The United States Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to terminate a Biden-era immigration program that provided temporary legal protections to certain migrants.
The high court's decision affects more than half a million migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who had relied on the Biden administration’s program for protection and work authorization, as The Hill reports.
This ruling was issued by the Supreme Court on Friday and revokes the parole program that was instituted by President Joe Biden. The program was designed to grant legal status and two-year work permits to 532,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, contingent upon securing a U.S.-based financial sponsor. The primary goal of this initiative was to alleviate the mounting pressure at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Republican lawmakers have criticized the program, arguing it constitutes an overextension of humanitarian parole powers. Although lower courts previously halted the Trump administration's bid to end the program, the Supreme Court's recent decision overturns those blocks. This marks a continuation of the Trump administration's broader agenda to tighten immigration policies, emphasizing security and control over U.S. borders and immigration processes.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent. Jackson expressed concern over the impact of the ruling, stressing the "devastating consequences" it poses to nearly half a million noncitizens whose lives are now uncertain as their legal claims remain unresolved.
Her dissent, which Sotomayor joined, highlighted what they viewed as the court's insufficient consideration of the potential irreparable harm.
The affected parole program was initially launched to ease issues at the U.S.-Mexico border, allowing selected migrants legal residency and work opportunities in the United States. Now, with its revocation, many migrants face an unclear future regarding their status in the country.
This development is part of the Trump administration's broader strategy to overturn programs that had temporarily expanded legal protections for migrants from certain countries.
Adding to the complexity is Judge Indira Talwani's recent ruling, which maintains other parole protections for certain groups, such as Afghans and Ukrainians. This indicates selective changes in immigration programs with a more focused approach, distinguishing it from broader policy changes.
Also noteworthy is the Trump administration's continued efforts to rescind Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants hailing from Venezuela and Haiti. This status had been granted initially as a temporary form of relief to those fleeing dire conditions in their home countries, yet it remains on the chopping block as the administration reconsiders previous U.S. immigration policies.
The Supreme Court previously aligned with Trump's initiative to end TPS for some Venezuelans. Not all within the Republican ranks support these sweeping changes. Among those voicing concern is Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who has suggested that more nuanced evaluations should be applied instead of eliminating crucial protections wholesale.
He argued that individuals from regions like Cuba and Venezuela might possess more valid asylum claims due to the oppressive conditions there.
These developments underline a contentious debate within the United States on the balance between sovereignty, national security, and humanitarian obligations.
As the Trump administration proceeds with its immigration policy revisions, the impact on migrant communities and the country's overall immigration landscape remains a key area for ongoing debate and legal scrutiny.
The broader implications of the Supreme Court's decision and the administration's immigration policy strategies will continue to reverberate, influencing the lives of countless individuals and shaping the national discourse on immigration reform and international humanitarian responsibilities.
In a recent turn of events, President Donald Trump has dismissed Kim Sajet, the director of the National Portrait Gallery, and his decision stemmed from her advocacy for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, deeming this stance unsuitable for her role.
The firing aligns with the Trump administration's strategy to eliminate officials seen as adversaries to the president's policies, particularly when it comes to DEI, as Fox News reports.
The announcement about Sajet's dismissal was made by Trump through a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. He attributed his decision to numerous recommendations, emphasizing Sajet's firm backing of DEI, which he viewed as partisan and improper. Trump assured the public that a successor would be appointed soon.
Sajet's tenure at the National Portrait Gallery was marked by her commitment to promoting diverse representation in art and curatorial practices. Known for her financial contributions to Democratic Party figures like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, Sajet's political leanings have been evident.
Her personal history narrates a global journey -- born in Nigeria, raised in Australia, and later acquiring citizenship in the Netherlands before settling in the U.S. in 1997. During her leadership, Sajet placed a significant focus on the historical and societal contexts of American portraits.
However, a White House official highlighted a perceived contradiction in her approach. According to this official, Sajet spoke about avoiding editorial influence in exhibitions, even as her curated portrait of Trump included contentious captions about his political past.
Sajet was not just the first female director of the National Portrait Gallery; she also brought with her experience from reputed art institutions around the world. Her approach involved engaging with complex themes of identity politics, a topic she addressed during a symposium in November. She voiced her apprehension regarding the divisiveness in recent U.S. elections, calling it a "mistrustful" period.
The growing unease over identity and representation has characterized Sajet’s public commentary, with her maintaining that America struggles to separate appearances from potential. This theme persisted during her work, where exhibitions often tackled controversial historical narratives.
