Opposition Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) Secretary General Jefferson T. Koijee has re-entered the national spotlight following a new U.S. immigration policy that temporarily halts immigrant visa processing for citizens of 75 countries, including Liberia. In a strongly worded social media post published last week, Koijee framed the latest development as evidence of what he calls a troubling shift–from targeted sanctions against individuals to a sweeping restriction that affects the entire Liberian population.
Koijee, who was sanctioned by the United States in 2023 over allegations of public corruption and actions deemed to undermine democratic institutions, insists that the measures against him were rooted in “lies and political propaganda.” He now argues that Liberia, under the Unity Party-led administration of President Joseph N. Boakai and Vice President Jeremiah Koung, is bearing a heavier burden than during the CDC’s time in power.
“Yesterday it was individuals who were sanctioned; today, under the Boakai and Koung mission, the entire country carries the weight of sanctions,” Koijee asserted.
Koijee’s comments come on the heels of an announcement by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump pausing immigrant visa processing for nationals of 75 countries. The U.S. State Department said the policy targets countries whose migrants, according to U.S. data, rely heavily on public assistance.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
“The State Department will pause immigrant visa processing from 75 countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates,” the department said in a post on X, adding that the suspension will remain in effect until adequate safeguards are established.
Liberia’s inclusion on the list has sparked widespread concern at home and abroad, given the country’s deep historical, economic, and social ties to the United States. Thousands of Liberians pursue family reunification, employment-based immigration, and diversity visas each year, making immigration policy changes particularly sensitive.
At the core of Koijee’s argument is a comparison between two distinct policy approaches by the United States: targeted sanctions versus broad-based restrictions. He contends that while sanctions during the CDC-led government focused on specific officials accused of wrongdoing, the current visa pause affects ordinary Liberians with no connection to governance or corruption.
Koijee argues that this shift represents a heavier and more unjust burden.
“The policy will prevent thousands of Liberians from traveling to the United States, just as I have been prevented,” he said, drawing a parallel between his personal experience and the broader national impact.
The crux of his logic is that collective penalties are more damaging than individualized accountability. In his view, targeted sanctions isolate alleged offenders while sparing the wider population, whereas countrywide immigration restrictions undermine opportunities for students, families, and workers who depend on lawful migration pathways.
During the CDC administration, several senior officials were hit with U.S. targeted sanctions under anti-corruption and human rights authorities. These measures typically included visa bans and asset restrictions aimed at named individuals accused of corruption or undermining democratic processes.
Koijee himself was sanctioned in 2023, with the U.S. government citing allegations of public corruption and actions considered harmful to democratic institutions. He has repeatedly denied the accusations, insisting that the sanctions were politically motivated and fueled by misinformation from opponents who are now part of the ruling establishment.
Koijee maintains that the measures against him were “orchestrated by individuals now in government who were then in opposition.”
Despite their controversy, targeted sanctions were designed to apply pressure on specific actors rather than punish the state or its citizens as a whole.
By contrast, the current U.S. immigrant visa pause is not framed as a sanction against Liberia’s government. U.S. officials describe it as a policy decision linked to immigration management and public assistance concerns. Nonetheless, its effect is undeniably broader.
Unlike targeted sanctions, which restrict the movements and financial activities of a few officials, the visa suspension affects families seeking reunification, diversity visa applicants, skilled workers, and other prospective immigrants–many of whom have no ties to public office.
This distinction forms the backbone of Koijee’s critique: that while the CDC-era sanctions were politically painful, they did not disrupt the life plans of thousands of ordinary citizens.
From a national impact perspective, many say the two measures differ fundamentally in scope and consequence.
Targeted sanctions under the CDC government carried significant reputational and political costs, particularly for the country’s leadership and governance image. However, their direct economic and social impact on the general population was limited.
The current immigrant visa pause, though temporary and policy-driven, has a broader societal footprint. It affects remittance flows, family structures, educational aspirations, and labor mobility–key pillars of Liberia’s socio-economic survival. Remittances from the United States alone account for a significant share of household income for many Liberian families.
In that sense, Koijee’s argument that broader restrictions carry heavier consequences for the nation resonates with public sentiment, even as critics note that the visa pause is not a punitive sanction in the traditional sense.
Still, Koijee’s framing has drawn mixed reactions. Supporters see his comments as highlighting an uncomfortable truth about collective punishment. Critics, however, argue that his statement deflects from unresolved corruption allegations and attempts to equate fundamentally different U.S. policy tools.
They point out that targeted sanctions are meant to reinforce accountability, while immigration restrictions are often driven by domestic U.S. political considerations rather than bilateral diplomatic judgments.
As Liberia navigates the implications of the U.S. visa pause, Koijee’s intervention has added a sharp political edge to the debate. Whether one accepts his premise or not, his comments underscore a growing concern that policies that affect entire populations can deepen hardship and fuel political polarization.
For many Liberians, the immediate question is less about political blame and more about clarity–how long the suspension will last, what safeguards the U.S. seeks, and how their government will respond diplomatically.
As Koijee put it, the difference between yesterday and today is not merely political–it is personal, affecting the aspirations of an entire nation.
