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.
U.S. President Donald Trump tours the Ford River Rouge Complex on January 13, 2026, in Dearborn, Michigan. Trump is visiting Michigan where he will participate in a tour of the Ford River Rouge complex and later give remarks to the Detroit Economic Club. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon was expected to send additional military assets to the Middle East in coming days, according to several people familiar with the discussions, including possibly the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group.
Such a move is considered a typical precaution at times of heightened tensions because of the 30,000 troops stationed throughout the region in countries like Qatar, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
The added firepower would serve as a deterrent to attacks by adversaries against U.S. bases. But it also would give President Donald Trump additional options to strike Iran later if he chooses.
Examples of assets that could be surged include an aircraft carrier strike group accompanied by cruisers and missile destroyers, as well as Air Force fighter squadrons and land-based air missile defense systems.
Discussions of the additional military assets come as Trump threatened to attack Iran’s government because of violent clashes with protesters. Officials in Tehran responded by threatening to strike back at U.S. bases if he followed through.
According to one person familiar with the discussions this week, Trump was told that a military strike against Iran could be extraordinarily dangerous and potentially risk the lives of U.S. service members in the region, particularly if the government in Tehran felt it was on the brink of collapse. NBC News was first to report this detail.
On Wednesday, Trump told reporters he opted against strikes for now because the U.S. had been told “on good authority” that the killing of protestors in Iran had stopped. Trump also said Friday that 800 planned executions in Iran had been halted, a claim that could not be immediately verified.
In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied Tehran had any plans to execute protesters.
Several sources said there had been long-running concerns among U.S. officials that the military didn’t have the right mix of assets in place to protect against a potential massive retaliatory strike from Iran, given that Trump had surged much of the military’s force to the Caribbean to support the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
There is currently no aircraft carrier in the Middle East, although officials say there are six Navy ships, including three missile destroyers. The Pentagon declined to comment.
If the Lincoln is deployed to the Middle East from the South China Sea, it’s expected to take longer than a week to arrive. The USS Lincoln was spotted earlier this week on satellite sailing away from the Philippines.
A U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sign stands at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2014. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate, now facing an impasse in negotiations, did not cast votes on a government funding deal on Thursday, sending the government ever closer to a partial shutdown with a little more than 24 hours until funding runs out.
Senate Democrats announced earlier Thursday they had struck an agreement with the White House to move forward with a plan that would see the Department of Homeland Security funding bill separated from a package of five other bills. Programs funded by the five-bill package would be funded until the end of September. DHS would be funded for two additional weeks to allow lawmakers to negotiate on other provisions in the package.
The Senate must get unanimous agreement to move forward with this plan if it wants to hold votes before Friday night’s deadline. As it stood Thursday night, there seemed to be objections by senators on both sides of the aisle gumming up the works.
“Tomorrow’s another day, and hopefully people will be in a spirit to try and get this done tomorrow,” Majority Leader John Thune said as he was leaving the Capitol late Thursday.
If Senators can’t win over the objectors by Friday, they’ll force the government into a partial shutdown. The Senate will reconvene at 11 a.m. Friday to see if they can reach an agreement. Any agreement they do reach would still need to be approved by the House, so at least a brief partial shutdown is, at this stage, highly likely.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is the Senate’s most vocal objector to the deal. He stormed into Republican Leader John Thune’s office earlier tonight calling the agreement stuck between Democrats and the White House a “bad deal” and telling reporters he was objecting to its advancement.
Graham called the treatment of ICE officers “unconscionable” as he was asked about his objections to proceeding.
“From a Republican point of view, the cops need us right now. They are being demonized. They’re being spat upon. They can’t sleep at night,” Graham said. “Are they right to want to change some ICE procedures? Absolutely. But I’m not going to lead this debate for two weeks before I can explain to the American people what I think the problem is. The problem is, structurally, for four years, the country was ruined.”
Graham also seems to be opposed to the deal because it would strip a controversial provision, passed in a stopgap funding bill earlier this year, that allows senators to file lawsuits if their phone records are accessed without notice. Graham was one of seven Republican senators whose phone toll data were accessed by Special Counsel Jack Smith during his investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
“I am not going to ignore what happened,” Graham said. “If you were abused, your phone records were illegally seized, you should have your day in court.
