logo
Veterans recoil at Trump plan to end Afghans' deportation protection

Veterans recoil at Trump plan to end Afghans' deportation protection

Boston Globe25-05-2025

'If they attempt to deport the Afghans, you're going to see actual physical conflict between veterans and ICE,' predicted Matt Zeller, an Army veteran who became a prominent advocate for America's Afghan allies after his interpreter saved his life.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Advocacy groups estimate that about 10,000 Afghans in the United States have been dependent on TPS while they navigate the lengthy and complex process for obtaining permanent residency, a process made all the more difficult, they say, by the absolute chaos that defined Afghanistan's collapse - and by the guidance they received from the U.S. government while trying to escape.
Advertisement
By declaring his intent to end these protections, President Donald Trump risks alienating a key demographic - veterans of the war - at the same time he seeks to court them politically. His administration has intensified its scrutiny of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and demanded accountability for 13 U.S. troops and an estimated 170 Afghans killed in a suicide bombing at Kabul's airport as the evacuation, hastily orchestrated by the Biden administration, raced to a tragic end.
Advertisement
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Since returning to office, Trump has moved with speed and severity to eliminate legal immigration pathways, particularly humanitarian protections for those who fled crises abroad. In announcing an end to Afghans' TPS, the administration said there have been 'notable improvements' in Afghanistan under the Taliban's authoritarian rule - a claim the Afghans' advocates call fundamentally wrong.
'To me as a veteran, that's incredibly offensive,' said Andrew Sullivan, a former infantry company commander in Afghanistan who works with No One Left Behind, a veterans nonprofit that helps resettle Afghans and Iraqis who risked their lives to serve the U.S. government during its post-9/11 wars.
Sullivan, who last year addressed a Republican-led congressional hearing focused on Taliban reprisals, said he has met with Afghans who were attacked or tortured because of their U.S. affiliation - including one who is now a paraplegic. The Trump administration's assessment of the safety conditions in Afghanistan, he said, is 'laughable.'
'If there was ever a country that deserves TPS,' Sullivan insisted, 'it is Afghanistan.'
An international watchdog, Human Rights Watch, wrote in its 2025 report on Afghanistan that the situation there has 'worsened' over the past year as 'Taliban authorities intensified their crackdown on human rights, particularly against women and girls.' More than half the population needed urgent humanitarian assistance last year, the group found, including nearly 3 million people who faced 'emergency levels of hunger.'
Advertisement
CASA, Inc., a national immigrant rights organization, has sued the Trump administration over its decision to end Afghans' TPS, arguing that Noem, as homeland security secretary, failed to follow 'statutorily mandated notice procedures' and callously endangered thousands of people 'living and working lawfully in this country.' The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where the case will be heard, has set an expedited schedule.
The war's deadly endgame has been fiercely politicized. Trump tirelessly attacked President Joe Biden over the scenes of violence and despair that marked the two-week retreat from Kabul. In turn, Biden and his aides faulted Trump, who in his first term as president struck an exit deal with the Taliban that Biden maintained he was forced to carry out. Various investigations have determined that both administrations - and the two that came before them - each made costly mistakes.
Many Republicans who took part in the frantic effort to rescue Afghan allies now echo Trump's skepticism about the evacuees.
Since the FBI arrested an Afghan evacuee last year on charges he was planning an Islamic State-inspired Election Day attack, Trump's backers and fellow
immigration hard-liners have argued, without evidence, that a broader swath of the evacuee population poses a threat to U.S. national security.
Rep. Brian Mast (R-Florida), an Army veteran who lost both legs in an explosion while serving in Afghanistan and who convened last year's House hearing on Taliban reprisals, said he sees a stark contrast between Afghans who worked directly with U.S. forces - who he said would not be affected by the TPS termination - and those who did not.
'They're not one in the same,' Mast said in an interview. 'There's people that maybe worked on a base, maybe they worked at [TGI] Fridays on a base as a waiter or something like that. That doesn't mean that they were out on missions with me, rolling people up, right?'
Advertisement
The congressman said he was not immediately concerned that the Taliban might seek to execute or punish such people if they returned to Afghanistan. 'I'll think about how I feel about that,' he said.
Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac, a coalition of groups that have worked to extricate and protect vulnerable Afghans, said he was appalled by what he called the 'political amnesia' of those such as Mast. It was only last year that the congressman 'sounded the alarm' about what might happen to America's Afghan allies if the U.S. government
failed to keep its promises to protect them.
'These are real lives, not talking points. And the idea that a cook, a janitor or a mechanic at Bagram [air base] deserves less protection than a combat interpreter is both morally bankrupt and strategically foolish,' said VanDiver, a Navy veteran. 'The Taliban doesn't do performance reviews. They don't check résumés. They kill people for being associated with us.'
'These are people whose only 'crime' is having lived, learned or worked in the United States. And now, with TPS terminated and no viable pathway forward, they face an impossible choice: return to persecution or risk deportation from the very country they trusted,' he said.
Many of those who escaped Afghanistan were simply lucky enough to make it through the panicked crowds thronging Kabul's airport as the Taliban closed in and began meting out violent retribution to those suspected of working with the United States, or with the Afghan government that Washington had supported.
Advertisement
Tens of thousands of other Afghans, who advocacy groups said were eligible for the Special Immigrant Visas reserved for those who served the U.S. mission, were left behind. Others who made it onto evacuation planes were separated from young children, their spouses or their parents, and have sought to bring them to the United States in the years since.
For veterans of the war who say their survival depended on the relationships they built with Afghan partners, Trump's abrupt cancellation of deportation protections is a deeply, bitterly shameful slight. Some devoted considerable time and personal expense to help evacuate and resettled their former Afghan partners during Kabul's collapse.
Advocacy groups such as No One Left Behind say they continue to urge members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to intervene. But the GOP, which holds majorities in the House and Senate, has yet to demonstrate an appetite to challenge a president who is so determined to lock down U.S. borders and ramp up deportations, no matter the means - and no matter the potential cost.
The Afghans' plight gained some attention during a recent Senate hearing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's top Democrat, appealed for clarity on Trump's plans. America's Afghan allies, she said, 'have been stranded in Qatar and Albania, and Pakistan and Afghanistan,' she said. 'Is this administration going to allow them to come to the United States as promised?'
Rubio was vague in his response, citing an ongoing review. 'We are determining,' he said, 'whether we are properly vetting people.'
Advertisement
Advocates say the Afghans dependent on TPS include women's rights activists, journalists, humanitarian workers, and former members of the Afghan military and government who are ineligible for Special Immigrant Visas because they did not work directly for the United States. But even for those who are eligible, obtaining them has been extraordinarily difficult because many - at the urging of the Biden administration - sought to evade Taliban detection as they fled and destroyed documents showing their U.S. affiliation.
'Some of these are our closest partners, people that actually worked with us and for us, that are simply using the TPS program because that was the only option,' said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colorado), a former Army Ranger who fought in Afghanistan and was among the U.S. lawmakers who rallied to help when the evacuation was declared.
'If they're sent back to Afghanistan,' Crow said, 'it would be a death sentence for them.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oil Advances as OPEC+ Supply Boost Vies With Geopolitical Risk
Oil Advances as OPEC+ Supply Boost Vies With Geopolitical Risk

