Category: News Feeds

Thousands of Afghans living in the United States face an uncertain future after a federal appeals court ruled on July 21, 2025, that the Trump administration can end a humanitarian relief program that provided them work permits and protection from deportation.

The program, temporary protected status, known as TPS, grants legal status to people from certain foreign countries who are already in the U.S. and have fled armed conflict or natural disasters. It’s usually granted for 18 months, with an option of an extension.

About 8,000 Afghans and 7,900 Cameroonians benefiting from this humanitarian protection were affected by the May 2025 decision from the administration to terminate TPS.

Afghans in the U.S. first received TPS in 2022, after the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in late 2021.

The Taliban enforce a repressive interpretation of Islamic law that includes banning women and girls from attending school or working outside their home. The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s and controlled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. They were overthrown after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 but regained control in 2021 after the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces.

In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security extended TPS for Afghans through 2025, as the conditions that triggered the initial designation – namely, armed conflict in Afghanistan – were deemed to be ongoing.

In May 2025, however, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced the termination of TPS for Afghans, stating that Afghanistan no longer poses a threat to the safety of its nationals abroad and that Afghan nationals can safely return to their country.

“We’ve reviewed the conditions in Afghanistan with our interagency partners, and they do not meet the requirements for a TPS designation,” Noem said in May 2025. “Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.”

Most Afghans who have arrived in the U.S. since 2021 share a fear of persecution by the Taliban. That includes people who worked for the former government, advocated for women’s rights or worked with the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

As a migration policy scholar, I believe the cancellation of TPS for these Afghans won’t lead to voluntary repatriation, as the fear of persecution by the Taliban remains a serious concern for many. Instead, it will likely force thousands of people into unlawful residency in the U.S. That, in turn, would not only leave thousands at risk of deportation but limit their employment opportunities in the U.S. and keep them from financially supporting the families they left behind in Afghanistan.

US asylum process

Unlawful U.S. residency can disqualify Afghans from accessing benefits such as Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal program that provides cash assistance and support services to low-income families with children.

For Afghan TPS holders without any other pending legal status – such as asylum claims, for example – the termination also means the loss of work authorization, as their employment authorization document was tied to having TPS. This can cut off thousands of Afghans from financial stability, according to the nonprofit group Global Refuge.

Many Afghans are likely to seek alternative legal pathways to remain in the U.S., most commonly through the already underresourced asylum process. For these people, the outlook looks daunting. Filing an asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services means joining an unprecedented backlog.

At the end of 2024, nearly 1.5 million asylum applications were pending with USCIS, according to the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy organization. Most applicants faced estimated wait times of up to six years for a decision.

Asylum applicants are allowed to remain in the U.S. while their application is pending. And they can apply for work authorization, but only after the asylum application has been pending for at least 150 days. However, the work authorization is not issued until a minimum of 180 days has passed since filing for asylum.

So Afghan nationals applying for asylum following the TPS termination face a mandatory six-month period without legal work authorization. This period can stretch even longer, depending on how long it takes applicants to retain an attorney and complete the complex application process.

Financial lifelines

Like many forcibly displaced populations, Afghans often arrive in the U.S. with extremely limited financial resources.

Forced migration is typically abrupt and unplanned, leaving little opportunity to liquidate assets or withdraw funds. The small amount of cash or valuables that this population manages to carry is often just enough to reach immediate safety.

Against this background, the ability to work is a critical issue for Afghans in the U.S. Most Afghans in the U.S. are also supporting older parents and immediate or extended family members in Afghanistan, according to unpublished research I’m conducting with my colleagues, Proscovia Nabunya and Nhial Tutlam. This makes timely access to legal employment not only a matter of survival for themselves but also a lifeline for loved ones left behind.

TPS was never intended as a long-term solution. And the number of Afghan nationals who held it as their sole legal status in the U.S. was relatively small – estimated at around 8,000 – compared with the over 180,000 Afghans who have arrived in the U.S. since 2021.

What is more concerning for Afghans in the U.S., however, are the government’s assertions surrounding the termination of TPS for this group. If the U.S. government now maintains that Afghanistan is safe for return, it raises concerns about how this stance may influence the adjudication of Afghan asylum claims.

Although most Afghan asylum applications are grounded in a combination of factors – fears based on nationality, ethnicity, religion and political opinion – labeling Afghanistan as safe for return could undermine claims that rely on nationality as a central basis for protection.

