top of page
Shasta Unfiltered FF-01_edited.png

SHASTA

Serving the North State with Honest News and Entertainment

UNFILTERED

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Youtube

Trump Administration to End TPS for Somalis

Somali men in Cedar - Riverside, Minneapolis, MN - image www.foxnews.com
Somali men in Cedar - Riverside, Minneapolis, MN - image www.foxnews.com

In a move that underscores the Trump administration's stance on immigration, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on January 13, 2026, the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalia. This humanitarian program, which has protected Somali nationals from deportation since 1991 due to ongoing civil war, instability, and humanitarian crises, will officially expire on March 17, 2026. The decision affects an estimated 2,471 to 2,500 Somali TPS holders, many of whom have built lives in the U.S. over decades, raising families and contributing to local economies. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem justified the termination by citing improvements in Somalia's security conditions, allowing for safe relocation within the country, and emphasized that TPS is meant to be temporary—not a pathway to permanent residency.


This announcement comes on the heels of staggering fraud claims in Minnesota with deep ties to the Somali population there. It also aligns with President Trump's broader immigration agenda, which includes revoking protections for other groups and cracking down on what the administration views as overuse of temporary programs. Critics, however, argue that Somalia remains fraught with dangers from al-Shabaab terrorism, famine, and displacement, making returns perilous. The termination provides a 60-day wind-down period, during which Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) remain valid, but after March 17, affected individuals must depart or adjust their status if eligible—such as through asylum or family petitions. This policy shift has already sparked immediate reactions, including protests in Somali-heavy communities, and sets the stage for a contentious legal and social battle.


Likely Court Challenges: A History of Judicial Roadblocks

While the administration's decision is framed as a straightforward application of TPS's temporary nature, immigration experts and advocates predict swift legal challenges that could delay or derail the termination. Historical precedents from Trump's first term provide strong indications of judicial intervention. For instance, attempts to end TPS for countries like El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan were repeatedly blocked by federal judges, who ruled that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by making "arbitrary and capricious" decisions. Courts found that the agency ignored substantial evidence of ongoing dangers, focusing instead on selective improvements, and failed to adequately justify the terminations.


More recent rulings bolster this outlook. In December 2025, a federal judge halted TPS terminations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua, citing racially inflammatory statements by Trump officials that suggested bias in the process. Similarly, in September 2025, efforts to end protections for Haitians and Venezuelans were deemed unlawful due to insufficient analysis of country conditions and procedural lapses, such as inadequate Federal Register notices. Advocacy groups like the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) and African Communities Together have successfully obtained emergency stays in analogous cases, including for South Sudan and Myanmar in late 2025.


In the Somali context, potential lawsuits could argue that DHS overlooked persistent threats—such as al-Shabaab attacks and a famine impacting millions—while Trump's past derogatory comments about Somalis (e.g., calling them "garbage") might fuel claims of discriminatory intent. Media reports and expert analyses, including from the Congressional Research Service, note that over 80% of prior Trump-era TPS terminations faced delays or injunctions. On platforms like X, users anticipate "activist" judges issuing nationwide injunctions, with speculation of challenges emerging imminently. Procedural issues, like the potentially shortened notice period, further heighten the likelihood of court involvement, especially in immigrant-friendly circuits such as the Ninth Circuit, which covers areas like San Jose, California.


Likelihood of Trump Administration Being Sustained

Despite the strong prospects for initial court interventions, there is a reasonable likelihood that the Trump administration's decision could ultimately be sustained on appeal, particularly given shifts in the judicial landscape and the administration's strategic preparations. Unlike the first Trump term, where lower courts frequently issued broad injunctions, recent Supreme Court rulings have curtailed the use of nationwide stays, emphasizing that challenges should be limited in scope. The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court, bolstered by Trump appointees, has shown deference to executive authority on immigration matters, as seen in decisions upholding travel bans and border policies.


DHS's rationale—focusing on Somalia's stabilized government areas and the program's temporary intent—aligns with statutory requirements under the Immigration and Nationality Act, potentially making it defensible if evidence of improvements holds up. Supporters argue that past blocks were often overturned or mooted on higher review, and the administration may fast-track appeals to sympathetic circuits or the Supreme Court. Moreover, ongoing ICE operations, such as the "Operation Metro Surge" deploying 2,000 agents to Minnesota, demonstrate enforcement readiness, which could pressure courts to avoid prolonged delays amid public safety claims tied to alleged fraud in Somali communities.


Political momentum also favors upholding: Congressional Republicans have introduced bills like H.R. 6946 to reform TPS, signaling legislative support. If challenges drag on, the administration could leverage executive tools to proceed with removals in uncontested areas, reducing the practical impact of injunctions. Analysts estimate a 50-60% chance of ultimate sustainment, based on recent immigration case outcomes, though this depends on the strength of evidence presented in court.


Conclusion:

The termination of TPS for Somalis marks a flashpoint in U.S. immigration debates, blending enforcement priorities with humanitarian concerns. As courts weigh in and enforcement ramps up, the coming months will test the balance between temporary relief and long-term integration. Affected individuals in areas like Minnesota, Ohio and California should consult US Citizenship and Immigration Service or legal aid for options, while policymakers grapple with the broader implications of this move.



Sources:

bottom of page