Trump’s intent to weed out DEI initiatives became clearer soon after his presidential inauguration. His executive order, shortly after taking office, mandated the removal of DEI initiatives from federal frameworks. This measure aligned with his broader agenda of purging officials opposed to his policies. Before Sajet, both Shira Perlmutter of the U.S. Copyright Office and Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, faced similar dismissals communicated via email.
This administrative approach underscores the Trump administration's efforts to distance itself from any programs or individuals that emphasize diversity-focused ideologies, highlighting the evolving political landscape of the federal establishment.
Kim Sajet's departure from the National Portrait Gallery not only marks a shift in leadership but also presents potential implications for how cultural narratives are presented in national art institutions. Her remarks on societal issues, such as the contentious nature of modern elections, hint at the challenges faced in balancing artistic expression with neutrality.
Sajet's quotes about identity politics reflect her view that the gallery's mission inherently involves engaging with such topics, further complicating the discourse surrounding objectivity and representation in federal institutions.
As the National Portrait Gallery looks toward new leadership under Trump's administration, questions linger about future curatorial directions. The balance between historical accuracy and the presentation of politically sensitive content will likely remain at the forefront of discussion.
The intersection of art, politics, and leadership reform exemplified by this recent administrative change demonstrates the ongoing tensions within cultural institutions. Sajet’s termination points to a broader narrative about the role of art in reflecting -- and shaping -- sociopolitical climates.
While a new director has yet to be announced, Trump's decision signifies a continued emphasis on aligning federal institutions with his administration's strategic viewpoints. The implications of these changes remain to be seen as the National Portrait Gallery prepares for a new chapter.
In a significant ruling Thursday, the Supreme Court has reined in judicial authority to block infrastructure projects based on environmental concerns. The 8-0 decision establishes clearer boundaries for courts reviewing federal agencies' environmental assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
According to Fox News, the ruling centered on a Utah railway project designed to transport crude oil from the Uinta Basin to a national railway network. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion, which establishes that courts must defer to federal agencies' environmental reviews unless they fall outside a "broad zone of reasonableness."
The decision comes amid the Trump administration's ongoing criticism of what it views as judicial overreach in infrastructure and environmental matters. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, addressed whether federal agencies must consider environmental impacts beyond the specific project under review.
The controversy began when the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) sought approval from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to construct an 88-mile railway in Utah for transporting crude oil. The federal agency conducted an environmental impact statement as required by law.
Opponents in Eagle County, Colorado challenged the review, arguing the STB failed to adequately consider all environmental effects, particularly those that might occur outside the immediate project area. They claimed this oversight violated NEPA requirements for comprehensive environmental assessment.
A D.C. Circuit Court initially ruled in favor of the opponents, ordering a more thorough environmental review before the project could proceed. This decision effectively halted the infrastructure development, prompting SCIC to petition the Supreme Court in March 2024.
Justice Kavanaugh's opinion clarified that NEPA does not require agencies to consider the environmental effects of separate projects, even if the current project might lead to their construction or increased use. The justices emphasized courts should not "micromanage" agency decisions.
"NEPA does not allow courts, 'under the guise of judicial review' of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion.
The ruling was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate concurring opinion.
Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado voiced strong opposition to the decision, warning about potential long-term environmental damage resulting from the ruling. She specifically highlighted risks to the Colorado River.
"This decision lays the groundwork for an environmental catastrophe," DeGette said. "As the harsh impacts of the climate crisis increase the vulnerability of the Colorado River, the risk of an oil spill along this train route is unacceptable."
Environmental advocates fear the ruling could weaken environmental protections by limiting the scope of impact statements, potentially allowing projects with significant cumulative effects to proceed with less scrutiny. They argue this could particularly affect communities along transportation routes.
The ruling comes at a time when the Trump administration has repeatedly criticized what it describes as judicial overreach through universal injunctions that have blocked various executive policies. The administration has argued such sweeping judicial actions exceed proper court authority.
"Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Senator Charles Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital earlier this month. He cited recent examples of district judges blocking presidential executive orders, arguing that "Judges are not policymakers."
The Supreme Court is expected to address the broader issue of universal injunctions in a separate case in the coming weeks. Legal experts suggest Thursday's decision signals the Court's willingness to place limits on judicial intervention in administrative matters.
President Trump's top advisor, Susie Wiles, has become the victim of a concerning technological scam involving her personal data and artificial intelligence. Hackers have been using her compromised information to impersonate her in calls to powerful figures across America.
According to Daily Mail, the nefarious scheme involved stolen data from Wiles' personal cellphone that was then used to make contact with some of the nation's most influential people, including high-profile senators, governors, and business executives.
