status

An appeals court has briefly extended temporary protected status (TPS) for nearly 12,000 Afghans in the United States, hours before it was to expire.

Monday’s order came 60 days after the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under President Donald Trump announced that it was ending the legal protections for thousands of Afghans legally living in the United States.

The order by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, granted an administrative stay on the termination until Monday after a request from the immigration advocacy organisation CASA.

The appeals court gave no reason for its decision but indicated it would be deciding what to do swiftly.

CASA had sought an emergency stay on Monday when the protection of Afghans was due to be terminated, court documents showed.

Its case also includes Cameroonians whose TPS is to end on August 4.

The immigrant advocacy group said the step to remove the status was arbitrary and discriminatory and would cause “irreparable harm” to those affected.

The court has asked both sides to submit briefs this week.

The Trump administration has until 11:59pm US Eastern time on Wednesday (03:59 GMT on Thursday) to respond.

A federal judge on Friday allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn’t grant CASA’s request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out.

The stay is not a final decision but gives time for the legal challenge, said Shawn VanDiver, founder of AfghanEvac, the main coalition of US military veterans and advocacy groups that coordinates resettlements of Afghan refugees with the government.

“AfghanEvac stands firmly behind the legal challenge and calls on DHS and the Trump administration to immediately reverse course and extend TPS protections,” VanDiver said in an email to the Reuters news agency.

That status had allowed Afghans to live and work in the US and meant the government could not deport them.

Millions of Afghans who fled their country over previous decades are now being forced back to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan from countries including Iran, Pakistan and the US.

Deportations of Afghans are also anticipated in Germany as its government seeks talks with the Taliban.

About 180,000 Afghans have come to the US since the Taliban retook control of the country in 2021. About 11,700 of them are currently covered by TPS.

When Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended temporary protected status for Afghans, the department wrote in the decision that the situation in their home country was getting better.

“The Secretary determined that, overall, there are notable improvements in the security and economic situation such that requiring the return of Afghan nationals to Afghanistan does not pose a threat to their personal safety due to armed conflict or extraordinary and temporary conditions,” according to the May announcement.

But rights advocates said many Afghans who helped the US during its war in Afghanistan would be targets of the Taliban if they return home.

Particularly at risk would be women, whose rights the Taliban have rolled back since its return to power after the US withdrawal, rights groups said.

The International Criminal Court last week issued arrest warrants for two top Taliban leaders in Afghanistan on charges related to abuses against women and girls.

“While the Taliban have imposed certain rules and prohibitions on the population as a whole, they have specifically targeted girls and women by reason of their gender, depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms,” the court said in a statement.

The US homeland security secretary may grant TPS to people from specific countries.

Countries that are currently designated for TPS include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen.

In addition to Afghanistan and Cameroon, the Trump administration has moved to end the designation for an estimated 260,000 Haitians and 350,000 Venezuelans.

The Trump administration has also announced it will revoke the two-year “humanitarian parole” of about 530,000 people in the US, including Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.

When Vogue tastemaker Anna Wintour announced late last month that she would be stepping down as editor in chief after 37 years, the news sent shock waves through the media business and fashion world.

Wintour, who will remain chief content officer for Condé Nast and global editorial director for Vogue, is a grand symbol of a magazine empire that includes Wired and Vanity Fair: a demanding, glamorous longtime chair of the Met Gala who has set fashion trends and made world-famous designers, some of whom she helped create, bow and tremble. She covers news, she creates news, she is news. Predictably enough, word of her changing status ignited frenzied speculation about who might take on the newly created role of U.S. head of editorial content for Vogue and eventually succeed her.

Condé Nast, which publishes enough other glossy magazines to fill a newsstand (if any still exist), remains very much alive, and it’s the subject of Michael M. Grynbaum’s new book “Empire of the Elite: Inside Condé Nast, the Media Dynasty That Reshaped America.” But as Grynbaum makes clear in his book, the Condé sway isn’t quite what it used to be. The company’s most powerful editors, including Graydon Carter (Vanity Fair) and Tina Brown (Vanity Fair and then the New Yorker), have stepped aside. More importantly, the rise of TikTok, Instagram and the like have created a world where almost anyone with an opportunist’s instinct can be an influencer.

“The means of glamour production were brought to the masses,” Grynbaum tells The Times in an interview taking place after Wintour’s announcement. “If you look at TikTok and Instagram, a lot of people are re-creating the status fantasies that Condé Nast was notorious for: the real estate tours of somebody’s mansion that are right out of Architectural Digest, or the fit check and outfit of the day that ascended from GQ, Vogue and Glamour.”

The man most responsible for the Condé Nast that readers know today was Samuel Irving “S.I.” Newhouse Jr., better known as Si. The son of a first-generation American who built a massively successful newspaper chain and purchased Condé Nast in 1959, Si took the family’s rather sleepy and traditional magazine business and injected a shot of sex, celebrity and pizzazz. The Newhouses were for many years seen as arrivistes and interlopers, a perception tinged with antisemitism; New Yorker institution A.J. Liebling, himself Jewish, labeled the elder Newhouse a “journalist chiffonier” — a rag picker.

When Si took over as chairman of Condé Nast in 1975 — and then bought the New Yorker in 1985 — he set about to become a sort of outsider’s insider, obsessed with status and the good life and determined to shape a collection of magazines that represented aspirational living. And he insisted that his most valuable employees walk the walk. To work at the company at its peak was to live extravagantly by a journalist’s standards.

Grynbaum, who writes about media, politics and culture for the New York Times and grew up reading Condé Nast magazines, was struck hard by that extravagance. “I was writing about magazine editors who had 24-hour town car service, limousines that would drive them around to their appointments, wait outside at the sidewalk while they ate a giant lunch at the Four Seasons restaurant, and it all got expensed back to Condé Nast,” he says. “Empire of the Elite” is laden with comical examples of privilege. One of my favorites: the Vogue editor who “charged her assistant with the less than exalted task of removing the blueberries from her morning muffin; the editor preferred the essence of blueberries, she explained, but not the berries themselves.”

Author Michael M. Grynbaum, who writes about media for the New York Times, was struck by extravagant expense account spending at Condé Nast.

(Gary He)

The Condé Nast glory era really kicked off in the 1980s, as conspicuous consumption swept through the land. “The idealism of the 1960s was yielding to the materialism of the 1980s, a new preoccupation with the navel-gazing, ego-stroking life,” Grynbaum writes. But much of Newhouse’s approach now seems like standard operating procedure. When he bought the New Yorker, a set-in-its-ways magazine with a limited readership and articles that could take up half an issue, it had largely turned up its nose at the idea of soliciting new subscribers. He tapped Tina Brown, a brash Brit then serving as Vanity Fair editor, to run the magazine in 1992. This set off culture clashes that resonated throughout the industry — and yielded some piquant anecdotes.

