Judge blocks administration from ending TPS protections for more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants
On Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026, in front of the Orange County Courthouse, advocates and former elected officials asked President Trump to create a pathway to permanent residency for Haitians who face deportations as their temporary protected status expires on Feb. 3. (Natalia Jaramillo/Orlando Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants.
In an 83-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes granted a stay maintaining the legal status of Haitian nationals “pending judicial review.” In her ruling, she accused Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of “preordaining” her termination decision, saying she “did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants.”
“There is an old adage among lawyers,” Judge Reyes wrote. “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table.”
“Secretary Noem, the record to-date shows, does not have the facts on her side — or at least has ignored them,” Reyes continued. “Does not have the law on her side — or at least has ignored it. Having neither and bringing the adage into the 21st century, she pounds X (f/k/a Twitter).”
Judge Reyes wrote that while Noem has a First Amendment right “to call immigrants killers, leeches, [and] entitlement junkies,” she is constrained by the Constitution and federal law to “apply faithfully the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program.”
“The Government does not cite any reason termination must occur post haste,” Reyes wrote. “Secretary Noem complains of strains unlawful immigrants place on our immigration-enforcement system. Her answer? Turn 352,959 lawful immigrants into unlawful immigrants overnight.”
The federal judge noted that Noem “has terminated every TPS country designation to have reached her desk — twelve countries up, twelve countries down.”
“The statutory design is straightforward: TPS exists because threats to life exist; when the threat persists, so should TPS protection, unless the Secretary articulates a well-reasoned and well-supported national interest to the contrary,” she wrote.
The D.C. federal judge listed the five plaintiffs by name, saying, “They are not, it emerges, ‘killers, leeches, or entitlement junkies.'”
“They are instead: Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, a neuroscientist researching Alzheimer’s disease; Rudolph Civil, a software engineer at a national bank; Marlene Gail Noble, a laboratory assistant in a toxicology department; Marica Merline Laguerre, a college economics major; and Vilbrun Dorsainvil, a full-time registered nurse,” Judge Reyes wrote.
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin released a statement to ABC News on Monday night, saying, “Supreme Court, here we come.”
“This is lawless activism that we will be vindicated on. Haiti’s TPS was granted following an earthquake that took place over 15 years ago, it was never intended to be a de facto amnesty program, yet that’s how previous administrations have used it for decades. Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench,” McLaughlin said.
Sen. Mark Kelly leaves after the Senate voted on the Venezuela War Powers Resolution at the U.S. Capitol, January 08, 2026, in Washington. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly on Monday filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth arguing that Hegseth’s censure of him last week over his inclusion in a social media video that told U.S. service members they have a right to refuse unlawful orders violated his constitutional rights.
“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him — and this or any administration — accountable. His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted,” Kelly said in a statement.
The senator’s lawsuit also names the Department of Defense, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan and the Department of the Navy as defendants.
Kelly alleges, among other things, that actions taken against him violate his First Amendment right to free speech, the speech and debate clause that protects lawmakers and his right to due process.
ABC News has reached out to Department of Defense for comment.
Hegseth censured Kelly on Jan. 5 for “conduct [that] was seditious in nature,” referring to the video Kelly participated in in November alongside other Democrats who previously served in the military or in the intelligence community.
Kelly and the other five Democrats involved in the video have defended their message as being in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution.
The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days. Kelly retired as a Navy captain and receives retirement benefits for his more than 20 years of service.
Kelly retired as a Navy captain and receives retirement benefits for his more than 20 years of service.
In an interview with ABC News after the censure, Kelly said he still would “absolutely not” have changed his message to U.S. troops about not following illegal orders.’
“Let me make this perfectly clear, though, that Gabby and I are not people that back down,” Kelly said last Tuesday during an appearance with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, on “Good Morning America.” “From anything, from any kind of fight.”
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell attend de Grisogono Sponsors The 2005 Wall Street Concert Series Benefitting Wall Street Rising, with a Performance by Rod Stewart at Cipriani Wall Street on March 15, 2005 in New York City. (Patrick Mcmullan/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sex offender Jeffrey Epstein referred to Donald Trump as the “dog that hasn’t barked” and told his former companion Ghislaine Maxwell that an alleged victim had “spent hours at my house” with Trump, according to email correspondence released Wednesday by Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump,” Epstein wrote in a typo-riddled message to Maxwell in April 2011. “[Victim] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned.”
“I have been thinking about that … ” Maxwell replied.
That email exchange — which came just weeks after a British newspaper published a series of stories about Epstein, Maxwell and their powerful associates — was one of three released by the Democrats from a batch of more than 23,000 documents the committee recently received from the Epstein Estate in response to a subpoena.
The names of alleged victims and other personally identifying information were redacted from the messages.
The other newly released email exchanges are between Epstein and author Michael Wolff, who has written four books chronicling the Trump presidency. Wolff has said he spoke to Epstein at length about Trump during his reporting for the books.
“I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you–either on air or in scrum afterwards,” Wolff wrote to Epstein in December 2015, six months after Trump had officially entered the race for the White House.
“If we were to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” Epstein replied.
“I think you should let him hang himself,” Wolff replied the next day. “If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”
The third message — exchanged between Epstein and Wolff while Trump was well into his first presidential term in January 2019 — appears to touch on the topic of whether Trump had banned Epstein from membership at Mar-a-Lago years earlier.
“Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever,” Epstein wrote, “Of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop”
The full context of these email exchanges is not clear from the portions released by the committee Democrats.
Wolff in a phone interview on Wednesday said of the 2015 exchange that he couldn’t remember “the specific emails or the context, but I was in an in-depth conversation with Epstein at that time about his relationship with Donald Trump. So I think this reflects that.”
