Kamala Harris

Nov. 22 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said he is “immediately” ending deportation protections for more than 400 Somali immigrants living in Minnesota.

Trumo made the announcement on Truth Social on Friday night.

The East African nation has had protection since 1991, and it was renewed on Sept. 18, 2024, through March 17, 2026, when Joe Biden was president.

“I am, as President of the United States, hereby terminating, effective immediately, the Temporary Protected Status (TPS Program) for Somalis in Minnesota,” he wrote. “Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from. It’s OVER!”

He did not offer evidence related to the allegations of terrorist gangs in the state.

In addition, he blamed Democratic Gov. Walz of overseeing a state that had become a “hub of fraudulent money laundering activity” — also without proof.

“It’s not surprising that the President has chosen to broadly target an entire community. This is what he does to change the subject,” Walz, who was Kamala Harris‘ vice presidential candidate in the 2024 election against Trump, said less than two hours later in a post on X.

TPS was created in 1979 to allow migrants who escaped “civil unrest, violence or natural disasters” from being deported from the United Stats.

Somalia, which for decades has experienced civil war and instability, is among 17 migrants’ countries with protection. Somalia’s population is 20 million.

There are 705 Somali immigrants approved for the status as of March 31 with 430 in Minnesota, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood east of downtown Minneapolis is nicknamed “Little Mogadishu” because of its large Somali population.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat representing Minneapolis and born in Somalia, blasted the decision.

“Good luck celebrating a policy change that really doesn’t have much impact on the Somalis you love to hate. We are here to stay,” Omar wrote on X, noting that most Somalian immigrants are U.S. citizens.

Trump in the past has been at odds with Omar.

“I look at somebody that comes from Somalia, where they don’t have anything – they don’t have police, they don’t have military, they don’t have anything,” Trump said in a Nov. 11 interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News. “All they have is crime — and she comes in and tells us how to run our country.”

Since 1979, more than 26,000 Somali refugees moved to Minnesota, according to the state Department of Health.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat, said his office is “monitoring the situation and exploring all of our options.

“Somali folks came to Minnesota fleeing conflict, instability and famine, and they have become an integral part of our state, our culture and our community,” Ellison wrote on Facebook. “Donald Trump cannot terminate TPS for just one state or on a bigoted whim.”

“I am confident that Minnesotans know better than to fall for Donald Trump’s scare tactics and scapegoating,” he added.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey also spoke out with a Facebook post that he is “standing with our Somali community today. Minneapolis has your back — always.”

Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuthg, who is running for governor against Walz, applauded the decision.

“The unfortunate reality is that far too many individuals who were welcomed into this country have abused the trust and support that was extended to them, and Minnesota taxpayers have suffered billions of dollars in consequences as a result,” Demuth said in a statement to the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Minnesota Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Emmer adding a post posted on X that “accountability is coming.”

Emmers post linked to a report from right-wing Breitbart about a letter he wrote to Daniel Rosen, U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota, urging him to “open an investigation into reports that Minnesota taxpayer dollars are ending up in the hands of the al-Shabab terrorist network in Somalia.”

The move was criticized by Jaylani Hussein, president of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“This is not just a bureaucratic change; it is a political attack on the Somali and Muslim community driven by Islamophobic and hateful rhetoric,” Hussein told CBS News. “We strongly urge President Trump to reverse this misguided decision.”

He added that the protection provided “a legal lifeline for families who have built their lives here for decades.”

Trump has also ended TPS protections for Afghan, Venezuelan, Syrian and South Sudanese nationals. Those actions from each have been challenged in courts.

JD Vance, it seems, is everywhere.

Berating Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. Eulogizing Charlie Kirk. Babysitting the Middle East peace accord. Profanely defending the aquatic obliteration of (possible) drug smugglers.

He’s loud, he’s obnoxious and, in a very short time, he’s broken unprecedented ground with his smash-face, turn-it-to-11 approach to the vice presidency. Unlike most White House understudies, who effectively disappear like a protected witness, Vance has become the highest-profile, most pugnacious politician in America who is not named Donald J. Trump.

It’s quite the contrast with his predecessor.

Kamala Harris made her own kind of history, as the first woman, first Black person and first Asian American to serve as vice president. As such, she entered office bearing great — and vastly unrealistic — expectations about her prominence and the public role she would play in the Biden administration. When Harris acted the way that vice presidents normally do — subservient, self-effacing, careful never to poach the spotlight from the chief executive — it was seen as a failing.

By the end of her first year in office, “whatever happened to Kamala Harris?” had become a political buzz phrase.

No one’s asking that about JD Vance.

Why is that? Because that’s how President Trump wants it.

“Rule No.1 about the vice presidency is that vice presidents are only as active as their presidents want them to be,” said Jody Baumgartner, an East Carolina University expert on the office. “They themselves are irrelevant.”

Consider Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, who had the presence and pizzazz of day-old mashed potatoes.

“He was not a very powerful vice president, but that’s because Donald Trump didn’t want him to be,” said Christopher Devine, a University of Dayton professor who’s published four books on the vice presidency. “He wanted him to have very little influence and to be more of a background figure, to kind of reassure quietly the conservatives of the party that Trump was on the right track. With JD Vance, I think he wants him to be a very active, visible figure.”

In fact, Trump seems to be grooming Vance as a successor in a way that Joe Biden never did with Harris. The 46th president practically had to be bludgeoned into standing aside after the Democratic freakout over his wretched, career-ending debate performance. (Things might be different with Vance if Trump could override the Constitution and fulfill his fantasy of seeking a third term in the White House.)