For example: Some at the magazine were aghast when Brown assigned Jeffrey Toobin to cover the O.J. Simpson murder trial, a subject they saw as beneath the magazine’s standards. Critic George W.S. Trow actually resigned, accusing Brown of kissing “the ass of celebrity culture.” Brown responded that she was distraught, “but since you never actually write anything, I should say I am notionally distraught.”

Newhouse, who died in 2017, made FOMO fun. It should be noted that he also helped create Donald Trump. GQ featured him on its cover when he was, as Grynbaum writes, “a provincial curiosity”; of more consequence, Newhouse, as the owner of Random House, came up with the idea for “The Art of the Deal,” the 1987 Trump business manifesto ghostwritten by magazine journalist Tony Schwartz.

Wintour has been a powerful force in the Condé Nast machine; her turning over the daily reins of U.S. Vogue signals even more change for a company that has seen plenty of it. “I think it is an acknowledgment on her part that she won’t be around forever, and that there needs to be some kind of succession plan in place,” Grynbaum says. “It’s amazing how much the influence and power of Vogue is predicated on this one individual and her relationships and her sway.”

Condé Nast isn’t what it used to be, because print isn’t what it used to be. Like so many legacy media companies, it hemorrhaged money as it proved slow to adjust to the digital revolution. At times “Empire of the Elite” reads like an ode to the sensuous experience of reading a high-quality glossy magazine, and wondering who might be on next month’s cover and what (or who) they’ll be wearing. Condé Nast still means quality. But the age of empire is mostly over.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is ending the temporary status for nearly 80,000 Hondurans and Nicaraguans that has allowed them to live and work in the U.S. for a quarter of a century after a devastating hurricane hit Central America, according to federal government notices — a move that comes as the White House pushes to make more immigrants in the U.S. eligible for deportation.

The notices are part of a wider effort by the current administration to make good on campaign promises to carry out mass deportations of immigrants. It’s doing this by going after people in the country illegally or those who’ve committed crimes that make them eligible for deportation but also by removing protections from hundreds of thousands of people, many admitted under the Biden administration.

Temporary Protected Status is a temporary protection that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people of various nationalities who are in the United States, which prevents them from being deported and allows them to work. The Trump administration has aggressively been seeking to remove the protection, thus making more people eligible for removal.

Administration says conditions have changed

The Department of Homeland Security said Monday in the Federal Register — in a notice set to become official on Tuesday — that Secretary Kristi Noem had reviewed the country conditions in Honduras and Nicaragua. She concluded the situations there had improved enough since the initial decision in 1999 that people currently protected by those temporary designations could return home.

The department estimated that roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans in the U.S. are covered by the status that will now expire in about two months. However, the TPS Alliance, which advocates for immigrants covered by these temporary protections, estimated that about 40,000 Hondurans would be affected because many had obtained legal residency through various immigration channels.

Temporary Protected Status for both nationalities expired Saturday. The notices said the protections will be terminated 60 days after the notices are officially published in the Federal Register.

TPS is usually granted when conditions in someone’s home country make it difficult to return. People covered by it must register with the Department of Homeland Security and then they’re protected from being deported and can work.

However, it does not grant them a pathway to citizenship and the secretary must renew it regularly, often in 18-month intervals.

When their status officially ends, Hondurans and Nicaraguans currently covered by the Temporary Protected Status can be deported and their work permits will be terminated if they can’t find another avenue to stay in the country.

Critics say ‘temporary’ became permanent

Critics say that successive administrations — especially the Biden administration — essentially rubber-stamped these renewals regardless, and people covered by what’s supposed to be a temporary status end up staying in the United States for years.

The Trump administration has already terminated TPS for about 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, more than 160,000 Ukrainians, and thousands of people from Afghanistan, Nepal and Cameroon. Some of them, like Venezuelans, Haitians and Ukrainians, have pending lawsuits at federal courts.

An additional 250,000 Venezuelans are still protected under TPS until September, as well as thousands of Syrians. TPS for Ethiopians expires in December, for Yemenis and Somalians in March 2026, and for Salvadoreans in September 2026.

During the Biden administration, the number of people protected by TPS grew significantly. Nearly 1 million Venezuelans and Haitians were protected.

Jose Palma, co-coordinator at the National TPS Alliance, said the termination announced Monday will affect people who have lived in the United States for nearly three decades.

“They have established families. Investments. It is a community that …. has undergone annual background checks, that has shown … all its contributions to this country,” Palma said. “It’s cruel what’s happening.”

Litigation delayed ending the protections

Temporary protections for both countries were initially granted in 1999 following 1998’s Hurricane Mitch. The first Trump administration attempted to end the protections but they both remained in place after litigation.

Homeland Security wrote in the Federal Register notice that Honduras had “witnessed significant changes in the 26 years since Hurricane Mitch’s destruction.”

“Honduras has made significant progress recovering from the hurricane’s destruction and is now a popular tourism and real estate investment destination,” the department wrote. The department said the Honduran government in January had launched a plan called “Brother, Come Home,” which aims to help Hondurans deported from the U.S. with money and help finding a job.

Of Nicaragua, Noem wrote: “Nicaragua has made significant progress recovering from the hurricane’s destruction with the help of the international community and is now a growing tourism, ecotourism, agriculture, and renewable energy leader.”

Honduras Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Antonio García expressed disappointment at the announcement Monday.

“They argue that Honduras has foreign investment, tourism and its program ‘Honduran come home’ and that there are conditions to return,” García said. But he said it was the anti-immigrant sentiment of the Trump administration that was really behind it.

“They came to power with that and they’re getting it done for their electorate,” he said.

Francis García has lived in the United States for almost 30 years and has been a TPS beneficiary for 25. Her three adult children were born in the United States, a country she considers her own.

“I feel sad, worried and scared,” said Garcia, 48, who never went back to her country. “I am very afraid to return to Honduras. I can’t imagine it; I wouldn’t want to.”

Like Garcia, Teofilo Martinez, 57, has lived half of his life in the U.S., most of it under TPS protection. He arrived with nothing but now has his own construction company and he is also a Realtor.

“We ask that our good behavior and contributions be taken into consideration,” Martinez said. “There are no conditions in Honduras for us to return.”

Santana and Salomon write for the Associated Press. Salomon reported from Miami. Marlon González in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, contributed to this report.