The impersonator's plot was ultimately foiled when they made critical errors, such as asking questions about President Trump that Wiles, as his closest advisor, would obviously know the answers to. Known as the "Ice Maiden" for her cool demeanor, Wiles has been actively warning associates to disregard unusual messages from unknown numbers claiming to be her.
FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed the bureau is investigating the situation with the utmost seriousness. "The FBI takes all threats against the president, his staff, and our cybersecurity with the utmost seriousness," Patel stated in an official response to the incident.
Some of the impersonation attempts went beyond text messages to include voice calls that mimicked Wiles' actual speaking voice, demonstrating the sophisticated AI technology employed in the scheme. Law enforcement officials believe the voice was artificially generated to sound like the White House chief of staff.
While federal investigators are actively working the case, they currently do not believe a foreign nation is behind the impersonation plot. The FBI's main focus appears to be identifying who orchestrated the scheme and determining their ultimate objective, which remains unclear despite several concerning interactions.
The fraudulent communications varied in their apparent goals, with some requesting cash transfers while others sought information about potential presidential pardons. The impersonator gained access to Wiles' personal contacts list, providing them with connection points to numerous Washington power players.
Several recipients became suspicious when messages contained poor grammar or used a more formal communication style than Wiles typically employs. Others noted the messages came from unknown numbers rather than Wiles' actual phone.
The breach represents another cybersecurity challenge for the Trump administration, which has already faced embarrassing data leaks. In one previous incident, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic was accidentally included in a Signal group chat where military strikes in Yemen were being discussed, leading to a staff reassignment.
Wiles has established herself as one of the most influential figures in Washington after helping guide Trump to his historic victory in November. As the first female White House chief of staff in history, she has earned a reputation for effectively managing both personalities and information.
Her authority within the administration was prominently displayed earlier this year during reported tensions with Elon Musk. Sources indicated the Tesla founder had treated Wiles "like a secretary," prompting President Trump to clarify that Musk was a staff member who reported to the chief of staff.
Many administration officials, including Wiles, had expressed frustration that Musk wasn't coordinating his public announcements about his DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) initiatives with the White House communications team. These tensions reportedly contributed to Musk's eventual departure from his role with DOGE slightly ahead of schedule.
The current phone hack targeting Wiles follows a previous security incident during the presidential campaign when Iranians reportedly accessed her email account. That breach allowed hackers to view research information about Trump's running mate, now-Vice President JD Vance.
The FBI investigation is focusing on identifying both how the hackers gained access to Wiles' personal phone data and what information they may have obtained during the breach. Officials are particularly concerned about what sensitive communications the perpetrators might have accessed.
President Trump's chief of staff continues to work with federal investigators while simultaneously warning her extensive network of contacts about the ongoing impersonation attempts. The incident highlights the growing sophistication of AI-powered scams targeting high-level government officials.
A 16-year-old undocumented migrant who received probation for a fatal crash that killed a Colorado drug rehabilitation worker has been taken into custody by federal authorities. The Colombian teen, whose identity remains protected under state law for juvenile offenders, was arrested alongside his family members by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on May 20.
According to the New York Post, the arrest comes just weeks after the teen received what many criticized as a lenient sentence for the high-speed crash that killed 24-year-old Kaitlyn Weaver in Aurora, Colorado last year.
ICE officials announced the arrest on social media platform X, stating: "A 16-year-old citizen of Colombia, with a conviction for reckless driving resulting in death, was arrested by ICE Denver officers last week and will remain in ICE custody pending an immigration hearing."
The deadly incident occurred on July 8, 2024, when the then-15-year-old Colombian national was driving a Jeep without a license at speeds exceeding 90 mph in a 45 mph zone. The teen's reckless driving resulted in a catastrophic collision with Weaver's vehicle at an intersection.
Investigation reports indicate Weaver, a University of Colorado Boulder graduate, was crossing the intersection when the speeding vehicle struck her car. She sustained critical injuries that left her on life support in intensive care for two days before her organs were donated.
Aurora police determined Weaver had been unable to see the teen's speeding vehicle approaching before the impact. Photos from the scene showed her severely damaged vehicle, requiring emergency responders to extract her from the wreckage.
Earlier this month, the teen entered into a plea agreement with Arapahoe County District Attorney Amy Padden. The deal reduced his charges in exchange for two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, with requirements to attend school and avoid further legal troubles.