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Oil Advances as OPEC+ Supply Boost Vies With Geopolitical Risk

(Bloomberg) -- Oil advanced as OPEC+ hiked production less than some had feared and geopolitical concerns flared over Ukraine and Iran. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Where the Wild Children's Museums Are The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months Brent crude for August rose toward $65 a barrel after losing 2.2% last week, while West Texas Intermediate was above $62. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies agreed on Saturday to add 411,000 barrels a day of supply in July, matching expectations, but defying reports late last week that the group was considering an even bigger volume. Meanwhile, Ukraine struck air bases deep in Russia and Iran criticized a report showing its growing stockpiles of enriched uranium, in escalations that reduce the chance of more supply from the sanctioned OPEC+ members entering the market. Trade frictions also remained in focus, after President Donald Trump said he would be increasing tariffs on steel and aluminum. Monday's move higher comes after a turbulent two months that saw prices tumble to a four-year low in the wake of Trump's tariff wars, before recuperating some of those losses. Crude remains almost 15% lower this year, pressured by the simmering trade conflicts and the abandoning by OPEC+ of its former strategy of defending higher prices by curbing output. OPEC+ officials said the quota boost reflected Saudi Arabia's desire to punish over-producing members such as Kazakhstan and Iraq. Some members — including Russia, Algeria and Oman — had wanted a pause. The group next meets on July 6 to discuss output levels for August. 'Brent should be well supported in the middle of our expected $60-$65 summer range until we get a better understanding of how quickly actual OPEC production is rising,' said Robert Rennie, head of commodity and carbon research at Westpac Banking Corp. in Sydney. 'We may be seeing signs that the pace of increase could slow in the coming months' as some members had wanted a lull in the quota hikes. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

The election of a Trump ally in Poland could alter EU and Ukraine policies
The election of a Trump ally in Poland could alter EU and Ukraine policies