It seems there may be other senators who have separate challenges with the funding bill plan as well, but it’s not yet clear who those senators are.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer placed blame on Republicans for the stall in votes tonight.
“Republicans need to get their act together,” he said as he left the Capitol.
But when pushed on whether any Democrats had outstanding objections to the bill that might stall things, Schumer didn’t give a clear answer.
Thune said there remains “snags on both sides” stopping the bill from advancing but wouldn’t give details about Democratic objections.
“They’ve got a couple issues on their side they’ve got to clear them up, we’ve got some things we’ve got to work on. But hopefully by sometime tomorrow we’ll be in a better spot,” Thune said.
It is likely that even if the Senate passes the bills, there will still be a short partial shutdown — the bills would need to go back to the House for consideration. It seems unlikely the House, which is in recess until Monday, could pass any of these bills before Friday night’s funding deadline.
Earlier Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson told ABC News’ Selina Wang that bringing the House back before Monday “may not be possible.”
“So, we have got some logistical challenges, but we’ll do it as quickly as we can and get everybody back,” Johnson said at the premiere of the “Melania” film. “And if there is a short-term shutdown, I think we’ll get it reopened quickly.”
Asked earlier Thursday if he was on board with the deal struck by Democrats in the Senate, Johnson said he had not yet seen details of the bill. But when asked if he supports Democrats’ demands to reign in federal agents — including prohibiting face masks and requiring body cameras — Johnson said “No.”
Democrats called to separate the DHS funding following the deaths of Renee Good, a mother of three who was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this month, and became more urgent after the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement over the weekend.
After Democratic urging, a critical mass of Republicans seemed prepared Thursday afternoon to support an agreement.
Earlier Thursday, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block the package of six funding bills, with it failing to advance by a vote of 45-55. It would have needed at least 60 votes to proceed. Multiple Republicans also cast votes against the package.
Coming into the negotiations, Senate Democrats laid out a list of additional demands including: ending roving patrols, ensuring federal agents are held to the same use of force policies that apply to state and local law enforcement, preventing agents from wearing masks and requiring body cameras.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump struck an optimistic tone about averting a shutdown.
“Hopefully we won’t have a shutdown and we’re working on that right now. I think we’re getting close,” Trump said during his Cabinet meeting. “The Democrats, I don’t believe want to see it either, so we’ll work in a very bipartisan way.”
A newly obtained cellphone video shows the moments before Renee Good was fatally shot in her car in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, 2026. (Obtained by ABC News)
(NEW YORK) — In the days after federal officers shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, there has been little polling on how Americans are reacting to the issue. But surveys fielded after Minneapolis woman Renee Good was shot and killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Jan. 7 found most Americans saying the event was an inappropriate use of force and most voters saying her killing was unjustified.
Polling through the first half of January has found Americans largely at odds with the Trump administration on immigration, with just over half saying ICE enforcement actions were making cities less safe and nearly half saying they do not trust the government at all to carry out a fair and thorough investigation of Good’s shooting.
That is in addition to majorities disapproving of how ICE is enforcing immigration laws, how President Donald Trump is handling immigration and how Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has handled her job.
More polling underscores those findings.
A New York Times/Siena poll released Friday found 61% of voters saying the tactics used by ICE had “gone too far.” That included over 9 in 10 Democrats, about 7 in 10 independents and roughly 2 in 10 Republicans. Just 26% of voters overall said ICE’s tactics were “about right” and 11% said they had not gone far enough.
The poll also found roughly half of voters in support of Trump’s deportations and his handling of the border with Mexico.
Just 36% of voters approved of how ICE was handling its job; 63% disapproved.
A Wall Street Journal poll published last week found 54% saying deploying ICE to U.S. cities has “gone too far” and 52% of voters disapproving of how Trump is handling immigration.
Both polls were conducted after Good, a mother of three, was killed by an ICE agent on Jan. 7, but before Pretti, an ICU nurse, was killed by federal agents over the weekend.
The New York Times/Siena poll was conducted Jan. 12-17 among 1,625 registered voters nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.
The Wall Street Journal poll was conducted Jan. 8-13 among 1,500 registered voters nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.