Vera, the heroine of Gary Shteyngart’s sixth novel, “Vera, or Faith,” is a whip-smart 10-year-old Manhattanite, but she’s not quite smart enough to figure out her parents’ intentions. Why is dad so concerned about “status”? Why does her stepmom call some meals “WASP lunches”? How come every time they visit somebody’s house she’s assigned to see if they have a copy of “The Power Broker” on their shelves? She’s all but doomed to be bourgeois and neurotic, as if a juvenile court has sentenced her to live in a New Yorker cartoon.

Since his 2002 debut, “The Russian Debutante’s Handbook,” Shteyngart has proved adept at finding humor in the intersection of immigrant life, wealth and relationships, and “Vera” largely sticks to that mix. But the cynicism that has always thrummed underneath his high-concept comedies — the dehumanizing algorithms, the rapacious finance system — is more prominent in this slim, potent novel. Vera is witnessing both the slow erosion of her parents’ marriage along with the rapid decline of democracy in near-future America. Her precocity gives the novel its wit, but Shteyngart is also alert to the fact that a child, however bright, is fundamentally helpless.

Not to mention desperate for her parents’ affection, which is in short supply for Vera. Her father, the editor of a liberal intellectual magazine, seems constantly distracted by his efforts to court a billionaire to purchase it, while her stepmom is more focused on her son’s ADHD and the family’s rapidly dwindling bank account. Things are no better outside in the world, where a constitutional convention seems ready to pass an amendment awarding five-thirds voting rights for “exceptional Americans.” (Read: white people.) Vera, the daughter of a Russian father and Korean mother, may be banished to second-class citizenry.

Even worse, her school has assigned her to take the side of the “five-thirders” in an upcoming classroom debate. So it’s become urgent for her to understand the world just as it’s become inexplicable. Shteyngart is stellar at showing just how alienated she’s become: “She knew kids were supposed to have more posters on their walls to show off their inner life, but she liked her inner life to stay inside her.” And she seems to be handling the crisis with more maturity than her father, who’s drunk and clumsy in their home: “If anyone needed to see Mrs. S., the school counselor with the master’s in social work degree, it was Daddy.”

It’s a challenge to write from the perspective of a child without being arch or cutesy — stories about kids learning about the real world can degrade to plainspoken YA or cheap melodrama. Shteyngart is striving for something more supple, using Vera’s point of view to clarify how adults become victims of their own emotional shutoffs, the way they use language to at once appear smart while covering up their feelings. “Our country’s a supermarket where some people just get to carry out whatever they want. You and I sadly are not those people,” Dad tells her, forcing her to unpack a metaphor stuffed full of ideology, economics, self-loathing and more.

Every chapter in the book starts with the phrase “She had to,” explaining Vera’s various missions amid this dysfunction: “hold the family together,” “fall asleep,” “be cool,” “win the debate.” Kids like her have to be action-oriented; they don’t have the privilege of adults’ deflections. Small wonder, then, that her most reliable companion is an AI-powered chessboard, which offers direct answers to her most pressing questions. (One of Shteyngart’s most potent running jokes is that adults aren’t more clever than computers they command.) Once she falls into a mission to discover the truth about her birth mother, she becomes more alert to the world’s brutal simplicity: “The world was a razor cut … It would cut and cut and cut.”

Shteyngart’s grown-up kids’ story has two obvious inspirations: One, as the title suggests, is Vladimir Nabokov’s 1969 novel “Ada, or Ardor,” the other Henry James’ 1897 novel “What Maisie Knew.” Both are concerned with childhood traumas, and if Shteyngart isn’t explicitly borrowing their plots he borrows some of their gravitas, the sense that preteendom is a crucible for experiencing life’s various crises.

In its final chapters, the novel takes a turn that is designed to speak to our current moment, spotlighting the way that Trump-era nativist policies have brought needless harm to Americans. A country can abandon its principles, he means to say, just as a parent can abandon a child. But if “Vera” suggests a particular vision of our particular dystopian moment, it also suggests a more enduring predicament for children, who live with the consequences of others’ decisions but don’t get a vote in them.

“There were a lot of ‘statuses’ in the world and each year she was becoming aware of more of them,” Vera observes. Children will have to learn them faster now.

Athitakis is a writer in Phoenix and author of “The New Midwest.”

NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary legal status for more than 500,000 Haitians who are already in the United States.

District Court Judge Brian M. Cogan in New York ruled that moving up the expiration of the temporary protected status, or TPS, by at least five months for Haitians, some of whom have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade, is unlawful.

The Biden administration had extended Haiti’s TPS status through at least Feb. 3, 2026, due to gang violence, political unrest, a major earthquake in 2021 and several other factors, according to court documents.

But last week, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was terminating those legal protections as soon as Sept. 2, setting Haitians up for potential deportation. The department said the conditions in the country had improved and Haitians no longer met the conditions for the temporary legal protections.

The ruling comes as President Trump works to end protections and programs for immigrants as part of his mass deportations promises.

The judge’s 23-page opinion states that the Department of Homeland Security’s move to terminate the legal protections early violates the TPS statute that requires a certain amount of notice before reconsidering a designation.

“When the Government confers a benefit over a fixed period of time, a beneficiary can reasonably expect to receive that benefit at least until the end of that fixed period,” according to the ruling.

The judge also referenced the fact that the plaintiffs have started jobs, enrolled in schools and begun receiving medical treatment with the expectations that the country’s TPS designation would run through the end of the year.

Manny Pastreich, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, which filed the lawsuit, described the ruling as an “important step” but said the fight is not over.

“We will keep fighting to make sure this decision is upheld,” Pastreich said in a statement. “We will keep fighting for the rights of our members and all immigrants against the Trump Administration – in the streets, in the workplace, and in the courts as well. And when we fight, we win.”

DHS did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press requesting comment. But the government had argued that TPS is a temporary program and thus “the termination of a country’s TPS designation is a possibility beneficiaries must always expect.”

Haiti’s TPS status was initially activated in 2010 after the catastrophic earthquake and has been extended multiple times, according to the lawsuit.

Gang violence has displaced 1.3 million people across Haiti as the local government and international community struggle with the spiraling crisis, according to a report from the International Organization for Migration. There has been a 24% increase in displaced people since December, with gunmen having chased 11% of Haiti’s nearly 12 million inhabitants from their home, the report said.

In May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to deportation. The order put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept the legal protections in place.

The judge’s decision in New York also comes on the heels of the Trump administration revoking legal protections for thousands of Haitians who arrived legally in the U.S. through a humanitarian parole program.

The Department of Homeland Security says the gang-riddled Caribbean country is safe enough for Haitians to return.

The United States government has announced it will terminate special protections for Haitian immigrants.

In a statement issued Friday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that, starting on September 2, Haitians would no longer be able to remain in the country under the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation.

TPS allows nationals from countries facing conflict, natural disaster or other extraordinary circumstances to temporarily remain in the US. It also gives them the right to work and travel.

