An influential voice in Washington is raising fresh alarms about the nation’s shifting demographics.
Vice President JD Vance has warned that “too much immigration too quickly” risks unraveling America’s social cohesion, a concern he detailed in a recent interview and echoed by several academic studies, according to Breitbart.
Vance, who has become a leading figure in national populist circles, argued that recent waves of immigration are eroding the shared bonds that hold American communities together. He pointed to research suggesting that civic trust and communal involvement decline as ethnic diversity increases—a trend he believes threatens the nation’s foundations.
Vance’s remarks focused on the importance of “social cohesion” in the United States, describing it as essential for raising families and maintaining vibrant local institutions. He expressed concern that current immigration trends are straining these bonds, making it harder for Americans to feel connected to their neighbors and to broader civic life. In his view, this is not about resentment toward migrants but about protecting what he sees as core elements of American identity.
Citing the work of social scientists, Vance said, “I really do think that social solidarity is destroyed when you have too much migration too quickly.” He emphasized that his stance is motivated by a desire to preserve unity, not animosity. “That’s because I’m trying to preserve something in my own country where we are a unified nation. And I don’t think that can happen if you have too much immigration too quickly.”
Vance’s concerns echo findings from the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory and other researchers, who have documented a negative correlation between diversity and trust. These studies suggest that as American neighborhoods become more diverse, levels of interpersonal trust and civic participation tend to decline.
Several academic studies were cited by Vance and supporters of his position. Research from the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory notes, “most of the empirical literature on this subject finds that the relationship between diversity and trust is negative—the more diverse a community is, the less likely individuals in it are to be trusting.” This trend appears particularly strong in the United States, according to these findings.
Older studies, such as those by Costa and Khan (2003), found that people in more diverse neighborhoods trust their neighbors less and are less involved politically or communally. Alesina and La Ferrara’s research concluded that trust, especially interpersonal trust, is lower in more racially heterogeneous communities. Political scientist Robert Putnam famously argued that diversity drives people to “hunker down,” leading to increased social isolation.
A 2020 review in the Annual Review of Political Science reinforced these concerns. It found the negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust is strongest for neighbors, less for in-group and generalized trust, and weakest for out-group trust. Meanwhile, a recent Pew Research Center report documented a decline in social trust among Americans, coinciding with record levels of foreign-born residents and increased diversity.
Critics of Vance’s position argue that the issue is more complex than the vice president suggests. Some social scientists caution against drawing direct causal links between diversity and declining trust, noting that other factors—such as economic inequality, political polarization, and historical segregation—also play significant roles. They point out that societies with high levels of immigration, such as Canada and Australia, have managed to maintain strong civic institutions and social trust.
Many advocates for immigration reform argue that immigrants contribute significantly to the nation’s economy, cultural vibrancy, and global competitiveness. They suggest that focusing on integration and mutual understanding can address concerns about social cohesion rather than restricting immigration numbers.
Others warn that framing immigration as a threat to social trust can fuel xenophobia and undermine the country’s tradition of welcoming newcomers. They emphasize that diversity itself is not inherently problematic but that how communities respond to change is crucial. Some researchers have even suggested that increased contact and interaction between groups can help neutralize the negative effects on trust.
For supporters of tighter immigration controls, the statistics are alarming. According to Breitbart, nearly 52 million foreign-born residents now live in the United States—a historic high. Annually, about a million legal immigrants arrive, alongside an estimated 11 to 22 million undocumented residents. These numbers, Vance and others argue, are reshaping the country’s social fabric at an unprecedented pace.
Immigration’s role in driving nearly all current U.S. population growth has further fueled calls for a moratorium or a significant reduction in arrivals. Supporters of this approach contend that a pause would allow society to “catch up” and rebuild a sense of shared identity.
However, immigrant advocacy groups and civil rights organizations counter that such measures would harm families, restrict economic growth, and contradict American values. They call for comprehensive reform that balances border security with pathways to citizenship and robust support for integration.