The sentence immediately drew criticism from immigration officials and the victim's family. ICE Denver publicly condemned the decision on social media, writing: "For the @DA18th, justice is no jail time and probation for this criminal alien who killed a young woman while driving more than 90mph. For ICE, justice is arrest and removal."
Padden defended her controversial decision in comments posted under an unrelated Facebook post. Her statement focused primarily on the dangers of speeding rather than addressing immigration concerns, noting: "We acknowledge Kaitlyn Weaver's death was the direct result of a crash caused by an unlicensed teenager driving at nearly twice the posted speed limit. This tragic loss is a powerful reminder that it is not just alcohol or drug impaired driving that takes lives."
The teen's mother, who owned the Jeep involved in the crash, admitted she had attempted to return her son to Colombia following the incident. However, the teen reportedly wished to remain in the United States and file for asylum.
Court records show the teen's asylum claim remains active within the immigration court system. Despite this pending asylum application, ICE maintains the authority to detain illegal immigrants while their cases proceed through the courts.
ICE released a statement explaining their enforcement priorities: "As part of its routine operations, ICE arrests aliens who commit crimes and other individuals who have violated our nation's immigration laws. All aliens in violation of US immigration law may be subject to arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States, regardless of nationality."
Jeff Weaver, the victim's father, expressed his frustration with what he views as systemic failures that contributed to his daughter's death. His emotional statement to the media captured the intersection of immigration policy and criminal justice issues.
"We had a collision where the immigration system and the criminal justice system collided, and now my daughter's dead," Weaver told Fox News, highlighting his belief that multiple breakdowns in enforcement and accountability led to the tragedy.
The case has become a flashpoint in ongoing national debates about immigration enforcement and juvenile justice. Immigration officials emphasized that their arrest of the teen and his family aligns with their mandate to enforce immigration laws regardless of pending asylum claims.
President Donald Trump has unleashed a fiery response to a recent court ruling that temporarily blocked his proposed tariffs, calling it "political" and urging swift action from the Supreme Court. The controversial decision has sparked a heated legal battle over presidential trade authority.
According to Fox News, Trump took to Truth Social Thursday night with a lengthy post criticizing the U.S. Court of International Trade's ruling that he had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Despite this setback, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to temporarily remain in effect while the legal challenge continues.
In his social media statement, Trump questioned the judges' motivations, asking, "Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America?" He suggested their ruling might stem from "purely a hatred of 'TRUMP,'" wondering what other reason could explain their decision.
Trump didn't limit his criticism to the judges alone. He took direct aim at Leonard Leo, chairman of the Federalist Society's board of directors, an influential conservative legal organization that Trump said he relied on for judicial recommendations when he was "new to Washington."
The president described Leo as a "real 'sleazebag'" and "a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions." Trump expressed profound disappointment with the Federalist Society "because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations," while acknowledging he remains "very proud of many of our picks."
Leo responded Friday morning, defending the organization's work and expressing gratitude for Trump's transformation of federal courts. "There's more work to be done, for sure, but the federal judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump's most important legacy," Leo stated.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade represents a significant challenge to Trump's economic strategy. Just one day after the court determined that Trump had exceeded his authority regarding tariffs, the federal appeals court intervened to allow the measures to temporarily continue.
Trump has consistently framed his tariff policies as essential for protecting American economic interests. In his Truth Social post, he characterized the tariffs as "desperately needed" and suggested they would lead to a "rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America."
The president called the lower court's ruling "so wrong, and so political," appealing directly to the nation's highest court to intervene. "Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY," Trump wrote.
The legal dispute centers on fundamental questions about executive authority in trade matters. Trump has forcefully argued that presidents must have the power to protect American economic interests through tariffs when necessary.
In his social media statement, Trump insisted, "The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm." This argument reflects his broader position that presidential trade powers are essential for national security and economic well-being.
The case has attracted significant attention from legal experts and economists alike. Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley commented on the situation, noting that historically "Congress has deferred to presidents on tariffs," highlighting the complex separation of powers questions at the heart of this dispute.
Trump's appeal for quick action from the Supreme Court underscores the high stakes of this legal battle. The outcome could significantly impact his economic agenda and establish important precedents regarding presidential authority in trade matters.
The tariff dispute comes as twelve states have filed lawsuits against Trump's tariff policies, claiming they are "illegal" and harmful to the U.S. economy. These challenges represent a coordinated effort to limit what critics see as executive overreach in trade policy.
Trump's strong reaction to the court ruling reflects his commitment to his economic vision and his frustration with judicial obstacles. His direct appeal to the Supreme Court signals his determination to defend what he views as crucial presidential powers necessary for protecting American economic interests.