Afghans for Trump group feels abandoned after administration revokes refugee protections
A group that once campaigned to put Donald Trump in the White House now says they feel abandoned by his administration's decision to revoke legal protections for thousands of Afghan refugees living in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS).
Zoubair Sangi, the leader of the "Afghans for Trump" movement, formed after the chaotic 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, said his community turned to Trump after the Biden administration's exit left their homeland in turmoil.
Now, he is urging the president to reconsider.
"The reality is that Afghanistan is not safe," Sangi told Fox News. "Over the last three years, since the return of the Taliban, the country has been as dangerous as ever."
He said the Department of Homeland Security's claim of an "improved security situation" fails to reflect the reality on the ground.
"The Taliban, at the end of the day, are a terrorist group," he said. "They target anyone who disagrees with them – anyone who worked with the U.S. government or allied forces. Their lives are in grave danger."
Sangi added that women face especially grim conditions in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where they are banned from education and public life without a male escort.
"They view women as subservient. They treat them worse than cattle," he said. "There is no freedom for ordinary Afghans. It's a prison. People are essentially under house arrest, and they can't escape."
Despite his frustration, Sangi said he has not withdrawn his support for Trump – but he is pleading with him to rethink the decision. "We do have hope that any kind of mistake that is made specifically in regards to Afghanistan will be corrected."
He praised Trump for refusing to recognize the Taliban and ending foreign aid to Afghanistan that fell into their hands, and he urged him not to strike any deals.
"The Taliban mock America, reject your demands for the return of our $7 billion in military equipment, and harbor terrorists who threaten our homeland," said Sangi. "Engaging with them isn't America First."
On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security officially ended TPS for Afghan nationals, potentially forcing more than 9,000 individuals to return to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem cited an "improved security situation" and a stabilizing economy as justification.
"This administration is returning TPS to its original, temporary intent," Noem said. "We've reviewed the conditions in Afghanistan with our interagency partners, and they do not meet the requirements for a TPS designation."
Afghans' protected status is set to expire on May 20, with the program formally ending on July 12. Noem added that terminating the designation aligns with the administration's broader goal of rooting out fraud and national security threats in the immigration system.
TPS allows foreign nationals from countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters or other emergencies to live and work legally in the U.S. Then-President Joe Biden had originally designated Afghanistan for TPS following the Taliban's takeover in 2021.
While many Afghans who assisted the U.S. military during the two-decade war arrived under the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, others – including former Afghan government workers and those tied to U.S. missions – entered under TPS amid the post-withdrawal chaos. These individuals now face potential deportation.
Former Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul argued against the assertion that the security situation had improved, and urged the administration against moving to revoke the immigration status of Afghans here on SIVs or P1 and P2 visas.
The Taliban, he said, "have made their thirst for retribution against those who help the United States clear. Until they demonstrate substantial behavorial changes, I urge the administration to continue prioritizing the safety of the Afghan men and women who risked their lives to help our troops."