The designation is typically made for periods of six, 12 or 18 months, but that can be extended by the DHS secretary.

But under the administration of President Donald Trump, temporary protections like TPS have been pared back, as part of a broader push to limit immigration to the US.

“This decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary,” a DHS spokesperson said in Friday’s statement.

Haiti first received the TPS designation in 2010, when a devastating earthquake killed more than 200,000 people and left 1.5 million homeless – more than a 10th of the population. The designation has been routinely extended and expanded, particularly as gang violence and political instability worsened in recent years.

Since his first term in office, from 2017 to 2021, President Trump has sought to strip TPS for Haitians, even as conditions have deteriorated in the Caribbean island nation.

Today, Haiti faces a protracted humanitarian crisis, with more than 5,600 people killed by gangs last year and 1.3 million displaced. Armed groups now control up to 90 percent of the capital, and food, water and medical services are extremely difficult to come by.

The US Department of State has placed a travel advisory on Haiti, listing it as a Level 4 country, the highest warning level.

Level 4 signifies “do not travel”, as there are life-threatening conditions in the designated area. The State Department advises Americans to avoid Haiti “due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care”.

The DHS statement, however, notes that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem “determined that, overall, country conditions have improved to the point where Haitians can return home in safety”.

“She further determined that permitting Haitian nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States,” the statement adds.

An estimated 260,000 Haitians have TPS. The statement advises that those affected can either pursue another immigration status or return home.

But Haitians are not the only group to face the revocation of their temporary immigration status.

In early May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US.

Later in the month, the high court also ruled that Trump can revoke the two-year “humanitarian parole” that allowed 530,000 people to legally remain and work in the US. The affected humanitarian parole recipients included Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans, all of whom face instability and political repression in their home countries.

Trump officials have also moved to end TPS for 7,600 Cameroonians and 14,600 Afghans. But critics note that fighting continues to rage in Cameroon, and in Afghanistan, the Taliban government is accused of perpetrating widespread human rights abuses.

Justin Fletcher has been a staple of children’s television for well over two decades, but away from the bright lights and cameras, the much-loved TV star keeps his private life out of the spotlight

There’s not a tot across the nation who wouldn’t recognise Mr Tumble, having entertained and assisted countless children over the years.

Despite his immense popularity among young viewers due to his work on CBeebies and his sell-out tours across the country, little is known about television personality Justin Fletcher when he’s off duty.

In fact, the highly acclaimed star, who was honoured with an MBE by the late Queen Elizabeth II, generally keeps his personal life out of the spotlight, although he has occasionally offered glimpses into his home life and upbringing.

As a youngster, Justin frequently moved around with his parents due to his father’s successful career as a music writer, which often necessitated relocation and brought some very famous faces to their family home.

The beloved TV personality is actually the second oldest of five siblings – with a 12-year age gap between him and his youngest sibling – and Justin once told Metro: “There was always someone to play games with while we were growing up. My dad is a songwriter and my mum was a housewife,” reports Surrey Live.

At a tender age, the CBeebies star confided in his father, Guy Fletcher, expressing his desire to pursue acting and further his drama studies. His father warned him of the challenges he would face in the industry but gave him his “full support”, something Justin continues to appreciate to this day.

Net Worth

The 54 year old entertainer has been the face of popular CBeebies shows like Gigglebiz and Justin’s House. However, his most notable achievement is the programme Something Special, specifically designed to assist children with communication by integrating Makaton signs, speech and symbols throughout.

Having been a hit on children’s TV for over two decades, it’s no surprise that his endearing characters have evolved into a multi-million-pound industry.

Past reports suggest that his Something Special DVD sold over 100,000 copies, raking in more than £1 million, and an accompanying magazine generated a monthly income of £180,000. As a result, it’s estimated that his net worth is around £1.5 million.

Stepping down from BBC role

Earlier this year, the television legend shocked fans when he announced he was stepping back from his proudest creation, Something Special, confirming he was passing the baton to three other presenters.

After an impressive 22-year stint, during which the programme produced 12 series and five specials, Justin decided it was time to hand over the reins to TV stars Maddie Moate, Ben Cajee, and George Webster, who confirmed the news on social media.

Relationship status and plans for starting a family

The Bafta Award-winner, who voiced beloved characters such as Doodle and Jake in Tweenies, Shaun the Sheep and Harold from Thomas the Tank Engine, has dedicated his life to children’s TV, so much so, that he’s been too busy for romance.

Back in 2012, kids’ TV favourite Justin Fletcher, known to many as Mr Tumble, confided in The Mirror about the numerous romantic proposals he’d received from enthusiastic mums writing to him.

He spilled to the publication: “I have had emails,” and revealed his bachelor status with: “I’m not married, live alone and have been single for a while now because I’ve been a workaholic filming Something Special, Justin’s House and Gigglebiz.”

Although his diary’s chock-a-block with showbiz commitments, Justin has got his heart set on fatherhood, sharing with the outlet his aspiration: “I do want to free up some time for myself and my family. I would love to have children so need to find someone who likes kids. A couple of kids would be lovely.”

He echoed this sentiment to the Metro in 2013, saying: “I’d love to have a family of my own in the future – I’d like to do that in the next few years but, at the moment, I’m producing three TV shows and do live tours. I can’t keep doing this forever but if I finished next week, I’d feel I’d achieved a lot.”

Famous father

Justin isn’t just any entertainer; he’s got showbiz in his blood, being the son of legendary songwriter Guy Fletcher, whose tunes graced the repertoires of icons like Elvis Presley, Ray Charles, and Joe Cocker.

Chatting with BBC 6 Music’s Chris Hawkins, Justin opened up about his musically rich upbringing and even revealed that his beloved character Mr ‘Cliff’ Tumble is an homage to Sir Cliff Richard.

He shared: “I was always brought up around musicians and we had a recording studio built onto the house. My character Cliff Tumble is a homage to Sir Cliff, who I’ve met a lot and is lovely, very charming.

“Dad wrote his Eurovision entry Power to All Our Friends. The biggest hit he wrote for Elvis was Just Pretend, which he used to perform in his Vegas shows. Pretty cool, really,” Justin remarked.

Something Special is available to stream on BBC iPlayer

She rides three buses from her Panorama City home to her job as a caregiver for an 83-year-old Sherman Oaks woman with dementia, and lately she’s been worrying about getting nabbed by federal agents.

When I asked what she’ll do if she gets deported, B., who’s 60 and asked me to withhold her name, paused to compose herself.

“I don’t want to cry,” she said, but losing her $19 hourly job would be devastating, because she sends money to the Philippines to support her family.

Steve Lopez

Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.

