Trump administration to end deportation relief for Haitians in the U.S.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem will end deportation protections for half a million Haitians, the latest move by the Trump administration to strip migrants of legal status as it ramps up deportations.
Noem, who shortened the duration of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for some 521,000 Haitians earlier this year, will terminate the status on September 2, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said.
President Donald Trump, a Republican, has sought to crack down on both legal and illegal immigration during the first four months of his presidency. Noem, who shares Trump's hardline stance, moved in February to end TPS for some 350,000 Venezuelans, as well as thousands of people from Afghanistan and Cameroon.
The Supreme Court ruled on May 19 that the Trump administration could proceed with ending TPS for those Venezuelans, signaling that other terminations also may be permitted to move forward.
The court in a separate order on May 30 said that the administration could immediately revoke a separate status known as parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.
TPS — a humanitarian program created by the U.S. Congress in 1990 — is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. Two months before the status expires, the homeland security secretary must determine whether to renew it, expand it to include new arrivals from the country, or terminate it.
'People think TPS is a free pass, but it's not,' Abigail Desravines, a 35-year-old Haitian immigrant who came to the U.S. following the earthquake, told NBC News earlier this year. 'You have to keep renewing, pay fees and live with the fear that it could end at any time. It's not an easy path.'
Trump sought to wipe out most TPS enrollment during his first term but was stymied by federal courts.
In a statement, a DHS spokesperson said conditions in Haiti would now allow people to return but did not explain what exactly had changed to lessen the risk.
'The environmental situation in Haiti has improved enough that it is safe for Haitian citizens to return home,' the spokesperson said.
Advocates argue that the conditions in Haiti warrant extending the relief. The country has not held an election in nearly a decade. Since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021, armed gangs have gained control over much of Port-au-Prince, creating a power vacuum that has made governing a challenge and fueled further violence, homelessness and starvation.
More than 5,600 people were killed and 1,400 were kidnapped amid gang conflicts last year, according to the United Nations. The violence has rendered 1 million people homeless in Haiti, forcing many into makeshift shelters and exacerbating the country's economic challenges.
Despite the dire conditions, the Trump administration has frozen some funding earlier pledged to support a U.N.-backed mission in Haiti.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump basks in triumph as supreme court kicks away another guardrail
He strode into the White House briefing room feeling invincible. In his own telling, he had fixed the Middle East. He had made Nato pay up. He had pacified the heart of Africa. And now Napoleon Trump had once again just been crowned emperor by the US supreme court. 'We've had a big week,' Donald Trump, orange hair shimmering, blue tie drooping below the waist, mused from a lectern anointed with the presidential seal. 'We've had a lot of victories this week.' The highest court had just handed the president another win by curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies – though it left unresolved the issue of whether he can limit birthright citizenship. Unable to contain his glee, Trump came to talk to the press – something his predecessor Joe Biden rarely did – to goad the 'fake news' while basking in glory from the Maga-friendly media. The president hailed the court's decision as a 'monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law' and gloated – with some hyperbole – that 'there are people elated all over the country'. He looked forward to taking aim at targets such as birthright citizenship, sanctuary city funding and refugee resettlement. In the abstract, there is a reasonable debate to be had over how much power the judiciary should have to curb an elected leader's agenda. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, has described it as a 'bipartisan problem' that has plagued five different presidents. A decade ago Barack Obama expressed frustration when a district court temporarily blocked his executive actions on immigration. In the court's majority opinion, the conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's contention that they were neglecting their duty to protect the people from government overreach. 'Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. But context is everything. Trump has marginalised Congress, sued the media in an effort to chill free speech, assailed cultural institutions and universities and deployed the military against peaceful protesters. The courts have been leading the way in safeguarding democracy from his authoritarian impulses. Now they too are on the ropes. Asked by a reporter if the supreme court decision concentrates too much power in the White House, Trump insisted: 'The question is fine but it's the opposite. The constitution has been brought back.' Yet the supreme court that decided to make the strongman even stronger contains three Trump appointees and last year found that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for 'official acts' – in effect putting Trump above the law. The four criminal investigations that once dogged him now feel like ancient history. Trump was asked a question by a reporter from LindellTV, a news organisation founded by Mike Lindell, a conspiracy theorist and founder of MyPillow, about whether he would like to see a justice department investigation of the judges whose rulings allowed the cases to proceed against him while he was out of office. 