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and DHS with requests for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Environmentalists criticize Trump administration push for new oil and gas drilling in Alaska
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Top Trump administration officials — fresh off touring one of the country's largest oil fields in the Alaska Arctic — headlined an energy conference led by the state's Republican governor on Tuesday that environmentalists criticized as promoting new oil and gas drilling and turning away from the climate crisis. Several dozen protesters were outside Gov. Mike Dunleavy's annual Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference in Anchorage, where U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin were featured speakers. The federal officials were continuing a multiday trip aimed at highlighting President Donald Trump's push to expand oil and gas drilling, mining and logging in the state. The trip has included meetings with pro-drilling groups and officials, including some Alaska Native leaders on the petroleum-rich North Slope, and a visit to the Prudhoe Bay oil field near the Arctic Ocean that featured selfies near the 800-mile (1,287-kilometer) trans-Alaska oil pipeline. Calls for additional oil and gas drilling — including Trump's renewed focus on getting a massive liquefied natural gas project built — are 'false solutions' to energy needs and climate concerns, protester Sarah Furman said outside the Anchorage convention hall, as people carried signs with slogans such as 'Alaska is Not for Sale' and 'Protect our Public Lands.' 'We find it really disingenuous that they're hosting this conference and not talking about real solutions,' she said. Topics at the conference, which runs through Thursday, also include mining, carbon management, nuclear energy, renewables and hydrogen. Oil has been Alaska's economic lifeblood for decades, and Dunleavy has continued to embrace fossil fuels even as he has touted other energy opportunities in the state. Another protester, Rochelle Adams, who is Gwich'in, raised concerns about the ongoing push to allow oil and gas drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Gwich'in leaders have said they consider the coastal plain sacred, as caribou they rely on calve there. Leaders of the Iñupiaq community of Kaktovik, which is within the refuge, support drilling as economically vital and have joined Alaska political leaders in welcoming Trump's interest in reviving a leasing program there. 'When these people come from outside to take and take and take, we are going to be left with the aftereffects,' Adams said, adding later: 'It's our health that will be impacted. It's our wellness, our ways of life.' Zeldin, during a friendly question-and-answer period led by Dunleavy, said wildlife he saw while on the North Slope didn't appear 'to be victims of their surroundings' and seemed 'happy.' Burgum, addressing a move toward additional drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, said wildlife and development can coexist. His agency during the Alaska trip announced plans to repeal Biden-era restrictions on future leasing and industrial development in portions of the petroleum preserve that are designated as special for their wildlife, subsistence or other values. Wright bristled at the idea of policy 'in the name of climate change' that he said would have no impact on climate change. Stopping oil production in Alaska doesn't change demand for oil, he said. 'You know, we hear terms like clean energy and renewable energy. These are inaccurate marketing terms,' he said. 'There is no energy source that does not take significant materials, land and impact on the environment to produce. Zero.' Officials court Asian countries to support gas project Joining for part of the U.S. officials' trip were representatives from Asian countries, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and United Arab Emirates. Asian countries are being courted to sign onto the Alaska gas project, which has floundered for years to gain traction amid cost and other concerns. The project, as proposed, would include a nearly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would funnel gas from the North Slope to port, with an eye largely on exports of liquefied natural gas. Wright told reporters a goal in inviting them to the Prudhoe Bay stop was for them to see the oil pipeline infrastructure and environment and meet with residents and business leaders. Glenfarne Alaska LNG LLC, which has taken a lead in advancing the project, on Tuesday announced expressions of interest from a number of 'potential partners.' Costs surrounding the project — which have been pegged around $44 billion for the pipeline and other infrastructure — are in the process of being refined before a decision is made on whether to move forward. ___ Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Musk Calls Trump's Bill an ‘Abomination' as Their Public Rift Widens
The proposal is the first concrete indication since President Trump took office that the United States and Iran might be able to find a path to compromise. The Trump administration is proposing an arrangement that would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium at low levels while the United States and other countries work out a more detailed plan intended to block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon but give it access to fuel for new nuclear power plants. The proposal amounts to a diplomatic bridge, intended to maneuver beyond the current situation, in which Iran is rapidly producing near-bomb-grade uranium, to reach the U.S. goal of Iran enriching no uranium at all on its soil. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will go along. Under the proposal, the United States would facilitate the building of nuclear power reactors for Iran and negotiate the construction of enrichment facilities managed by a consortium of regional countries. Once Iran began receiving any benefits from those promises, it would have to stop all enrichment in the country. The outline of the potential deal, which was described on the condition of anonymity by Iranian and European officials, was handed to Iran over the weekend. Officials in Tehran indicated on Monday that a response would come in several days. It is the first concrete indication since President Trump took office that the United States and Iran might be able to find a path to compromise that would head off a potential regional war over Tehran's ambitions to build a nuclear weapon. But the details remain vague, the two sides remain far apart on some elements of a deal, and the domestic politics for both are complex. In his first term, Mr. Trump canceled an agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama that had similarly sought to keep Iran from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. At least in the opening years of the proposed arrangement, when new enrichment facilities to produce fuel for power plants are being built in cooperation with Arab states, Iran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels, despite Mr. Trump's post on social media on Monday saying the United States would 'not allow any enrichment of uranium.' (It is possible that he was referring to what would be allowed at the concluding stage of the potential deal rather than during an interim arrangement.) The idea of a regional consortium would essentially wrap Iran in a bearhug with countries that might include the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others, allowing the production of low-grade nuclear fuel for power plants while seeking to ensure that Iran is not enriching fuel on its own for a bomb. But one key unresolved question is whether Iran's leadership will agree to an ultimate arrangement in which no nuclear fuel is produced on Iranian soil. 'We do not need anyone's permission to enrich uranium,' Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on Tuesday. Image Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, said on Monday that he was confident of a diplomatic breakthrough to avert further crises. Credit... Pool photo by Tatyana Makeyeva Israel has also been deeply skeptical of any deal that would leave Iran with nuclear capabilities. It has repeatedly suggested that now is the time for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, citing Tehran's degraded air defense systems and the weakness of its regional allies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, however, still possesses a formidable arsenal of conventional weapons, including ballistic missiles, capable of threatening Israel, Gulf neighbors and U.S. bases in the region. Iranian officials have warned that in the event of a military strike on their nuclear facilities, they would respond forcefully, exit the nonproliferation agreement and end international inspectors' access to sites. The wording of the new proposal, crafted by Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, is vaguely worded on many of the most important issues, suggesting that considerable negotiating lies ahead, Iranian and European officials said. For example, it is unclear that the accord meets the standard Mr. Trump said last week that he would demand, an agreement where 'we can take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want.' Senior Iranian officials involved in the negotiations called the bombastic statement 'a fantasy.' Mr. Araghchi said on Monday at the sideline of meetings in Egypt with officials that Iran would 'soon send America an appropriate response. Without respecting our right to enrich uranium, there will be no agreement.' He added that he was confident of a diplomatic breakthrough to avert further crises. Some details of the proposal were reported earlier by Axios. Asked about Mr. Witkoff's outline, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Monday that 'President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb.' In a statement to The New York Times, she added: 'Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it's in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.' Image Steve Witkoff, President Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, crafted the wording of the proposal. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times Any breakthrough would be a diplomatic victory for Mr. Trump, whose efforts to negotiate a cease-fire in the Russia-Ukraine war have floundered. His diplomacy with Iran has also been unexpected: After pulling out of the Obama-era nuclear agreement, he ordered the killing in early 2020 of one of Iran's highest-ranking generals. Iran, in return, has been accused by U.S. officials of hiring assassins to kill Mr. Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. Iran has denied the allegations. The Trump administration's proposal, according to two Iranian officials, leaves unclear exactly what would be required in dismantling the country's nuclear program. Iran has invested billions of dollars in building its two main nuclear enrichment facilities, Natanz and Fordow, and in developing its advanced nuclear program, which it considers a source of national pride. Shuttering the facilities would be humiliating and difficult to justify, according to an Iranian official familiar with the internal deliberations. Image Natanz in 2006. It is one of two main nuclear facilities that Iran has invested billions of dollars to build. Credit... Raheb Homavandi/Reuters These facilities also employ hundreds of scientists, some of the country's most talented, and the government worries that many of the top ones may leave Iran if they are unemployed and waiting for the new consortium to take shape, an Iranian official said. Over the years, Israel has targeted and assassinated a number of leading nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The