Mitra Naseh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Sanctuary cities in the United States, which limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, have drawn the ire of President Donald Trump during both of his administrations.

Border czar Tom Homan said in July 2025 that the Trump administration would target sanctuary cities across the country and “flood the zone” with agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to pursue deportation goals.

I am a historian of migration. I have found that the concept of sanctuary takes many forms, from gestures of kindness and advocacy to more formal approaches such as churches protecting migrants at risk of arrest and deportation.

In the U.S., sanctuary city policies have historically been designed to support undocumented immigrants and refugees, especially those facing deportation. Ordinances based on these policies are often used by local authorities to signal the need for substantive immigration reform.

New public sanctuary policies

Today’s sanctuary practices, and the federal targeting of sanctuary cities, are largely the result of the way sanctuary took shape across the U.S. in the 1980s.

During this period, churches, city officials and activists assisted migrants fleeing the violent conditions created by U.S. proxy wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

In the early 1980s, migrants arriving in the U.S. confronted restrictive asylum processes. To a large extent, this was the result of the Reagan administration’s refusal to acknowledge the extent of human rights violations perpetrated by U.S.-supported regimes in Central America.

In 1984, the federal government approved less than 3% of U.S. asylum claims by applicants who had fled El Salvador and Guatemala. By comparison, asylum claims were approved for over 30% – and in some cases, 60% – of refugees from Iran, Afghanistan and Poland.

In response, U.S. activists and church and city leaders began to advocate on behalf of refugees from Central America. They sought to effect change at home and abroad, eventually coalescing into what became known as the Sanctuary Movement.

This largely decentralized coalition focused on protecting refugees by providing safe housing, often in churches, and advocating for their right to seek asylum. And they engaged in public outreach to raise awareness about the conditions in Central America and the U.S. government’s role in conflicts there.

The goal was to change U.S. policy. As one sanctuary worker in Texas said in 1985, according to accounts compiled at the Benson Latin American Collection at the University of Texas at Austin: “Sanctuary offers a way, by which folks can, number one, be safe from the fear of death, and, number two, speak out as to what is really going on in Central America.”

The Sanctuary Movement also led to organized visits to the U.S.-Mexico border to witness the ways in which migrants were being treated by U.S. immigration officials. In Texas between 1983 and 1985, for instance, people were invited to document the activities of immigration officials at Port Isabel Detention Center.

Members of the Sanctuary Movement also shared some of the horrors they learned about from missionaries and refugees arriving from Central America, according to accounts in the Benson Latin American Collection.

As a member of the Rio Grande Border Witness group conveyed, according to records preserved in the Benson Latin American Collection, there were repeated stories out of Central America “of women being raped and stabbed” and “of fathers being murdered in front of their families.”

As awareness about violence in Central America increased, more people and congregations in the U.S. became involved in the Sanctuary Movement. At its peak in 1986, the movement included 300 churches that endorsed sanctuary for Central American migrants and the principles underpinning the Sanctuary Movement.

Public and symbolic

It was during this peak that U.S. cities first began making sanctuary declarations and later passed binding ordinances.

In 1985, Berkeley, California, which had previously declared itself a sanctuary city for conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War, made one of the first sanctuary city declarations on behalf of refugees from Central America. Its resolution reaffirmed the city’s “support for the principle of sanctuary and for those groups which engage in this time-honored tradition of humanitarian assistance.”

City officials said that no city employee would “violate the established sanctuaries by assisting in investigations, public or clandestine, by engaging in or assisting with arrests for alleged violation of immigration laws by the refugees in the sanctuaries or by those offering sanctuary.”

Cities such as San Francisco and Santa Fe, New Mexico, followed with declarations or binding ordinances. These initiatives were often specifically crafted for migrants from Central America and contained critiques of U.S. foreign policy and asylum policy.

A 1989 San Francisco ordinance, which is still in effect, was inspired by the notion that the U.S. had special obligations to the citizens of El Salvador and Guatemala because of its role in the conflicts there.

There was powerful rhetoric and symbolism in the sanctuary city resolutions passed in the 1980s. This holds true for the present, as sanctuary declarations and policies have become increasingly polarizing in today’s political climate.

Moreover, as I note in my own work, public acts of sanctuary can come at a cost, often at the expense of the very people they are meant to help. In an effort to raise public awareness and sympathy, those in need of refuge often have their most harrowing moments laid bare for public consumption.

