for alleged leakers, and comprehensive loyalty-based staffing moves for White House appointments—to prevent similar organizational damage in the future.