'I love you,' Trump said in response to the question, adding: 'I hope so.' It has been exactly 12 months since he debated with Biden and discovered an opponent in chronic decline. Democrats panicked and imploded, Trump survived an assassination attempt and rode his good fortune all the way to the White House. It is small wonder that the 79-year-old now considers himself untouchable, acting with impunity at home and abroad, holding freewheeling press conferences like Friday's without fear of consequences. 'Illegal crossings at the border are at zero now,' a reporter said. Trump interjected: 'Zero! Does everyone hear that?' A cameraman in the briefing room shouted: 'Trump 2028!' Later Trump reiterated his claim that Iran's nuclear sites had been obliterated and lamented: 'We had some fake news for a little while – the same people that covered the Hunter Biden laptop was from Russia … I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.' He also used the briefing to take a swipe at Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, for not lowering interest rates. 'We have a man who's not a smart man, and he probably has Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Later on Friday the White House would host leaders from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace deal to end years of fighting. Trump cheerfully admitted: 'I'm a little bit out of my league in that one because I didn't know too much about it.' He also noted that the US would gain access to critical minerals in the region. Trump even ruminated on threats to his life, including proxy groups from Iran that may issue threats, and referenced the bullet that struck his ear last summer in an attempted assassination. He gets 'that throbbing feeling every once in a while', he said. 'What I do is a dangerous business. You know, I tell the story of the car companies and different people in different professions. You have race car drivers, as an example, one-tenth of 1% die. Bull riders, one-tenth of 1%. That's not a lot, but people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. This is a very different profession.' As raised hands in the room clamoured for attention his political lizard brain spotted an opportunity to bash his predecessor. 'This is the opposite of Biden. Biden would take a half a question and he'd leave without answering it … You tell me when it gets boring, OK?'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Liberal supreme court justices' dissents reveal concerns that the US faces a crisis
On Friday the conservative-dominated US supreme court handed down a series of important judgments on issues ranging from the power of the judiciary to religious rights in schools. Media attention generally focused on the wording of the rulings and their impact. But the court's liberal minority of just three justices penned dissenting opinions that were similarly potent, revealing the sharp divisions on America's top legal body and also showed their deep concern at the declining health of American civic society and the authoritarian bent of the Trump presidency. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered an acidic sermon against the court's 6-3 decision to end lower courts' practice of issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders, reading her dissent directly from the bench in a move meant to highlight its importance. The decision is seen as limiting the power of judges to halt or slow presidential orders, even those whose constitutionality has not yet been tested, such as Trump's attempt to remove the right to automatic US citizenship for anyone born inside US borders. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' states Sotomayor's dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.' As opinion season ends in the first months of Donald Trump's second presidency, the court's decisions have expanded the power of the presidency and limited the power of lower courts to block Trump's agenda. The opinion in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v Casa Inc, in which the court was silent on the underlying question about the constitutionality of Trump's executive order, nonetheless undermines the rule of law, Sotomayor said. Even though defending the order's legality is 'an impossible task' given the plain language of the 14th amendment, the court's opinion means each person must challenge the order individually in states that are not a party to the suit, unless class-action status is granted. In a concurring dissent, Jackson explained the burden it places on people to defend their rights in court. 'Today's ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,' Jackson's dissent states. 'This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Court has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive action is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.' Jackson added ominously, the ruling was an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. Reading from the bench has historically been an uncommon act meant to emphasize profound disapproval of a justice to a ruling. The court's liberal wing has made it less rare lately, inveighing against profound legal changes wrought by the court's six-judge conservative bloc. Other decisions handed down on Friday also permit parents to opt their children out of classroom activities that depict LGBTQ+ characters in books (Mahmood v Taylor), and allow states to require age verification on pornographic web sites (Free Speech Coalition Inc, v Paxton), both decided on ideological lines. Age verification has already begun to drive porn website operators out of Texas, given a cost estimated at $40,000 for every 100,000 verifications, Kagan noted in her acerbic dissent. The Texas law creates a barrier between adults and first amendment-protected content that previous supreme court decisions on speech would not have permitted, she noted. Providing ID online is fundamentally different than flashing a driver's license at a bar. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion 'It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits – respecting speech many find repulsive – to a website operator, and then to … who knows?' she wrote. 