“I was trying at that time to get Epstein to talk about his relationship with Trump, and actually, he proved to be an enormously valuable source to me,” Wolff said. “Part of the context of this is that I was pushing Epstein at that point to go public with what he knew about Trump.”
None of the documents previously made public as part of civil lawsuits or Maxwell’s trial contain allegations of wrongdoing by Trump.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump in July posted a lengthy social media post that in part blamed Democrats for creating a controversy about files related to Epstein, which he called a “scam” and “hoax.”
“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘b——–,’ hook, line, and sinker,” he wrote at the time.
Republicans on Wednesday claimed Democrats were selectively choosing documents to “generate click-bait” and that they’re withholding other documents that name Democrat officials. Republicans said they’re still reviewing the documents related to Epstein to protect potential victims. They called on Democrats to stop politicizing the investigation.
“Democrats continue to carelessly cherry-pick documents to generate click-bait that is not grounded in the facts,” a House Oversight Majority spokesperson told ABC News.
The spokesperson added, “The Epstein Estate has produced over 20,000 pages of documents on Thursday, yet Democrats are once again intentionally withholding records that name Democrat officials. The Committee is actively reviewing the documents and will release them publicly once all victim-identifying information has been appropriately redacted. Democrats should stop politicizing this investigation and focus on delivering transparency, accountability, and justice for the survivors.”
Republicans on the Oversight Committee accused their Democratic counterparts of “trying to create a fake narrative to slander President Trump.”
In a social media post, the Republicans claim that in the 2011 email between Epstein and Maxwell, the Democrats redacted the name “Virginia,” a likely reference to prominent Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who had made extensive public comments about her exploitation by Epstein, but had never accused Trump of any wrong-doing. The Republicans said that the Epstein Estate had not redacted Virginia’s name when providing the records to the committee.
“Why did Democrats cover up the name when the Estate didn’t redact it in the redacted documents provided to the committee?” the Republicans’ posted on X. “It’s because this victim, Virginia Giuffre, publicly said that she never witnessed wrongdoing by President Trump. Democrats are trying to create a fake narrative to slander President Trump. Shame on them.”
Giuffre died by apparent suicide earlier this year. Her memoir, “Nobody’s Girl,” was published posthumously last month.
The email with Virginia’s name unredacted was provided to ABC News by Republicans on the House Oversight Committee.
The publication of the emails comes on the same day that House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is scheduled to swear in Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who won a special election last month.
Once sworn in, Grijalva is expected to provide the final signature on a discharge petition to force a vote on a House bill that would compel the Department of Justice to release the government’s full investigative files on Epstein.
The earliest that vote could happen is the first week of December, after the Thanksgiving recess.
“The Department of Justice must fully release the Epstein files to the public immediately,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the Oversight committee, which is conducting an investigation into the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein.
“The more Donald Trump tries to cover-up the Epstein files, the more we uncover. These latest emails and correspondence raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President,” Garcia said.
The Trump administration has been dogged by controversy over the Epstein files since the DOJ — in an unsigned statement earlier this year — announced that the department would not be making its files public, despite earlier promises by members of the Trump administration for transparency.
The statement said that the government had not turned up evidence of a “client list” or credible evidence that “Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.”
The DOJ has so far produced only a small fraction of the documents and other evidence gathered by federal investigators over the course of multiple investigations into Epstein’s alleged international sex-trafficking operation.
It’s not clear if the email messages the estate provided to the committee are also in the possession of the DOJ.
After Epstein’s arrest in 2019, President Trump said he hadn’t spoken to him in 15 years. Earlier this year, Trump claimed he ended his association with Epstein in the early 2000s after discovering that Epstein and Maxwell were allegedly poaching employees from Mar-a-Lago.
Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of trafficking young girls and women.
Maxwell, who has consistently denied any wrongdoing, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in Texas for child sex trafficking and other offenses in connection with Epstein.
The construction for the ballroom on the White House’s East Wing as seen from the top of the Washington Monument, Nov. 17, 2025. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Even before a federal judge has decided whether he’ll halt construction of the White House ballroom, the Trump administration has preemptively asked the judge to stay any injunction he might issue, warning that the project is “imperative for reasons of national security.”
The government’s overnight filing, entered just before the end of the day Monday, also says halting the construction would “leave an unsightly excavation site in President’s Park indefinitely.”
The administration’s stay motion comes a week-and-a-half after Judge Richard Leon publicly aired his deep skepticism of the government’s arguments that the president has the power to build a ballroom with private donations and without express authorization from Congress, comparing the plan to a “Rube Goldberg contraption.” Leon also said he expected the losing side of the case to appeal.
The Justice Department’s filing restates many of the arguments its lawyer made before Leon last month, including the administration’s view that it would be “unworkable” to allow security-related portions of the project to continue while work on the ballroom has been stopped.
“[A]s the Secret Service attested, halting construction would imperil the President and others who live and work in the White House,” the administration argues, citing a senior agency official who said in court papers last month that the current open construction site is, “in and of itself, a hazard and complicates Secret Service operations.”
The government now says it will submit a second classified declaration from the Secret Service that further explains why halting construction “will endanger national security and therefore impair the public interest.”
It’s widely believed the plan is to replace the bunker FDR had built underneath the East Wing — destroyed in the demolition.
The filing also casts the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s challenge to the project as one that presents questions judges have never grappled with before, including whether a 1912 statute prohibiting the construction of federal buildings absent congressional authorization applies to the president.
Acknowledging Leon’s own expectation of an appeal by the losing side, the Justice Department is preemptively asking him to press pause on a potential ruling against the government.
“The D.C. Circuit should have the opportunity to weigh in on these significant and novel issues of first impression before the President is ordered to stop work in the middle of a high-priority construction project that implicates national security,” the filing concludes.
