Trump Administration Ends Deportation Protections for Afghans and Venezuelans
Supreme Court Clears Path for Mass Deportations as Advocates Warn of Humanitarian Crisis
In a series of sweeping policy moves on May 20, 2025, the Trump administration abruptly terminated deportation protections for more than 9,000 Afghan refugees and over 350,000 Venezuelans residing in the United States. The actions, executed through the revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), follow a Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for the administration to end these humanitarian safeguards, marking a pivotal escalation in President Donald Trump’s pledge to carry out what he calls “the most extensive domestic deportation operation in American history.
The administration’s decisions were announced the same day it welcomed a group of 49 white South African refugees to the U.S., a move that has drawn sharp criticism for its apparent contradictions and for prioritizing certain groups over others. The policy changes have triggered alarm among immigrant rights advocates, legal experts, and affected communities, who warn of dire humanitarian consequences and accuse the administration of targeting vulnerable Black and Brown populations.
TPS Revoked: Who Is Affected and Why?
Temporary Protected Status is a humanitarian designation under U.S. law that allows people from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to live and work legally in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security holds the authority to grant or revoke this status.
On May 19, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order, allowed the Trump administration to terminate TPS for Venezuelans, reversing a lower court’s stay that had protected their status. The Department of Homeland Security had previously announced the end of TPS for over 9,000 Afghans, asserting that Afghanistan “no longer presents a serious threat” to returnees—a claim widely disputed by experts and advocates.
“This is the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern U.S. history,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA and an attorney representing TPS beneficiaries, in an interview with the BBC.
Contradictions and Criticism: Selective Admissions and Racial Disparities
The administration’s decision to welcome 49 white South Africans while simultaneously ending protections for Afghans and Venezuelans has fueled accusations of racial bias and inconsistency. The New York Times reported that the admitted South Africans were Afrikaners. This white ethnic group held power during apartheid, and the administration justified their admission because they would “assimilate easily” and pose no national security challenge.
“The administration’s choice to exempt white Afrikaners has sparked discussions regarding who qualifies as the ‘appropriate’ immigrants in Mr. Trump’s perspective,” wrote The New York Times, highlighting the stark contrast with the treatment of Afghan and Venezuelan refugees.
Advocates point out that many Afghans facing deportation had risked their lives to assist U.S. forces during the war in Afghanistan, and that Venezuela remains in the grip of political and economic turmoil.
“It’s a death sentence for them if they go back,” said Zia Ghafoori, a former interpreter for U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, in an interview with NPR. Ghafoori, now a U.S. citizen, expressed concern for his relatives and thousands of others left in limbo by the policy change.
Supreme Court and Executive Orders
The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered by its conservative majority, did not provide a detailed rationale but effectively granted the executive branch broad authority over immigration and foreign affairs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s only liberal justice, publicly dissented.
The Trump administration’s broader immigration agenda has included executive orders instructing federal agencies to detain and deport undocumented immigrants, increase prosecutions for unauthorized entry, and abolish birthright citizenship. The administration has also reinstated the “Remain in Mexico” policy, requiring asylum seekers to wait outside the U.S. while their claims are processed, and halted programs for refugees fleeing authoritarian regimes in Central and South America.
“If fully implemented, Trump’s executive orders will make the United States a systematic violator of the same human rights the country is bound to uphold,” warned Human Rights Watch in a recent report.
The Scale of Deportations: Data and Impact
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that approximately 348,000 Venezuelans were registered under TPS as of 2023. Their status revocation, along with the 9,000 Afghans affected, represents the largest removal of legal protections for non-citizens in recent U.S. history.
In January 2025 alone, U.S. authorities arrested 538 migrants—including individuals with criminal records and a suspected terrorist—and deported hundreds in large-scale operations. The Pentagon has announced plans to use military aircraft to deport thousands more in the coming weeks. These actions have drawn criticism from local officials and lawmakers, who argue that such tactics sow fear in immigrant communities and violate constitutional rights.
“Actions like this one sow fear in all of our communities — and our broken immigration system requires solutions, not fear tactics,” said New Jersey Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim in a joint statement following raids in Newark.
Economic and Humanitarian Consequences
Legal experts and economists warn that the mass removal of TPS holders could have significant economic and social repercussions. Many Venezuelans and Afghans with TPS are highly educated and less likely to commit crimes than the general U.S. population, according to a federal judge who reviewed the administration’s policies3. The sudden loss of legal status could lead to family separations, job losses, and increased vulnerability to exploitation.
“The humanitarian and economic repercussions of the Court’s decision will be felt immediately and will echo through generations,” said Ahilan Arulanantham to the BBC.
Community organizations, such as Project ANAR and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA), are mobilizing to provide legal assistance and support to affected individuals. Still, resources are limited, and the outlook remains uncertain.
Government Justifications and Response
The Trump administration has defended its actions as necessary to restore order to the immigration system and prioritize national security. Officials argue that TPS was intended as a temporary measure and should not be extended indefinitely. In the case of Afghans, the administration claims that conditions in Afghanistan have stabilized sufficiently to permit safe return—a position disputed by human rights monitors and many in the national security community.
“The Trump administration’s reasoning for denying Afghans temporary protected status is that Afghan migrants would not face a ‘serious threat’ if returned,” reported The New York Times.
Christopher Rau, deputy secretary of state, emphasized that the South African refugees admitted under the new policy had undergone “thorough vetting” and would “assimilate easily.” However, he did not elaborate on the criteria used.
Advocates and Legal Challenges
Immigrant rights groups and legal advocates are preparing to challenge the administration’s policies in court. The National TPS Alliance and other organizations argue that the decisions were motivated by racial and political animus and violate federal law governing administrative actions.
U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who previously blocked the administration’s attempt to end TPS for Venezuelans, criticized the depiction of TPS recipients as criminals as “baseless and smacks of racism.” He noted that Venezuelan TPS holders are statistically more likely to have college degrees and less likely to commit crimes than the general U.S. population.
The legal battle is expected to continue, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set to review the administration’s actions regarding TPS for Venezuelans.
Public Opinion and Political Fallout
Public opinion on immigration remains sharply divided. According to an AP-NORC poll cited by PBS, many Americans believe Trump has gone too far on immigration, even as the issue remains one of his strongest points with his political base.
The administration’s hardline stance has energized supporters who see it as fulfilling campaign promises to crack down on illegal immigration. However, critics argue that the policies undermine America’s tradition of offering refuge to those fleeing danger and persecution.
Uncertain Futures for Thousands
As legal challenges proceed and deportation operations intensify, the fate of hundreds of thousands of TPS holders hangs in the balance. Community organizations are urging Congress to enact permanent protections, while advocates warn of the lasting damage to America’s reputation as a haven for the persecuted.
“All people, regardless of immigration status or criminal history, have the right to fair treatment before the law and a chance to argue for their liberty and rights when they are detained or face deportation,” Human Rights Watch stated in its analysis of the administration’s executive orders.
The coming months will test the resilience of affected communities and the legal system's capacity to safeguard human rights amid an unprecedented wave of enforcement actions.
A Defining Moment for U.S. Immigration Policy
The Trump administration’s decision to strip deportation protections from Afghans and Venezuelans marks a defining moment in U.S. immigration policy, with far-reaching implications for human rights, national identity, and America’s role on the world stage. As legal battles unfold and deportations proceed, the nation faces urgent questions about its commitment to justice, fairness, and the values that have long defined its approach to those seeking refuge on its shores.