The Sanctuary Movement that began in the 1980s, in part to protest U.S. support for repressive governments, has endured for more than 40 years as an expression of concern for and solidarity with immigrants who come to the U.S.

The question now is how the movement will evolve in the face of the Trump administration’s threats.

Some sanctuary city leaders, such as Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, have responded by pointing to the value of policies that foster community trust and help keep all residents safe. How other leaders and communities respond remains to be seen.

Laura Madokoro receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Fonds de Recherches de Québec Société et Culture (FRQSC).

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Pressure is mounting on Republicans in Indiana to take up redistricting ahead of the midterms, with both White House officials privately pressuring lawmakers and a mysterious group urging voters to call their elected officials in support of it.

White House Intergovernmental Affairs Director Alex Meyer in his personal capacity has called several lawmakers in the state pressing them to redistrict, according to a person familiar with the calls granted anonymity to discuss them.

One lawmaker said to have received a call declined to comment.

The White House is also inviting Indiana Republicans to a meeting in Washington, according to invitations reviewed by POLITICO. More than four dozen — including the state House speaker and Senate president — have agreed to attend and two have declined, according to a Republican close to the White House.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The calls are part of its broader strategy to use redistricting in order to gain an advantage in the midterms and help Republicans cling to their small House majority.

It’s not just the White House that’s amping up the pressure. MAGA faithfuls, like influencer Charlie Kirk, have also been telling Indiana lawmakers to get on board. In a recent post on X, Kirk asked if Indiana state officials are “going to ignore President Trump, the majority of their voters, and the GOP Grassroots across the country by REFUSING to redistrict Indiana’s Congressional Seats? Let’s hope they are better than that!”

At the same time, a recent robocall received by a POLITICO reporter living in Indiana accuses Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Kathy Hochul of New York of using redistricting with a goal of “ending the Trump presidency” and urges listeners to call GOP state Rep. David Hall and tell him to back the effort.

“We can stop these radicals by doing our own redistricting here in Indiana,” the call said.

The call went to residents of the district of Republican State Rep. Danny Lopez, who came out against redistricting. The narrator identifies the call as paid for by Forward America. There is little public information about the group.

Lopez declined to comment.

The intensive public and private pressure comes as Newsom pushes forward with his plan to offset the potential five-seat gain for Republicans in Texas. The Texas state legislature has been at a standstill since Democratic lawmakers left to prevent the state House from reaching quorum to pass the map. Abbott called a second special session on Friday, and Democratic lawmakers have indicated they are willing to return soon.

“Trump is playing for keeps this time,” said an Indiana GOP official allied with Trump’s efforts granted anonymity to speak freely. “And I don’t think they understand that.”

“Those guys frankly have not felt the slightest iota of the pressure that might be coming down the bend if they oppose Trump on this,” the person added.

​Politics

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott immediately called another special session to pass a new congressional map, after the first attempt failed due to Texas Democrats leaving the state to deny Republicans the ability to carve out additional GOP seats.

When Speaker Dustin Burrows gaveled into the second special session, which began just two hours after the first one wrapped, he announced that the chamber yet again did not meet quorum, thanks to Democrats remaining out of state to protest the redraw. President Donald Trump ordered Texas Republicans to extract five more seats in Congress to increase the odds that Republicans retain the House in the midterms.

Abbott’s proclamation was largely the same as the first one, which lays out 19 agenda items, including redistricting and disaster relief for Central Texas flood victims.

“Delinquent House Democrats ran away from their responsibility to pass crucial legislation to benefit the lives of Texans,” the Republican governor said in a statement. “We will not back down from this fight. That’s why I am calling them back today to finish the job.”

Most Texas Democrats on the lam are stationed in Illinois but the stalemate appears to be winding down, with the House Democratic Caucus setting conditions for their return.

Burrows said he expects the House will reach quorum on Monday — and sent members in attendance home for the weekend. But he warned out-of-state Democrats that if they returned to Texas before session resumes next week, they would be subject to civil arrest by state law enforcement.

“Those who have refused to make quorum, I’m sure you’re missing home,” Burrows said. “Do not think you have permission to return to Texas and enjoy a peaceful weekend before finally showing up to work.”

​Politics

With help from Amira McKee

THE FINAL STRAW? Construction executive Erden Arkan must not have friends in the Trump administration like Mayor Eric Adams does. So while the Department of Justice moved to dismiss the mayor’s case, the wheels of justice kept turning for Arkan.