The world is getting grayer each day thanks to an epic demographic wave. In California, 22% of the state’s residents will be 65 and older by 2040, up by 14% from 2020.

“At a time where it seems fewer and fewer of us want to work in long-term care, the need has never been greater,” Harvard healthcare policy analyst David C. Grabowski told The Times’ Emily Alpert Reyes in January.

So how will millions of aging Americans be able to afford care for physical and cognitive decline, especially given President Trump’s big beautiful proposed cuts to Medicaid, which covers about two-thirds of nursing home residents? And who will take care of those who don’t have family members who can step up?

A building where multiple caregivers live in a cramped studio apartment in Panorama City.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

There are no good answers at the moment. Deporting care providers might make sense if there were a plan to make the jobs more attractive to homegrown replacements, but none of us would bet a day-old doughnut on that happening.

Nationally and in California, the vast majority of workers in care facilities and private settings are citizens. But employers were already having trouble recruiting and keeping staff to do jobs that are low-paying and difficult, and now Trump administration policies could further shrink the workforce.

Earlier this year, the administration ordered an end to programs offering temporary protected status and work authorization, and the latest goal in Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is to make 3,000 arrests daily.

“People are worried about the threat of deportation … but also about losing whatever job they have and being unable to secure other work,” said Aquilina Soriano Versoza, director of the Pilipino Workers Center, who estimated that roughly half of her advocacy group’s members are undocumented.

In the past, she said, employers didn’t necessarily ask for work authorization documents, but that’s changing. And she fears that given the political climate, some employers will “feel like they have impunity to exploit workers,” many of whom are women from Southeast Asia, Africa, the Caribbean, Mexico and Latin America.

That may already be happening.

“We’ve seen a lot of fear, and we’ve seen workers who no longer want to pursue their cases” when it comes to fighting wage theft, said Yvonne Medrano, an employment rights lawyer with Bet Tzedek, a legal services nonprofit.

A gathering at the Pilipino Workers Center in Los Angeles in Historic Filipinotown. Aquilina Soriano Versoza, director of the center, says, “People are worried about the threat of deportation … but also about losing whatever job they have and being unable to secure other work.”

(Ringo Chiu / For The Times)

Medrano said the workers are worried that pursuing justice in the courts will expose them to greater risk of getting booted out of the country. In one case, she said, a worker was owed a final paycheck for a discontinued job, but the employer made a veiled threat, warning that showing up to retrieve it could be costly.

Given the hostile environment, some workers are giving up and going home.

“We’ve seen an increase in workers self-deporting,” Medrano said.

Conditions for elder care workers were bleak enough before Trump took office. Two years ago, I met with documented and undocumented caregivers and although they’re in the healthcare business, some of them didn’t have health insurance for themselves.

I met with a cancer survivor and caregiver who was renting a converted garage without a kitchen. And I visited an apartment in Panorama City where Josephine Biclar, in her early 70s, was struggling with knee and shoulder injuries while still working as a caregiver.

Biclar was sharing a cramped studio with two other caregivers. They used room dividers to carve their space into sleeping quarters. When I checked with Biclar this week, she said four women now share the same space. All of them have legal status, but because of low wages and the high cost of housing, along with the burden of supporting families abroad, they can’t afford better living arrangements.

B. and another care provider share a single room, at a cost of $400 apiece, from a homeowner in Panorama City. B. said her commute takes more than an hour each way, and during her nine-hour shift, her duties for her 83-year-old client include cooking, feeding and bathing.

She’s only working three days a week at the moment and said additional jobs are hard to come by given her status and the immigration crackdown. She was upset that for the last two months, she couldn’t afford to send any money home.

“People are worried about the threat of deportation, but also about losing whatever job they have and being unable to secure other work, said Aquilina Soriano Versoza, executive director of the Pilipino Workers Center.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Retired UCLA scholar Fernando Torres-Gil, who served as President Clinton’s assistant secretary on aging, said “fear and chaos” in the elder care industry are not likely to end during this presidential administration. And given budget constraints, California will be hard-pressed to do more for caregivers and those who need care.

But he thinks the growing crisis could eventually lead to an awakening.

“We’re going to see more and more older folks without long-term care,” Torres-Gil said. “Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans will get away from talking about open borders and talk about selective immigration” that serves the country’s economic and social needs.

The U.S. is not aging alone, Torres-Gil pointed out. The same demographic shifts and healthcare needs are hitting the rest of the world, and other countries may open their doors to workers the U.S. sends packing.

“As more baby boomers” join the ranks of those who need help, he said, “we might finally understand we need some kind of leadership.”

It’s hard not to be cynical these days, but I’d like to think he’s onto something.

Meanwhile, I’m following leads and working different angles on this topic. If you’re having trouble finding or paying for care, or if you’re on the front lines as a provider, I’m hoping you will drop me a line.

[email protected]

May 30 (UPI) — Legal status in the United States can be lawfully revoked for more than a combined 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The court only issued an unsigned dissenting opinion acknowledging the federal government can move ahead with its Termination of Parole Process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, commonly referred to as CHNV.

In March, President Donald Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security to revoke the legal status of 532,000 migrants under sponsorship programs, primarily from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The migrants were granted legal protected status under former President Joe Biden‘s administration, a program Trump has attempted to wind down amid legal challenges.

A federal judge in Massachusetts last month granted a temporary order blocking Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem from revoking previously-granted parole to the protected migrants.

Earlier this month, Trump asked the Supreme Court to intervene and allow the government to remove protected status.

On Thursday, Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ordered the Trump administration to restart processing applications under the migrant program.

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling returns the issue to the lower courts, giving the Department of Homeland Security the ability to stop processing extension requests from migrants with current legal protections under CHNV while the legal process plays out.

“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending,” the unsigned dissenting opinion states.

Two of the high court’s liberal judges, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the majority.

“Even if the Government is likely to win on the merits, in our legal system, success takes time and the stay standards require more than anticipated victory. I would have denied the Government’s application because its harm-related showing is patently insufficient. The balance of the equities also weighs heavily in respondents’ favor. While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize-not maximize-harm to litigating parties,” the dissenting opinion states.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled in a similar fashion when it allowed the Trump administration to revoke special legal protections for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living in the United States temporarily.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers this week condemned the Trump administration’s termination of humanitarian protections that have left a 4-year-old girl who is receiving critical medical treatment in Los Angeles vulnerable to deportation and death.

On Tuesday, The Times published the story of S.G.V., who has short bowel syndrome — a rare condition that prevents her body from completely absorbing nutrients. She and her parents received temporary permission to enter the U.S. legally through Tijuana in 2023.

In a letter Thursday to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, 38 congressional Democrats, including California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, urged her to reconsider the termination of the family’s legal status.