proposal raises the possibility of U.S. help in facilitating the construction of a nuclear power reactor in Iran. The country currently has only one such plant, built and supplied by Russia. Iran has said it has a goal of constructing 10 more. (A similar project was conceived for North Korea by the Clinton administration in 1994. It collapsed a decade later, and soon after North Korea conducted a nuclear weapons test for the first time.) The proposal did not specify which of the hundreds of sanctions against Iran would be removed in any final deal. Iran has told the United States that all sanctions would need to be removed in order to sign a deal — not just those related to its nuclear program. Iranian officials said they would not take any measures curbing their program without parallel sanctions relief, particularly diluting or exporting the huge stockpile of enriched uranium that the United Nations' atomic watchdog says allows them to build 10 bombs if they chose to weaponize. The United States has sanctioned Iran's oil sales and banking transactions over the years, stifling the country's economy for advancing its nuclear program, supporting terrorism, helping Russia in the Ukraine war, plotting assassinations of Western officials and perpetuating human rights abuses. Iranian officials said they did not trust Mr. Trump because of his unilateral exiting of the Obama-era nuclear deal and conflicting comments from American officials during negotiations in the past few weeks. The officials said one of the issues being debated in Tehran was what guarantees Washington would provide that Mr. Trump or his successors would not force Iran out of the consortium in the future. While the outcome of the negotiation remains unclear, Mr. Witkoff's strategy is beginning to emerge. The consortium he proposed would provide nuclear fuel for Iran and any of its neighbors interested in developing civilian nuclear power or research programs. The many players would watch one another — and they would be watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. group that monitors nuclear fuel around the world and is supposed to send alarms if it believes the fuel is being diverted to a weapons program. But the proposal does not make clear exactly where the enrichment facility would be located, though the United States has said it cannot be in Iran. Iranian officials continue to insist it must be in their territory, because they would not give up their right to enrich nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, though so far it has not ratified an addendum, called the Additional Protocol, that would give inspectors much greater rights to search any part of the country where they suspect nuclear activity. Although it was not noted in the U.S. proposal, Omani and Saudi officials have discussed the idea of building an enrichment facility on an island in the Persian Gulf. This would potentially give both sides a talking point: The Iranians would be able to say they are still enriching uranium, and the Americans could state that enrichment is not happening on Iranian soil. Two Iranian officials said the country was open to accepting the consortium idea because the government did not want talks to fail. But the Iranian officials said negotiators planned to bargain in the next round of talks for the island to be one of their own: They may propose Kish or Qeshm in the Persian Gulf, though other possibilities have been discussed. Iran claims these territories and would most likely argue that this would allow it to keep enrichment on its soil. But it would also make a facility much more visible to the world than Iran's current enrichment facilities, which are underground, and in one case deep inside a mountain to protect against Israeli attack. Another unknown is how Israel will react to the American proposal. Mr. Witkoff met with Ron Dermer, one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's closest advisers, around a negotiating session in Rome. The two countries have been in regular communication over the negotiations, even while Mr. Netanyahu has pressed for military action. In Iran, as in the United States, a minority of hard-line politicians steadfastly oppose any concessions to the United States. They openly called the terms of the U.S. proposal a defeat and suggested that Iran walk away from talks. But these politicians do not hold much sway because the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has given the green light for negotiations to continue with the goal of reaching a deal. Some analysts described the consortium idea as a win-win, saying it would allow Iran to save face and let regional allies and American inspectors be directly involved in Iran's nuclear activities. It also removes the U.S. concern of a regional race to enrich uranium. 'But even if the parties agree on the concept, they still need to hash out the details,' said Ali Vaez, the Iran director for the International Crisis Group. 'They will also need an interim solution, as it will probably take a few years to set up a functional consortium.' Mr. Vaez added that as long as the two sides remained divided on core issues — namely, whether Iran can enrich uranium — a final deal remained elusive and at best the two sides could agree on a document laying out broad frameworks of a future deal.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Bangladesh Taka Will Extend Slide on Election, Tariffs, BMI Says
The Bangladesh taka is set to extend this year's decline due to potential political instability in the South Asian country and the increase in US tariffs, according to BMI, a unit of Fitch Solutions. The currency is forecast to average 125 per dollar over the year as a whole, said Sayaka Shiba, senior country risk analyst at the research firm in Singapore. That compares to an average of 115.35 during 2024 and Tuesday's close of 121.86, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