'The operator might sell the information; the operator might be hacked or subpoenaed.' The ruling granting a religious exemption will have a chilling effect on schools, which may strip classroom material of any reference to LGBTQ+ content rather than risk costly litigation, Sotomayor wrote in dissent. Her dissent highlights the deliberate work done by the Montgomery county school board to create an inclusive curriculum, adding 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' to its library in 2022. The children's book, one of five with LGBTQ+ characters, describes a same-sex couple's wedding announcement and plans. 'Requiring schools to provide advance notice and the chance to opt out of every lesson plan or story time that might implicate a parent's religious beliefs will impose impossible administrative burdens on schools,' she wrote. 'The Court's ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards.' In three of the five decisions handed down on Friday, that conservative bloc had the majority. But in two cases the conservative bloc split: Kennedy v Braidwood Management, which reversed lower court rulings that declared an appointed board overseeing preventive care under the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, and FCC v Consumers' Research, which upheld the constitutionality of fees collected for a rural broadband program. Each of these cases split conservatives between those who support more expansive executive power – Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett – and others at war with the administrative state: Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas. But collectively, conservatives on the court have continued to upend longstanding precedent, while weakening the legal avenues of challengers to use the courts to defend their rights, the court's remaining liberal justices lament. 'The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival,' Sotomayor wrote in dissent on the birthright citizenship case. 'Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort.'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump says he won't appoint anyone to Fed who doesn't back rate cuts
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he would not appoint anyone to head the Federal Reserve who would not lower interest rates from where they are, setting perhaps the most explicit litmus test yet for candidates to be the next central bank chief to align with his demands for steep rate cuts in order to get the job. "If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in," Trump said. "I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates. There are a lot of them out there." Presidents in the past have complained about the Fed setting interest rates too high for their liking, but Trump has taken it further than any recent U.S. leader in setting a clear expectation for whomever he nominates to be in line with his wishes. Trump, who said rates should be cut to 1% from the current Fed benchmark rate of 4.25% to 4.50%, has repeatedly railed against Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not lowering borrowing costs since Trump returned to the White House in January, and he did so again on Friday. "I'd love him to resign if he wanted to, he's done a lousy job," Trump, speaking at the White House, said, while also labeling the Fed chair as "stupid." After raising rates aggressively coming out of the pandemic to combat the largest inflation outbreak since the 1970s and 1980s, the Fed lowered them a bit in the second half of last year but has not cut them since Trump returned to office. That is largely because Powell and the large majority of policymakers are concerned Trump's tariff policies in particular may rekindle inflation, and they prefer to wait longer to see if that develops before lowering rates again. Fed officials themselves have penciled in half a percentage point of cuts later this year, although that is a fraction of the reduction Trump is demanding. Trump's latest rant against Powell comes as he has largely backed away from threats to try to fire the Fed leader after a recent Supreme Court opinion appeared to align with long-standing views that presidents cannot dismiss top Fed officials over policy disagreements. The protection is seen as central to the Fed's independence from political interference in policymaking, which is seen as a critical pillar of its credibility as the world's most influential central bank. Trump has since turned his focus more to a successor for Powell, whose term as chair expires in May 2026. He has in recent weeks said he has three or four potential candidates in mind and he would make a decision soon. Most past Fed chair appointments have typically been made roughly three or four months before the vacancy was scheduled. There are about 10 months remaining in Powell's tenure as chair, and an early nomination by Trump is seen as an effort to undermine Powell's authority by giving voice to a "shadow chair" who would advocate for a different policy trajectory. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, seen as one of the potential candidates to replace Powell, downplayed the "shadow chair" idea, however. "I don't think anyone's necessarily talking about that," he told CNBC. Bessent noted that just one seat on the Fed Board of Governors is scheduled to open up within the year when Governor Adriana Kugler's term expires in early 2026. While Powell's term as chair expires next May, he is not required to leave the Fed altogether until his board seat expires in 2028. That leaves Kugler's expected departure as the first opportunity for a Trump appointment. "So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination," Bessent said. Asked about reports that he is among the pool of candidates, Bessent said: "I'll do what the president wants, but I think I have the best job in Washington." Others seen as possible nominees for the job are White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, and current Governor Christopher Waller. Waller, appointed by Trump during the Republican's first term in office, in the past week has said he is open to cutting interest rates as soon as the Fed's next meeting at the end of July.