“We believe this family’s situation clearly meets the need for humanitarian aid and urge you and this Administration to reconsider its decision,” the lawmakers wrote. “It is our duty to protect the sick, vulnerable, and defenseless.”

Last month, S.G.V.’s family, who now live in Bakersfield, received notice from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that their status had been terminated and that they had to leave the country immediately. Earlier this month, they applied again for humanitarian protections.

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that the family is not actively in the deportation process and that their application is still being considered.

The girl’s physician, Dr. John Arsenault of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, wrote in a letter requested by her family that any interruption in her daily nutrition system “could be fatal within a matter of days.”

The story about S.G.V. drew swift public outcry. An online fundraiser for the girl’s care had amassed nearly $26,000 as of Thursday morning.

The letter to Noem was led by Reps. Luz Rivas (D-North Hollywood) and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles). Rivas said state legislators and constituents messaged her about the family, asking what she could do to help.

While the family lives outside of Rivas’ district, which encompasses the north-central San Fernando Valley, she said it is her role as a California Democrat and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to speak up for immigrant constituents in districts where Republican representatives may not do so.

“That’s why we’re organizing as members of Congress,” Rivas said. “Without action from Secretary Noem and this administration, this little girl will die within days.”

In a post on X, Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) called the situation “heartbreaking.” Seeking to deport the girl despite her medical condition is “cruel and inexcusable,” Chu added.

In another X post, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) wrote: “Trump wants to deport a four-year-old who could die from a life-threatening medical condition if her treatment is interrupted. How does this cruelty make us a stronger nation?”

The family and their attorneys held a news conference Wednesday at the Koreatown office of the pro bono firm, Public Counsel. The lawyers explained that the equipment administered by the hospital to S.G.V. for home use is not available outside the U.S.

“If they deport us and they take away my daughter’s access to specialized medical care, she will die,” said Deysi Vargas.

Attorneys for the family noted that S.G.V. is not the only child affected in recent months by the Trump administration’s immigration policies. In an attempt to speed up arrests and deportations, they said, children are needlessly being swept up in the process.

Gina Amato Lough, directing attorney at Public Counsel, said the girl’s case “is a symbol of the recklessness of this administration’s deportation policies.”

“We’re seeing a pattern of cruelty and a violation of our most treasured rights and values,” said Amato Lough. “These are people coming to us for protection, and instead we’re sending them to die. That’s not justice, and it doesn’t make us any safer.”

The intricate and multifaceted matters of normative relations among the nations of the Northeast Asian countries, even though they are entangled in specific issues stemming from territorial disputes, challenge a well-established norm and order of diplomatic relations. One of the problems is the matter of Dokdo Island’s ownership, which was disputed by the authorities of South Korea and Japan. With its significant historical and geopolitical implications, this dispute is a key factor in the region’s diplomatic landscape. On the other hand, with another matter of dispute, China and South Korea still have an issue with the overlapping territory of the exclusive economic zone. The problem is currently exacerbated by China’s installation of aquaculture facilities in the Provisional Measures Zone (PMZ), a move that has significantly heightened the tension in the region and underscores the need for resolution. This territory is located off the west coast of the Korean Peninsula, making it a complex challenge to maintain Korea-China’s diplomatic relations.

At the same time, China and Japan confronted another issue similar to the South Korean dispute. Both of them claim the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands. The controversy also concerns the island’s ownership and reflects each country’s historical and cultural perspectives. Japan’s government called the island the Senkaku Islands, while China’s authority named the islands the Diaoyu Islands.

Amid the tariff oppression, which refers to the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese goods by the Trump administration, China has to face two different challenges. In one position, China has to stand against the high-handed Donald Trump’s ruling, which is seen as aggressive and unfair, but in the other position, China also struggles to bring a solution with its nearest neighbor countries in Northeast Asia, where the territorial disputes add a layer of complexity to the already well-established relations.

China’s authority realizes the crucial role of Japan and South Korea, which act as part of the US’s allies in Asia. Their relationship is strategic for the US and makes sense for China, as their connections become part of the US’s long history. This is in stark contrast to China’s past, when it was the US’s opponent during the Korean War. However, China might be letting Japan and Korea connect to the US as allies because they were China’s nearest neighbors in Northeast Asia, which could share and maintain a partnership without causing overwhelming disruptions. The mutual respect and relationship between China, Japan, and South Korea is a beacon of hope, offering a promising and positive outlook for the region’s future.

China and the US, as two economic powerhouses, often find themselves at odds. However, it’s important to note that their relationship is not solely defined by geopolitical tensions. The two countries are deeply intertwined economically, with significant trade and investment ties. This economic interdependence, which is further underscored by their influence in the G20 forum and their status as major trading partners with Korea and Japan, is a complex web that cannot be easily untangled. Despite China’s efforts to diversify its economic relationships, it continues to value the US’ political, legal, and justice systems and its socio-economic structure. The significance of these financial ties cannot be overstated, as they play a crucial role in shaping the geopolitical landscape of Northeast Asia.

Despite the unfortunate geopolitical situation, the Chinese government’s steadfast commitment to resolving the interrelations crisis is unwavering. China’s Foreign Minister Spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, clarified that the construction of the aquaculture facilities, a point of contention, did not violate any previous agreements. The Chinese government’s decision to send its delegation, led by Hong Liang, Director-General of the Department of Boundary and Ocean Affairs of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for in-person dialogue with a South Korean representative is a clear demonstration of this commitment. The recent meeting between Hong Liang and Kang Young-Shin, Director-General for Northeast and Central Asian Affairs at the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 23 April 2025, is a promising step towards potential progress. This progress in the dialogue instills optimism for the future and underscores the potential for a peaceful resolution, providing a ray of hope in an otherwise complex situation.

The dialogue of top government officials presents a pivotal platform for resolving the prolonged standoff initiated by both countries in 2019. The potential for a mutually accepted agreement in the Yellow Sea dispute dialogue is not just a beacon of hope but a realistic possibility that should inspire optimism. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that the outcome of this dialogue may not necessarily mirror the outcome of the Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. The Yellow Sea dispute dialogue, which encompasses territorial claims and maritime rights, remains crucial in Northeast Asian geopolitics.

Nevertheless, the Yellow Sea dialogue’s resolution couldn’t significantly affect how the Japan-South Korean government resolves the entire Dokdo or Takeshima Island dispute. Beyond territorial claims, this dispute symbolizes the intricate historical and cultural relations between Japan and South Korea. Diplomatically, South Korea and Japan have made substantial progress in finding a solution, presenting various evidence and approaches to ensure a fair judgment for both. However, as of the end of 2024, the problem remains in a stalemate without a final resolution. This situation underscores the critical need for a nuanced approach in international relations, where tact and understanding can pave the way for resolution, highlighting the importance of understanding the complexities.

The past geopolitical landscape in Northeast Asia is deeply entrenched in a long and complex history, notably Japan’s occupation of Chinese territory, South Korea, and some Southeast Asian countries. This historical context, with its layers of complexity and depth, is an undeniable part of the current geopolitical landscape. The Chinese can never forget this dark period, even though Japan and China have officially tightened diplomatic relations to construct a prospective and reliable Asia. Similarly, South Korea may never forget what Japan did in the past. Indeed, Koreans have not entirely forgiven what Japan did. This historical backdrop underscores the depth of the issues and the need for a nuanced approach to diplomatic relations in Northeast Asia. It’s not a matter of simple solutions but of understanding the intricate web of history, culture, and politics that shapes these relations. This complexity and depth of the problems in the region necessitate a nuanced approach, making the audience feel the weight of the issues at hand and the importance of understanding the historical and cultural context. Only by understanding this context can we hope to navigate the complexities of Northeast Asian geopolitics.

South Korea is also determined not to be left behind in economic and diplomatic relations with others. Therefore, today, Korea actively seeks intense cooperation with China and Japan regarding global security, trade, and cultural exchange, and fosters candid cultural and financial enhancement. This intense cooperation includes regular high-level diplomatic dialogues, joint security exercises, and collaborative economic initiatives. South Korea recognizes it cannot stand alone without China and Japan, as they are pivotal neighbors in Northeast Asia.

The governments of Northeast Asian countries are acutely aware that the US-China trade war significantly impacts the global economic landscape. This trade war, which has led to economic uncertainties and geopolitical tensions, has also influenced the diplomatic relations and security strategies of countries in the region. Despite the region’s bleak history, it is becoming increasingly clear that the countries in Northeast Asia are not isolated entities but deeply interconnected and interdependent. South Korea’s sustainable diplomatic relations with China and Japan are crucial for its global standing and security. By collaborating with these countries, South Korea can strengthen its position in the international community and ensure its protection in the face of global challenges, including those arising from the US-China trade war. The trade war has forced countries in the region to reassess their economic and security strategies, leading to a more interconnected and interdependent Northeast Asia. This reassessment includes a shift towards diversifying trade partners and strengthening regional security alliances, highlighting the region’s adaptability and resilience in the face of global challenges.

Northeast Asian interdependence underscores the need for peaceful and constructive relations among these countries and their collective influence on the worldwide community. The economic and diplomatic ties between South Korea, China, and Japan are not just about mutual benefits and shared security and prosperity in the region but also about the potential for increased economic growth and enhanced security. This collaboration offers reassurance about the potential benefits of these ties and the collective strength they can bring, reassuring the audience about the future and the positive outcomes that can be achieved through such cooperation.

Disclaimer: The Author wishes to reiterate that this article reflects his views and does not represent any institution. He also wants to emphasize that he takes personal responsibility for the content and accuracy of the information in this article, and any decision made based on this information is the reader’s responsibility.

US Supreme Court lets Trump terminate Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela.

Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court has enabled the administration of President Donald Trump to revoke the protected immigration status of about 350,000 Venezuelans.

The top court’s justices issued a brief order on Monday, granting the administration’s request for lifting the suspension that had been placed by a lower court in March.

In February, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem terminated a 2023 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuelans that had been issued by the administration of former President Joe Biden.

TPS is a programme that shields noncitizens already in the US on a temporary basis from deportation and allows them to seek a work permit if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deems their home country to be unsafe to return to.

Millions of people have fled Venezuela in recent years due to political repression and a crippling economic crisis spurred in part by US sanctions against the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

The Supreme Court did not elaborate on why it sided with the Trump administration on Monday. The ruling simply added that liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson “would deny” the government’s request.

The DHS had argued that TPS designations are not subject to judicial review.

Noem had declared the 2023 designation for Venezuela “contrary to the national interest”, citing gang membership and “adverse effects on US workers”. However, she kept a previous TPS issued for Venezuelans in place.

DHS welcomed the ruling on Monday, saying without evidence that the Biden administration granted TPS to “gang members” and “known terrorists and murderers”.

“The Trump Administration is reinstituting integrity into our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe,” the agency said in a social media post.

Several Democrats described the push to deport Venezuelans – part of a border immigration crackdown – as cruel, rejecting the Trump administration’s allegation that people under the TPS designation are criminals and “terrorists”.

“Venezuelans face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and torture,” Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal said in a statement.

“Poverty levels are surging, and essentials like electricity, water and medical care are scarce. The dire circumstances in Venezuela make it clear that this is exactly the type of situation that requires the government to provide TPS.”

May 19 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to revoke special legal protections for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living in the United States temporarily.

Homeland Security had asked the justices to lift a lower court’s injunction that blocked Secretary Kristi Noem’s revocations of the Temporary Protected Status program, or TPS.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she would deny emergency relief.

The brief order said Northern California district court order is “stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.”

The TPS program, created in 1990, provides temporary legal status and work authorization to nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions.

On Feb. 3, Noem terminated the designation, which began in March 2021 and was extended by the Biden administration in October 2023. On April 7, protected Venezuelans were to lose their government-issued work permits and deportation protections.

Another 250,000 immigrants from the Central American country who arrived before 2023 will lose their status in September.

In all, about eight million people have left Venezuela since 2014 due to political persecution, violence, and a lack of food and access to essential services. In 2023, Nicolás Maduro was elected in a race contested as fraudulent by the opposition and outside observers.

The Venezuelan program is the largest TPS designation.

At least 60 days before a TPS designation expires, the agency’s secretary is required to review the conditions in a country designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions supporting the designation continue to be met.

On March 30, District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco blocked the action and said the decision to terminate the TPS program for the Venezuelans appeared to be “predicated on negative stereotypes.” The appointee of President Barack Obama said the order was “motivated by unconstitutional animus” and unlikely to prevail in a court’s final decision.

On April 15, Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, also appointed by Obama, separately temporarily blocked a TPS revocation of about 532,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela in the United States. It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the administration’s emergency appeal of the decision by Chen: “So long as the order is in effect, the secretary must permit hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so is ‘contrary to the national interest.'”

Seven Venezuelan nationals covered by TPS and a group that represents others challenged the change.

Lawyers for TPS beneficiaries told the Supreme Court in a filing: “Staying the district court’s order would cause far more harm than it would stop. It would radically shift the status quo, stripping plaintiffs of their legal status and requiring them to return to a country the State Department still deems too dangerous even to visit.”

The U.S. State Department advises Americans not to travel to Venezuela, the highest travel advisory level.