The Turkish-American co-owner of KSK Construction Group was given a light sentence of one year probation today in Manhattan federal court. He’ll also pay a $9,500 fine and $18,000 in restitution after pleading guilty in January to giving 10 employees $1,250 each to donate to Adams’ campaign.

But even while accepting that he broke New York City campaign finance laws, Arkan’s lawyer Jonathan Rosen presented him as a victim of “an unprecedented act of prosecutorial discretion,” suggesting that federal prosecutors with the Southern District of New York wanted to salvage some sort of a win following the tumult and rounds of resignations over the dismissal of Adams’ case.

Rosen also suggested Arkan’s case never should have been brought in federal court in the first place, arguing he was “targeted… to serve some greater end in a bureaucratic power struggle over the Adams case.”

While an official from the Turkish consulate helped coordinate Arkan’s May 2021 fundraising event for Adams, Rosen said that Arkan “never had any knowledge of foreign interference” alleged by federal prosecutors. He maintained that neither the Adams campaign nor the Turkish consulate knew about Arkan’s straw donor scheme, which he’d cooked up himself.

Judge Dale Ho dismissed the arguments. While he conceded “it is true that there is some incongruency between the government’s handling of Mr. Arkan’s case and Mayor Adams’ case,” he was firm that “there is not a shred of evidence in the record” indicating that the prosecutors acted wrongly prosecuting Arkan.

Another related case hasn’t been resolved yet. Former Adams aide Mohamed Bahi pleaded guilty Tuesday to helping to organize a separate straw donor scheme for Adams’ 2021 campaign.

While Adams himself hasn’t been accused of coordinating straw donations, the practice has been a serious problem for his campaign. Adams’ old friend Dwayne Montgomery pleaded guilty last year along with other co-conspirators to giving Adams illegal donations, and THE CITY has reported on numerous examples of more apparent straw donations to Adams.

Rep. Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor, told Playbook earlier this week that this wasn’t an ideal outcome for Adams’ case.

“As a prosecutor, I never liked when, ultimately, the only people held accountable for their crimes were the lower level people,” he said. “But under the circumstances, when you’ve charged someone and there’s a legitimate reason to charge that person, the right thing to do is to finish off the case.” — Jeff Coltin

LET’S ALL GO TO THE (ASSEMBLY) LOBBY: New York moviegoers might soon have an easier time skipping the increasingly lengthy block of advertisements and trailers shown before the film starts, if a bill introduced this week becomes law.

Assemblymember Clyde Vanel wants to require theaters to display the time a movie actually starts when promoting showings or selling tickets. His proposal comes as movies increasingly start as much as half an hour after the advertised time.

“For the consumer, this can have a real monetary and social impact,” he wrote in his memo accompanying the bill. “Consumers not only may leave obligations earlier than they needed to in order to see the motion picture, but they may also consume their snacks purchased at the theater prior to the movie beginning.”

“There is no justification for deceiving consumers,” he wrote, especially since moviegoers “cannot bring their own snacks to eat if they consumed their purchased snacks within the extremely long 30-minute preview period.”

The bill would not apply to broadcasts of the Assembly session — where starting within half an hour of the scheduled time would be a major improvement. — Bill Mahoney

NO ‘SHOOK ONES’: Queens Borough President Donovan Richards pledged today to help turn out Black voters for Zohran Mamdani in November, evoking both Martin Luther King Jr. and Mobb Deep in his enthusiastic endorsement.

The Democratic mayoral nominee’s policies — including a rent freeze and free and fast buses — are common sense, not socialism, Richards said in the borough that he and Mamdani both call home. Richmond Hill, Queens was the last stop of Mamdani’s “Five Boroughs Against Trump” tour.

“Count me in as a democratic socialist if it means that everyday New Yorkers will be able to afford this city,” Richards said, adding that civil rights icon King “was called a socialist and communist as well” and referencing hip-hoppers Mobb Deep by boasting that there are no “shook ones” in the borough, a reference to the group’s hit song. Richards had previewed his endorsement of Mamdani a day earlier.

One of Mamdani’s biggest weak spots electorally has been politically moderate Black voters in areas like southeast Queens. And while he now has Richards as a surrogate, Queens Democratic Party leader Rep. Greg Meeks has yet to endorse him. (A Meeks spokesperson did not respond today to a query on whether the House member plans to meet with Mamdani.)