There were other circumstances that kept Harris under wraps, particularly in the early part of Biden’s presidency.

One was the COVID-19 lockdown. “It meant she wasn’t traveling. She wasn’t doing public events,” said Joel K. Goldstein, another author and expert on the vice presidency. “A lot of stuff was being done virtually and so that tended to be constraining.”

The Democrats’ narrow control of the Senate also required Harris to stick close to Washington so she could cast a number of tie-breaking votes. (Under the Constitution, the vice president provides the deciding vote when the Senate is equally divided. Harris set a record in the third year of her vice presidency for casting the most tie-breakers in history.)

The personality of their bosses also explains why Harris and Vance approached the vice presidency in different ways.

Biden had spent nearly half a century in Washington, as a senator and vice president under Barack Obama. He was, foremost, a creature of the legislative process and saw Harris, who’d served nearly two decades in elected office, as a (junior) partner in governing.

Trump came to politics through celebrity. He is, foremost, a pitchman and promoter. He saw Vance as a way to turn up the volume.

Ohio’s senator had served barely 18 months in his one and only political position when Trump chose Vance as his running mate. He’d “really made his mark as a media and cultural figure,” Devine noted, with Vance’s memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” regarded as a kind of Rosetta Stone for the anger and resentment that fueled the MAGA movement.

Trump “wanted someone who was going to be aggressive in advancing the MAGA narrative,” Devine said, “being very present in media, including in some newer media spaces, on podcasts, social media. Vance was someone who could hammer home Trump’s message every day.”

The contrast continued once Harris and Vance took office.

Biden handed his vice president a portfolio of tough and weighty issues, among them addressing the root causes of illegal migration from Central America. (They were “impossible, s— jobs,” in the blunt assessment that Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff, offered in her recent campaign memoir.)

Trump has treated Vance as a sort of heat-seeking rhetorical missile, turning him loose against his critics and acting as though the presidential campaign never ended.

Vance seems gladly submissive. Harris, who was her own boss for nearly two decades, had a hard time adjusting as Biden’s No. 2.

“Vance is very effective at playing the role of backup singer who gets to have a solo from time to time,” said Jamal Simmons, who spent a year as Harris’ vice presidential communications chief. “I don’t think Kamala Harris was ever as comfortable in the role as Vance has proven himself to be.”

Will Vance’s pugilistic approach pay off in 2028? It’s way too soon to say. Turning the conventions of the vice presidency to a shambles, the way Trump did with the presidency, has delighted many in the Republican base. But polls show Vance, like Trump, is deeply unpopular with a great number of voters.

As for Harris, all she can do is look on from her exile in Brentwood, pondering what might have been.

Nov. 12 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump signaled his intention to push ahead with a $1 billion lawsuit against the BBC, saying he had an obligation due to the “fraudulent” way it had edited a speech he made right before the Capitol Hill riots in 2021.

Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday night, Trump said he had to take legal action because the public service broadcaster “butchered up” the speech he gave to supporters outside the White House on Jan. 6 and had deceived viewers.

The speech formed part of a documentary, Trump: A Second Chance, that went out on the BBC network just before the Nov. 4 U.S. elections, although the BBC maintains that it was not available to view outside of the United Kingdom.

“They defrauded the public and they’ve admitted it. They actually changed my Jan. 6 speech which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and made it sound radical. It was very dishonest,” Trump said.

Trump said he had a duty to go ahead and file a defamation lawsuit against the BBC because he “can’t allow people to do that,” in the same way he had been forced to pursue CBS over an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that aired four weeks before the election on Nov. 4.

CBS settled Trump’s $20 billion claim out of court for $16 million in July.

The BBC has acknowledged receipt of a letter from Trump’s legal team demanding a “full and fair retraction” of the documentary, an immediate apology, and that the BBC “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”

It said the BBC must comply by 5 p.m. EST on Friday, to which the corporation has said it would respond “directly in due course.”

The director-general and the head of news both resigned Sunday after it was revealed the corporation’s Panorama program spliced together two sections of Trump’s speech 53 minutes apart without telling viewers it had done so.

The edited version made it sound as if Trump was inciting his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight” when what he actually said was that they should all walk down to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” and “we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

No complaint was raised at the time the documentary aired but the incident has reignited a furious domestic debate about the BBC’s editorial impartiality and the internal culture of the institution which is funded by a $229 annual license that households with a TV must pay.

If the BBC chose to fight the case, which Trump’s lawyer intends to file in the state of Florida, significant obstacles mean long odds on Trump’s chances of prevailing.

For his lawsuit to succeed, his team would have to convince a court that Trump had “suffered overwhelming financial and reputational harm” as a result of the program, as stated in the letter to the BBC.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah has already apologized for what he said was an “error of judgment.”

“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment,” Shah told a parliamentary committee Monday.

However, while that could go against the corporation, as an apparent admission of liability, the case would still have to overcome major challenges.

Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg KC called for the BBC to go further and “draft a retraction and apology in terms that the president’s lawyer finds acceptable” and for the retraction to feature as prominently as the original broadcast.

Writing on his blog post Tuesday, Rozenburg said the BBC would have to pay compensation but suggested that, based on previous legal claims brought by Trump, it would be an out-of-court settlement.

“It won’t be cheap. But it will be cheaper than a billion dollars,” he said.