News

📰 Judge blocks Trump administration from ending TPS for Syrians

📅 November 20, 2025
🕒 6:19 AM
👁️ 23 Views
🌐 External Source
Ad Space 728×90

📍 Breaking News: This article covers the latest developments. Stay informed with comprehensive coverage.

QAMISHLI, syria/" class="auto-internal-link">syria (North Press) – A U. S. federal judge halted on Wednesday the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and work permits for more than 6,100 syrians, ruling that the administration had likely acted unlawfully in seeking to end the relief protections. U. S.

District Judge Katherine Polk Failla in Manhattan granted a preliminary injunction after seven syrian/" class="auto-internal-link">syrian migrants filed a lawsuit to prevent the policy from taking effect on Friday. Indeed, the judge stated the Department of Homeland security (DHS) failed to follow required procedures, including an updated assessment of conditions in Syria, and suggested the decision appeared to be influenced by political considerations rather than an objective review. During a virtual hearing, Failla noted that the administration had moved rapidly to end TPS for multiple nationalities in a short span, raising doubts about whether it had undertaken the careful, case-by-case evaluation mandated under U. S. law.

The judge, appointed by former leader Barack Obama, stated the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that the move violated federal statutes governing TPS reviews. TPS is a relief designation created to protect migrants from countries struggling with war, significant disasters, or other crises. Indeed, it shields beneficiaries from deportation and provides legal work authorization in the United States. Syrians were first granted TPS in 2012 amid the escalation of the civil war, which later resulted in the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s administration last year.

Notably, when announcing the move to end TPS for Syrians, DHS asserted the country remained a “hotbed of terrorism and extremism,” arguing that continuing the designation was contrary to U. S. interests. By Jwan Shekaki