Mamdani’s support in the primary was stronger in parts of the city that are heavily gentrified. Southeast Queens includes neighborhoods that have resisted being priced out.

Mamdani acknowledged the critical balance between creating homes for new residents without pushing out longer-term residents.

“One of the many things I appreciate about the borough president is how he has been able to chart a course of building more housing (though) not at the expense of displacing those who already live there,” he said. — Emily Ngo

SEX WORK DEBATE: Andrew Cuomo went on the offensive today over Mamdani’s past support for state legislation that would decriminalize sex work in New York.

The former governor said in a statement that he spent years fighting iterations of the bill over concerns it would lead to an increase in sex trafficking and exploitation of vulnerable New Yorkers.

“Mark my words: This is the real world and if passed, this legislation will open the floodgates,” Cuomo said in the statement. “Mamdani may not remember the bad old days of New York City, where Times Square was seedy and crime infested and New Yorkers knew which neighborhoods to avoid at all costs. We do, and no one should be eager to return to that era.”

Cuomo’s stance was backed by Sonia Ossorio, executive director at National Organization for Women New York City. Ossorio has previously criticized Mamdani’s position on decriminalization.

“Full decriminalization doesn’t protect vulnerable people — it expands a market that thrives on exploitation, human trafficking, and crime in our neighborhoods,” she said in a statement.

Mamdani twice co-sponsored a bill that would decriminalize sex work and clear past arrest records related to prostitution while still allowing law enforcement to go after trafficking operations.

Campaign spokesperson Dora Pekec declined to say whether Mamdani still supports the concept and whether he would advocate for the legislation from City Hall if elected. But she noted that the Democratic nominee has pledged additional resources to assist victims of prostitution and sex trafficking.

“While Andrew Cuomo is only interested in ‘governing’ behind a phone screen, Zohran is committed to genuine public safety, including combatting sex trafficking,” Pekec said in a statement that referenced a new department Mamdani plans to create. “His Department of Community Safety will invest $40 million towards victims services including for programs like Safe Horizon, for which funding has been cut in past budgets.”

The issue of whether to decriminalize sex work has been the subject of heated debate over the years. Organizations like DecrimNY, a coalition of sex workers and various organizations aligned with the decriminalization movement, argue the changes would make sex workers safer by allowing them to report violence or unsafe working conditions to authorities without fear of arrest while delivering more autonomy to consenting adults. — Joe Anuta 

CANNABIS REGULATORS SUED AGAIN: A dozen cannabis dispensary licensees are suing the state over a flip-flop on the cannabis agency’s interpretation of the state’s 2021 legalization law.

“The consequences are staggering. Petitioners’ investments, often more than a million dollars, are now at risk” the petition reads. “Their livelihoods are being threatened.”

The petitioners are licensed under the Conditional Adult-use Retail Dispensary (CAURD) and Social and Economic Equity (SEE) licensing programs, which prioritize entrepreneurs with past cannabis convictions, women and minorities.

The legal challenge seeks to block regulators from enforcing a new interpretation of school distance requirements in the state’s cannabis legalization law, which would force licensees out of their dispensary locations that had been previously approved by the agency.

Agency about-face: Earlier this month, the Office of Cannabis Management notified more than 100 licensees that their dispensary locations could be impacted due to the agency’s misinterpretation of state law.

The licensees are asking the court to annul the agency’s new interpretation of the law, declare their locations compliant and block the state from taking any enforcement actions against them over the school distance requirement.

A spokesperson for the OCM said that the office does not comment on pending litigation.

The agency is proposing a legislative fix that would allow licensees to remain in their locations, but emphasized on its website that passing such legislation “is not a guarantee.” The state is also creating an $15 million applicant relief fund for up to $250,000 per applicant to help find new locations. — Mona Zhang

—26 FED PLAZA: As fewer immigrants show up for their court hearings, arrests at 26 Federal Plaza’s immigration courthouses are nearing a standstill. (THE CITY)

— GOV. CLEMENCY: Hochul pardoned a Laotian immigrant Friday to stop his deportation. (The New York Times)

— CUT THE CHECK: Progressive Democrats in the New York Legislature are decrying Hochul’s $2 billion rebate program as fiscally irresponsible amid looming federal cuts. (Gothamist)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics