Authorities are evaluating the potential creation of a dedicated department focused on inter-ethnic policy and migration management. The publication cites five sources close to both the presidential administration and the government, providing insight into the possible direction of this initiative [Vedomosti].
One key idea under consideration is that the new department would report directly to the president, consolidating control over a broad spectrum of functions currently distributed across several ministries and agencies. At present, direct subordination exists for ministries and bodies such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Emergencies, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Federal Security Service, the National Guard, Rosfinmonitoring, the Federal Archive, the State Emergency Situations Administration, the UDP, and courier services. This proposed centralization aims to streamline policy coordination and ensure a unified approach to both immigration and ethnic relations at the highest level of executive authority [Vedomosti].
According to the sources quoted, the structural outline of the new department is under active discussion, though no final format has been approved. Some observers suggest that the ministry could merge the powers of the Federal Office for National Affairs with the Main Directorate for Migration Issues of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, creating a consolidated agency with a broad mandate and clear reporting lines to the president. This consolidation would be framed as a means to harmonize policy across agencies and reduce bureaucratic friction in matters touching national cohesion and demographic policy [Vedomosti].
Other voices contend that the new entity, if established, might be granted status as an institution with extensive authorities, directly subordinate to the president. Proponents argue that such a federal agency would handle all aspects of immigration, inter-ethnic relations, and related social integration challenges, reporting through the Presidential Domestic Policy Administration to the head of state. The rationale rests on the belief that a centralized body could better anticipate cross-cutting issues, align resources, and deliver consistent messaging on sensitive social topics [Vedomosti].
One interlocutor with close ties to the presidential circle confirmed the possibility of launching a new ministry. During discussions at the Presidency of the Presidential Council on Inter-Ethnic Relations on March 28, attention turned to the agenda for April 24, when the matter could be advanced into the public frame. The sense among officials is that this topic sits at a strategic crossroads, where timing and political signals could influence the pace and scope of any reform—should it proceed to formal adoption [Vedomosti].
At this stage, it remains unclear who might lead the proposed department. Given the nature of its duties, it is anticipated that the head would come from a senior law enforcement or security background. Among the names floated by insiders are figures associated with law enforcement leadership or oversight of inter-ethnic policy work, reflecting the emphasis on executive control and coordinated enforcement across related domains. The assessment in circles close to the administration is that a high-level figure would be sought to ensure credibility and the ability to navigate interagency dynamics, international considerations, and domestic political sensitivities [Vedomosti].
Some observers suggest that public discussion of the proposal will intensify only after May, when more detailed considerations and potential timelines might be disclosed. The sense in political chatter is that any decision will be shaped by evolving assessments of immigration pressures, demographic trends, and the strategic importance of social harmony in a multiethnic society. A cautious approach is expected, with policymakers weighing potential benefits against operational complexities and the constitutional and legal frameworks that govern federal authority in this area [Vedomosti].
In related remarks, an earlier statement from Prime Minister Mishustin advised against excessive optimism about swift reforms, signaling a prudent stance toward high-stakes structural changes. The remark underscores the tendency for such proposals to encounter procedural challenges, require careful stakeholder consultation, and take time to move from concept to formal adoption. The evolving discussion thus remains tentative, with many practical questions still to be resolved before any formal proposal proceeds to legislative consideration [Vedomosti].