Syrian

WASHINGTON. April 29 (UPI) — Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot left Haiti in 2010 after a deadly earthquake hit the island nation. As hundreds of thousands of Haitians died in the catastrophe, Miot fled to the United States, where he was granted temporary protected status, a short-term visa program.

Miot, 33, has lived in the States ever since and now researches Alzheimer’s disease in California as a doctoral candidate.

But last year, the Trump administration attempted to revoke his status and send him back to Haiti, along with all other Haitians who had been granted temporary protected status.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Miot’s case, along with a similar case that affects Syrian nationals living under temporary protected status. These legal battles, Trump vs. Miot and Mullin vs. Doe, could decide the future of some 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians living in the United States.

What is TPS?

Temporary protected status began in 1990, enacted as a way to provide foreign nationals relief from war, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Those with temporary protected status are granted legal status for up to 18 month periods, which can be extended based on an evaluation of the safety conditions in the countries they have left behind.

Currently 1.3 million people in the United States — from 17 countries — rely on temporary protected status. The Trump administration has attempted to terminate that status for those from 13 of those nations in the last year, including Afghanistan, Venezuela, South Sudan and Nicaragua.

Lower courts have blocked many of these terminations, deeming them unlawful, and immigrants under temporary protected status have remained in a state of limbo since. The results of these cases could set a legal precedent that would allow the termination of temporary protected status for citizens from these countries, with minimal oversight.

Two questions

Central to Wednesday’s debate were two questions: First, did then Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem follow correct procedure when deciding it would be safe to send people back to Haiti and Syria? Second, did the judicial branch have the legal right to interfere in the secretary’s decisions on temporary protected status?

Noem was criticized for not sufficiently consulting other state agencies when evaluating Haiti and Syria’s safety conditions. She was accused of violating the Administrative Procedures Act. Some Democratic-appointed Justices highlighted brief email exchanges Noem made with the State Department that led her to terminate Haiti and Syria’s status.

In the case of Haiti, she wrote last September to the State Department in an email, “Can you advise on State’s views on the matter?” The State Department simply replied, “State believes there would be no foreign policy concerns with respect to a change in the TPS status of Haiti.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Wednesday questioned whether a “meaningful exchange” of information was made and whether Noem made any effort to actually evaluate the nation’s safety conditions, which is the basis of how temporary protected status is granted.

The government’s attorney, Solicitor General John Sauer, argued that minimal oversight was required of the DHS secretary in these decisions. But Jackson took issue with that, saying it would mean that Noem “can basically do whatever she wants.”

Sauer also vehemently argued that the DHS secretary’s actions should not even be open to judicial review, citing a law that states judges cannot interfere in “any determination with respect to the designation, or termination or extension,” of temporary protected status.

However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded that while the courts can’t challenge the secretary’s ultimate decision, they can question whether the procedures taken to come to those decisions fall within the law.

The immigrants’ attorney, Sotomayor and Jackson all later grilled Sauer on whether the Trump administration’s terminations were racially discriminatory.

Sotomayor and Jackson referenced Trump’s previous hostile rhetoric toward both communities. The justices repeatedly referenced one particular post on Truth Social in which Trump said that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.”

Sotomayor said Trump’s statement showed that “discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Immigrant advocates watched the case closely.

“Certainly the goal of this Trump administration is to make people… immediately vulnerable,” Lucas Guttentag, a Stanford law professor who started the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in an interview.

He said this was part of a much larger campaign to “de-legalize” lawful immigrants and potentially “eviscerate the immigration and asylum protection system covered in this country for decades and generations.”

However, Ira Mehlman, the media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said that many of the immigrants living under temporary protected status had been here far too long.

He said many Haitians arrived 16 years ago. “By no reasonable assessment of the law or English language could you consider that time frame temporary,” he said in an interview.

He added that refugees from many countries, including Haiti and Syria, received temporary protected status because of natural disasters or civil wars that have already ended. So the reason to keep them in the United States has also ended.

“None of them were the Garden of Eden before the earthquake or hurricane … and they’re probably never going to be,” he added.

Kavanaugh echoed this sentiment, saying “The whole thing was the Assad regime was 53 years of brutal treatment and repression. It’s gone.”

Return to literally nothing

Liana Zogbi, a spokesperson from the non-profit Syrian Forum USA, painted a different picture. She said that Syrians would be “returning to literally nothing” should the Supreme Court rule in the government’s favor and Syrians be sent home.

“The majority of the country has been destroyed physically,” she said, explaining that schools, hospitals and even roads are still being rebuilt.

The State Department currently advises U.S. citizens not to travel to Syria “for any reason due to the risk of terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, hostage-taking, crime and armed conflict.”