At the end of Trump’s first term, officials described Venezuela as “the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere.” A different form of temporary relief to some of its migrants was granted.

This litigation is separate from lawsuits involving Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The Supreme Court ruled Friday again against the administration, saying more notice is needed for people to challenge their removal under the act, which has been used during wars. In April, the justices paused deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Trump administration may seek to deport nearly 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted “temporary protected status” under the Biden administration to live and work in the United States.

In a brief order, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside the decision of a federal judge in San Francisco who had blocked the repeal announced by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to deny the appeal.

Trump’s lawyers said the law gave the Biden administration the discretion to grant temporary protection to Venezuelans, but also gave the new administration the same discretion to end it.

The court’s decision does not involve the several hundred Venezuelans who were held in Texas and targeted for speedy deportation to El Salvador because they were alleged to be gang members. The justices blocked their deportation until they were offered a hearing.

But it will strip away the legal protection for an estimated 350,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2023 and could not return home because of the “severe humanitarian” crisis created by the regime of Nicolas Maduro. An additional 250,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2021 remain protected until September.

“This is an abuse of the emergency docket,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor who is representing the Venezuelan beneficiaries of the temporary protected status, or TPS.

He added: “It would be preposterous to suggest there’s something urgent about the need to strip immigration status of several hundred thousand people who have lived here for years.”

It was one of two special authorities used by the Biden administration that face possible repeal now.

Last week, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to also revoke the special “grant of parole” that allowed 532,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States on personally financed flights.

A judge in Boston blocked Noem’s repeal of the parole authority.

The Biden administration granted the TPS under a 1990 law. It said the U.S. government may extend relief to immigrants who cannot return home because of an armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Shortly before leaving office, Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s Homeland Security secretary, extended the TPS for the Venezuelans for 18 months.

While nationals from 17 countries qualify for TPS, the largest number from any country are Venezuelans.

The Trump administration moved quickly to reverse course.

“As its name suggests,” TPS provides “temporary — not permanent — relief to aliens who cannot safely return to their homes,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal last week.

Shortly after she was confirmed, Noem said the special protection for the Venezuelans was “contrary to the national interest.”

She referred to them as “dirtbags.” In a TV interview, she also claimed that “Venezuela purposely emptied out their prisons, emptied out their mental health facilities and sent them to the United States of America.”

The ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California and the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law filed suit in San Francisco. Their lawyers argued the conditions in Venezuela remain extremely dangerous.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen agreed and blocked Noem’s repeal order from taking effect nationwide. He said the “unprecedented action of vacating existing TPS” was a “step never taken by any administration.”

He ruled Noem’s order was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it did not offer a reasoned explanation for the change in regulations. It was also “motivated by unconstitutional animus,” he said.

The judge also found that tens of thousands of American children could be separated from their parents if the adults’ temporary protected status were repealed.

When the 9th Circuit Court refused to lift the judge’s temporary order, the solicitor general appealed to the Supreme Court on May 1.

Last week, the State Department reissued an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately or to “prepare a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries and/or power of attorney.”

“Do not travel to or remain in Venezuela due to the high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure,” the advisory states.

Trump’s lawyers downplayed the impact of a ruling lifting TPS. They told the justices that none of the plaintiffs is facing immediate deportation.

Each of them “will have the ability to challenge on an individual basis whether removal is proper — or seek to stay, withhold or otherwise obtain relief from any order of removal — through ordinary” immigration courts, he said.

Arulanantham said the effect will be substantial. Many of the beneficiaries have no other protection from deportation. Some have pending applications, such as for asylum. But immigration authorities have begun detaining those with pending asylum claims. Others, who entered within the last two years, could be subject to expedited deportation.

Economic harm would be felt even more immediately, Arulanantham said. Once work permits provided through TPS are invalidated, employers would be forced to let workers go. That means families would be unable to pay rent or feed their children, as well as result in economic losses felt in communities across the country.

Loren Landau, a professor at Oxford University, explains the message the US Trump administration is trying to send to the world by granting some white South Africans refugee status. The first group of 49 people is set to land in Texas on May 12.

May 12 (UPI) — Homeland Security is ending the Temporary Protected Status program for Afghanistan with more than 9,000 nationals residing in the United States facing deportation, Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday.

TPS for them will expire May 20 and the program’s elimination is set for July 12, the federal agency said.

Noem determined that permitting Afghan nationals to remain temporarily in the United States “is contrary to the national interest of the United States,” according to a news release.

“This administration is returning TPS to its original temporary intent,” Noem said. “We’ve reviewed the conditions in Afghanistan with our interagency partners, and they do not meet the requirements for a TPS designation. Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.”

Noem also claimed that the termination aligns with the Trump administration’s efforts to root out fraud in the immigration system.

“The termination furthers the national interest as DHS records indicate that there are recipients who have been under investigation for fraud and threatening our public safety and national security,” Noem said.

The TPS program provides temporary legal status and work authorization to nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.

President Joe Biden initially designated Afghanistan for TPS for 1 1/2 years on May 20, 2022. It was extended another 18 months on Nov. 21, 2023.

The United States completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan on Aug. 30, 2021, ending its 20-year military presence in the country. There was a peace agreement with the Taliban.

At least 60 days before a TPS designation expires, the agency’s secretary is required to review the conditions in a country designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions supporting the designation continue to be met. One month ago, DHS said Afganistan “no longer continues to meet the statutory requirements of its TPS designation.”

Politico reported that the Trump administration considered exempting Christians from the TPS renovation because they face persecution if sent back to the Taliban-controlled country.

Nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions. are given legal status and work authorization.

Refugee rights groups blasted the decision.

“It’s rooted in politics,” Afghan Evac posted on X. “Afghanistan remains under the control of the Taliban. There is no functioning asylum system. There are still assassinations, arbitrary arrests, and ongoing human rights abuses, especially against women and ethnic minorities.

“What the administration has done today is betray people who risked their lives for America, built lives here, and believed in our promises. This policy change won’t make us safer — it will tear families apart, destabilize them, and shred what’s left of our moral credibility.”

The group said it “will fight this with everything we’ve got: in the courts, in Congress, and in the public square. The United States cannot abandon its allies and call that immigration policy.”

Earlier, Trump terminated TPS protections for about 532,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela in the United States.

Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled on April 15 against the Trump administration. It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

Separately, District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco, appointed by President Barack Obama, on March 31 blocked the plan to end the status for 350,000 from Venezuela, and the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. Their status was to end April 7.

Another 250,000 immigrants from the Central American country who arrived before 2023 will lose their status in September.

In 2018, the same judge temporarily blocked the first Trump administration’s decision to end TPS for immigrants from four countries: El Salvador, Haiti, Sudan and Nicaragua.