The Hill

time19 minutes ago

  • The Hill

The election of a Trump ally in Poland could alter EU and Ukraine policies

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland has elected Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian and staunch nationalist, as its next president in a closely watched vote that signals a resurgence of right-wing populism in the heart of Europe. Nawrocki, who is set to take office on Aug. 6, is expected to shape the country's domestic and foreign policy in ways that could strain ties with Brussels while aligning the Central European nation of nearly 38 million people more closely with the administration of President Donald Trump in the United States. Here are some key takeaways: Nawrocki's victory underscores the enduring appeal of nationalist rhetoric among about half of the country along the eastern flank of NATO and the European Union, and its deep social divisions. The 42-year-old historian who had no previous political experience built his campaign on patriotic themes, traditional Catholic values, and a vow to defend Poland's sovereignty against the EU and larger European nations like Germany. His win also reflects the appeal of right-wing nationalism across Europe, where concerns about migration, national sovereignty, and cultural identity have led to surging support for parties on the right — even the far right in recent times. Far-right candidates did very well in Poland's first round of voting two weeks earlier, underlining the appeal of the nationalist and conservative views. Nawrocki picked up many of those votes. As his supporters celebrate his win, those who voted for the defeated liberal candidate, Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, worry that it will hasten the erosion of liberal democratic norms. Nawrocki's presidency presents a direct challenge to Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who returned to power in late 2023 pledging to mend relations with the EU and restore judicial independence which Brussels said was eroded by Law and Justice, the party that backed Nawrocki. But Tusk's coalition — a fragile alliance of centrists, leftists, and agrarian conservatives — has struggled to push through key promises including a civil union law for same-sex couples and a less restrictive abortion law. Nawrocki, who opposes such measures, will have the power to veto legislation, complicating Tusk's agenda and potentially triggering political gridlock. Nawrocki's election could signal a stronger relationship between Poland and the Trump administration. Poland and the U.S. are close allies, and there are 10,000 U.S. troops stationed in Poland, but Tusk and his partners in the past have been critical of Trump. Nawrocki, however, has a worldview closely aligned with Trump and his Make America Great Again ethos. Trump welcomed Nawrocki to the White House a month ago and his administration made clear in other ways that he was its preferred candidate. While Nawrocki has voiced support for Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, he does not back Ukrainian membership in NATO and has questioned the long-term costs of aid — particularly support for refugees. His rhetoric has at times echoed that of Trump, for instance by accusing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of what he said was insufficient gratitude for Poland's assistance. With growing public fatigue over helping Ukrainian refugees, Nawrocki's approach could shift Poland's posture from strong ally to conditional partner if the war drags on much longer. The election result is a setback for the EU, which had welcomed Tusk's return in 2023 as a signal of renewed pro-European engagement. Nawrocki and the Law and Justice party have criticized what nationalists view as EU overreach into Poland's national affairs, especially regarding judicial reforms and migration policy. While the president does not control day-to-day diplomacy, Nawrocki's symbolic and veto powers could frustrate Brussels' efforts to bring Poland back into alignment with bloc standards, particularly on rule-of-law issues. Though an EU member, Poland has its own currency, the zloty, which weakened slightly on Monday morning, reflecting investor concerns over potential policy instability and renewed tensions with EU institutions. Billions of euros in EU funding has been linked to judicial reforms which Tusk's government will now be unlikely to enact without presidential cooperation.

List of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' removed from US government website following criticism

time19 minutes ago

List of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' removed from US government website following criticism

WASHINGTON -- A widely anticipated list of ' sanctuary jurisdictions' no longer appears on the Department of Homeland Security's website after receiving widespread criticism for including localities that have actively supported the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies. The department last week published the list of the jurisdictions. It said each one would receive formal notification the government deemed them uncooperative with federal immigration enforcement and whether they're believed to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes. The list was published Thursday on the department's website but on Sunday there was a 'Page Not Found" error message in its place. The list was part of the Trump administration's efforts to target communities, states and jurisdictions that it says aren't doing enough to help its immigration enforcement agenda and the promises the president made to deport more than 11 million people living in the U.S. without legal authorization. The list is being constantly reviewed and can be changed at any time and will be updated regularly, a DHS senior official said. 'Designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a Sanctuary Jurisdiction, noncompliance with Federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens,' the official said in a statement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' that there had been anger from some officials about the list. However, she didn't address why it was removed. 'Some of the cities have pushed back,' Noem said. 'They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' The list, which was riddled with misspellings, received pushback from officials in communities spanning from urban to rural and blue to red who said the list doesn't appear to make sense. In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list even though it had filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year declaring the community a 'non-sanctuary city.' Jim Davel, administrator for Shawano County, Wisconsin, said the inclusion of his community must have been a clerical error. Davel voted for Trump as did 67% of Shawano County. Davel thinks the administration may have confused the county's vote in 2021 to become a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary County' that prohibits gun control measures with it being a safe haven for immigrants. He said the county has approved no immigration sanctuary policies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store