Haiti is under a similar travel advisory from the State Department, which cites “crime, terrorism, unrest and limited healthcare.” Zogbi said the government would be contradicting itself were it to rule these countries safe for its nationals’ return but not safe enough for U.S. citizens to visit.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants await a decision by the court, which is expected before July.

“Not only does it bring back up … the kind of trauma around instability and destabilizing their lives,” Zogbi said. “They [TPS holders] never know what can happen and how fast they have to leave. They constantly have to make plan A, B, C and D to just kind of prepare for any outcome of a situation.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sounded ready Wednesday to rule that the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that has been granted to more than 1.3 million immigrants from troubled countries.

Congress in 1990 authorized Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for noncitizens who could not safely return home because their native country was wracked by war, violence or natural disasters. If those people passed a strict background check, they could stay and work legally in this country.

But President Trump came to office believing too many immigrants had been granted permission to enter and stay indefinitely.

Last year, his Department of Homeland Security moved to cancel the temporary humanitarian protection for immigrants from 13 countries, including Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Honduras and Nicaragua. Court challenges on behalf of Haitians and Syrians were consolidated into a single case, Mullin vs. Doe, which the justices heard Wednesday.

Immigrant-rights advocates challenged those decisions as political and unjustified, and they won orders from federal judges that blocked the cancellations.

But Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court arguing the judges had overstepped their authority. They pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that bars “judicial review” of the government’s decision to end temporary protection for a particular country.

The justices ruled for the administration and set aside the lower court rulings in a series of 6-3 orders.

Faced with criticism over its brief and unexplained orders, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the TPS issue on the last day of oral arguments for this term.

But the ideological divide appeared to be unchanged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Congress had prohibited “judicial micromanagement” of these decisions, and none of six conservatives disagreed.

UCLA law professor Ahilan T. Arulanantham, representing several thousand Syrians, said the Homeland Security secretary had failed to consult the State Department, which says it is unsafe to travel there.

He said the government “reads the statute like it’s a blank check … to give the secretary the power to expel people who have done nothing wrong.”

Chicago attorney Geoffrey Pipoply, representing more than 350,000 Haitians, said the cancellations were driven by “the president’s racial animus toward non-white immigrants.”

The court’s three liberals argued the administration failed to follow the procedural steps required under the law. But that argument failed to gain traction.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her husband adopted two children from Haiti who are citizens. Like most of the conservatives, she asked few questions during the argument.

Syria has begun its first public trial of former Assad-era officials, with ex-security chief Atef Najib appearing in a courtroom cage over his role in the 2011 Deraa crackdown.

Ex-intelligence officer Amjad Youssef was seen shooting blindfolded civilians in a leaked video.

Syrian authorities have arrested the main suspect accused of the 2013 Tadamon massacre in Damascus, during which at least 41 people were killed.

Amjad Youssef was arrested following a “tightly executed security operation”, the interior ministry said, adding that surveillance and tracking operations were employed for days across the Al-Ghab Plain in Hama.

Footage circulating on social media showed the moment Youssef was arrested. He is seen handcuffed on the floor and then in a vehicle surrounded by security forces, with traces of blood on his face.

An intelligence officer during the leadership of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Youssef was responsible for security operations in southern Damascus during the Syrian uprising. He has been accused of numerous crimes against civilians.

In 2022, a leaked video appeared to show evidence of crimes committed by Syrian forces. Youssef, whose face appeared clearly in the footage, was seen shooting civilians who had been detained and blindfolded, with their hands bound.

A military recruit filmed the incident and leaked the video, date-stamped on the day of the Tadamon massacre – April 16, 2013, after fleeing war-torn Syria.

The release of the video footage triggered an outcry, with some families recognising their relatives being killed in the video.

Youssef went into hiding after the fall of Assad in December 2024.

The Tadamon district was a battlefront between Syrian government forces and opposition forces at that time.

Youssef was trained in military intelligence and rose through the ranks to become an investigator.

Accountability following the massacre

In August 2023, German police arrested Ahmed al-Harmouni, a friend of Youssef, also accused of taking part in the Tadamon massacre, after a three-year investigation in cooperation with the Syrian Centre for Justice and Accountability.

Syria’s new government began a security campaign to pursue figures of the former leadership, while citizens launched a public fundraising campaign to offer a reward to anyone who could find those accused of atrocities, primarily Youssef.

Since then, several suspects of the Tadamon tragedy have been arrested and confessed to the killings.

Human Rights Watch visited the southern Damascus neighbourhood in December 2024, where it found human remains that showed signs consistent with execution and called on the transitional authorities to preserve evidence of war crimes.

Norway is preparing to lift restrictions preventing its $2.2 trillion sovereign wealth fund from investing in government bonds issued by Syria.

The move follows the political transition after the ousting of Bashar al-Assad and the rise of Ahmed al-Sharaa, whose government has been seeking economic recovery and international reintegration after more than a decade of war and sanctions.

