Lawmakers in Washington are again split over how to treat Afghan allies who were evacuated after the fall of Kabul, as the latest version of the Afghan Adjustment Act (AAA), filed as H.R. 4895 in the 119th Congress, moves quietly through the House with no final vote yet on record. The bill, reintroduced in August 2025, would give long‑term legal status and a path to permanent residency for tens of thousands of Afghans who fled to the United States 🇺🇸 after working with American troops and agencies.
Yet, as of November 27, 2025, there is still no complete public roll call showing exactly which lawmakers back a large increase in visas for these nationals.
Who is leading the push
Supporters say the legislation is a basic promise‑keeping measure for people who risked their lives during the 20‑year war.
- The full list of co‑sponsors for this year’s bill is not yet posted on official sites such as Congress.gov.
- The bill’s core champions in the House mirror the group that pushed earlier versions in 2021 and 2023.
Key House champions include:
– Jason Crow (D-CO) — Democratic veteran and former Army Ranger who has taken a leading role.
– Rep. Andy Kim (D‑NJ)
– Rep. Seth Moulton (D‑MA)
– Rep. Don Beyer (D‑VA)
– Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D‑MI)
They argue that Afghans who stood with U.S. forces should not remain trapped in temporary status.
Bipartisan support and past GOP backers
Several Republicans backed the idea in previous years, even as the party’s overall stance on immigration hardened.
- Earlier editions of the AAA listed GOP sponsors such as:
- Rep. Peter Meijer (R‑MI)
- Rep. Michael McCaul (R‑TX)
- Rep. Jim Banks (R‑IN)
- Rep. Mike Gallagher (R‑WI)
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, supporters hope to rebuild a similar bipartisan coalition around H.R. 4895, though some previous GOP backers are no longer in office or have changed roles. Advocates say a cross‑party bloc will likely be needed again for the bill to clear both chambers.
Republican opposition and concerns
A group of House Republicans has tried to slow or block any expansion of visas or paths to permanent status for Afghan parolees.
- During negotiations over a March 2025 stopgap funding bill, lawmakers such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R‑KY) warned they would vote against any package containing an Afghan visa increase.
- Others described as undecided but wary included:
- Rep. Cory Mills (R‑FL)
- Rep. Tim Burchett (R‑TN)
- Rep. Tony Gonzales (R‑TX)
- Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R‑PA)
Their concerns centered on security vetting and long‑term costs.
The March 2025 funding vote: a narrow win
The stopgap funding bill ultimately passed with the visa language intact after House leadership accepted criticism from the party’s right flank.
- Speaker Mike Johnson (R‑LA) and his team allowed the vote to proceed with the visa provision.
- Lawmakers who had seemed likely to oppose the measure shifted to support it late, including:
- Rep. Michael Cloud (R‑TX)
- Rep. Victoria Spartz (R‑IN)
- Rep. Warren Davidson (R‑OH)
- Even the usually hard‑line House Freedom Caucus backed the compromise.
Their votes suggested that, for that measure, concerns about abandoning Afghan partners outweighed demands to cut what some conservatives call “special treatment” for refugees.
Why H.R. 4895 still faces an uphill battle
Even with that narrow vote, H.R. 4895 faces significant obstacles.
- It is the main vehicle this year for a lasting solution that would permit many Afghan nationals to apply for permanent residence after extra vetting.
- Opponents tie the visa debate to larger conflicts over:
- Border policy
- Overall refugee numbers
- The Biden administration’s handling of security screenings
Critics argue they lack full data on everyone evacuated in 2021 and fear the AAA could set a precedent for future mass parole programs without tighter rules.
Supporters’ response on vetting and moral obligation
Backers counter that critics ignore both the history of the war and the robust checks already performed.
- Many Afghans brought to the U.S. after Kabul’s fall underwent several layers of security screening—often at overseas bases—before receiving humanitarian parole.
- Numerous evacuees had already been vetted for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) due to work for the U.S. military, State Department, or American‑funded aid projects.
For lawmakers like Jason Crow (D-CO), who deployed to Afghanistan, the argument is as much moral as legal: failing to grant a firm foothold to these allies could undermine future U.S. partnerships in other conflicts.
The choice is framed not just as policy but as a promise: if the U.S. does not protect partners who helped it on the ground, future allies may doubt U.S. commitments.
Transparency and the missing roll-call votes
The dispute over a formal list of supporters highlights the political tension.
- Public information so far is limited to:
- Statements from known champions
- Press releases from critics
- References in committee hearings and budget debates
A complete picture will emerge only after floor votes in the House and Senate and the publication of detailed roll calls. Those lists—posted on Congress.gov and mirrored on official House and Senate sites—will show exactly which members of the 119th Congress approved, opposed, or abstained on permanent status for Afghan nationals.
Human impact: lives in limbo
For Afghans awaiting a resolution, the slow pace has real consequences.
- Many arrived on two‑year parole that has required extensions, leaving families anxious about:
- Work permits
- Housing
- Travel
- Community groups report people avoiding trips abroad for funerals or emergencies for fear of not being readmitted.
- Others face long delays in asylum or SIV processes that were not designed for such large numbers.
While the AAA would not solve every individual case, it would offer a clear route to apply for green cards after additional screening, aligning treatment more closely with how the U.S. handled allies from earlier wars in Southeast Asia and Iraq.
What’s next
Advocates, veterans, and Afghan community leaders are watching Congress closely.
- A single failed attempt could delay a lasting solution by years.
- The outcome will depend on:
- Floor votes in both chambers
- The ability to rebuild or sustain a bipartisan coalition
- How the debate over immigration and security evolves in Congress
For now, the Afghan Adjustment Act (AAA) remains the primary legislative path under consideration to move tens of thousands of evacuated Afghan allies from temporary parole toward permanent residency.
H.R. 4895, the Afghan Adjustment Act reintroduced in August 2025, seeks to grant long‑term status and a green‑card path to evacuated Afghan allies. House champions including Jason Crow push the bill as moral obligation; some Republicans cite vetting and cost concerns. A March 2025 funding measure passed with visa provisions intact, but no complete public roll call exists yet. The bill’s success depends on rebuilding bipartisan support and forthcoming floor votes in both chambers.