At the same time, Norway plans to newly restrict investments in bonds issued by Iran, aligning with ongoing international sanctions.

Policy Shift and Financial Context

The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, the largest in the world, plays a major role in global financial markets. Its investment decisions often influence broader investor behaviour.

The updated policy removes Syria from the exclusion list for government bonds while adding Iran, reflecting changing geopolitical and sanctions dynamics.

Although the fund does not currently hold investments in Middle Eastern government bonds, the policy shift opens the door for future allocations and signals a reassessment of risk and legitimacy.

Geopolitical Significance

Norway’s decision represents a notable step toward Syria’s re-entry into the global financial system. It comes alongside other developments, including the restoration of Syria’s financial links with international institutions after years of isolation.

The move also highlights a divergence in how states are being treated: while Syria is gradually being reintegrated, Iran remains economically isolated due to continued tensions and sanctions.

As one of the world’s most influential sovereign investors, Norway’s stance could encourage other countries and institutions to reconsider their own restrictions on Syria.

Analysis

The decision reflects a broader recalibration of international economic engagement based on political change and shifting strategic priorities. By opening the possibility of investment in Syrian bonds, Norway is signalling cautious confidence in the new government’s direction and stability.

At the same time, the move remains largely symbolic in the short term. The wealth fund has no immediate exposure to Syrian debt, and actual investment will depend on risk assessments, market conditions, and institutional safeguards.

More importantly, the policy underscores how financial tools are increasingly used as instruments of foreign policy. Inclusion or exclusion from global capital markets can legitimise governments, incentivise reforms, or reinforce isolation.

In Syria’s case, gradual financial reintegration could support reconstruction and economic recovery, but it also raises questions about governance, transparency, and long-term stability after years of conflict.

With information from Reuters.

March 30 (UPI) — The chancellor of Germany and president of Syria on Monday said that their goal is for 80% of Syrian refugees who have fled there to return home in the next three years.

With few details offered, Chancellor Friedrich Merz and President Ahmed al-Sharaa set an ambitious goal for the majority of the roughly one million people there who sought asylum from the bloody civil war in Syria, The BBC reported.

Merz and Sharaa met Monday to discuss the return of Syrian refugees, while noting they have been a boon to Germany and are not being kicked out.

“Looking ahead over the next three years — as Sharaa has expressed his hope — around 80% of Syrians currently residing in Germany are expected to return to their home country,” Merz said during a press conference.

Sharaa thanked Merz and the country for welcoming Syrians during the civil war and said the country is “proud that Syrians have learned very quickly how to contribute to society.”

He said that his government is working with the German government to “establish a ‘circular’ migration model” that would allow Syrians to contribute to the reconstruction of Syria without abandoning the lives they have build in Germany.

Sharaa led forces that pushed former Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assd to flee the country in late 2024 after they captured Damascus. His administration is now working to reconstruct and unify the country after 14 years of civil war there.

At the press conference, Merz and Sharaa said that overall conditions in Syria have “fundamentally improved,” a point which German politicians have been debating since the new Syrian president took over, Deutche Weille reported.

Israeli air strikes target army camps in response to alleged attacks on the Druze community in Suwayda on Thursday.

Israel’s military has said it struck Syrian army camps overnight in response to what it claimed were attacks against the Druze community in the south of the country.

“This was in response to yesterday’s events, in which Druze civilians were attacked in the [Suwayda] area,” the Israeli military said in a post on Telegram on Friday.

“The [Israeli military] will not allow harm to come to Druze in Syria and will continue to act for their protection.”

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor reported on Thursday that fighting broke out between government forces and fighters from local tribes against opposing Druze factions in the western countryside of Suwayda.

The fighting began after mortar shells fell on areas under the control of Druze factions.

The shelling later hit residential neighbourhoods in the city of Suwayda, sowing panic and fear among residents, the Syrian Observatory said.

Syria’s state-run SANA news agency did not acknowledge the fighting in Suwayda or the Israeli attack.

Violence first erupted in Suwayda on July 13 between Bedouin tribal fighters and Druze groups.

Government forces were sent in to quell the fighting, but the bloodshed worsened, and Israel carried out strikes on Syrian troops and also bombed the heart of the capital, Damascus, under the pretext of protecting the Druze.

Israel had already pushed deeper into Syrian territory following the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, occupying the buffer zone and saying the 1974 deal with Syria had collapsed.

The latest flare-up between the neighbouring countries comes as war roils the Middle East after the United States and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.

In a speech delivered after the Eid al-Fitr prayers on Friday in Damascus, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa said he is working to keep Syria out of any conflict.

“It is important to remember that Syria has always been an arena of conflict and strife during the past 15 years and before that, but today it is in harmony with all neighbouring countries regionally and internationally,” he said.

He added that Syria stood “in full solidarity with the Arab states”.