The White House News

Immigrants with humanitarian or temporary legal status in the United States are at risk of being rendered effectively undocumented by the incoming Trump administration.

More than 1.5 million people can currently live and work in the country protected both by longtime programs including Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Biden administration innovations such as the Cuba Haiti Nicaragua Venezuela (CHNV) parole processes.

“Twilight” or “liminal” statuses occupy a gray area between unauthorized presence in the United States and legal permanent immigration paperwork. According to data compiled by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), the federal government has 3,390,295 grants of liminal statuses, though the number of people protected is almost certainly lower because some foreign nationals may be protected by more than one program.

Without the protections granted by these programs, immigrants who are accustomed to living and working in the United States legally could lose those rights overnight, risking their livelihoods and potentially being detained and deported.

Here are the programs that could be at risk under the second Trump administration:

TPS

TPS is either the most successful humanitarian immigration program in the federal government’s arsenal, or a back door that’s allowed uncontrolled immigration from multiple countries, depending on who you ask.

In reality, TPS is not an immigration program at all. It was set up in 1990 amid increased migration from El Salvador, where death squads run by the U.S.-supported government were terrorizing a segment of the population.

The program was approved with Salvadorans in mind, but it gave the federal government the ability to grant work permits and deferral from deportation to nationals of any designated nation. Countries can be designated for TPS for up to 18 months at a time to avoid deporting people to somewhere going through or recovering from natural or man-made disasters.

TPS holders in most cases can’t adjust their status to become permanent residents, a feature of the 1990 immigration bill that’s perpetuated twilight status for hundreds of thousands of people.

The first Trump administration aggressively targeted TPS, arguing that it had lost its temporary nature and using the example of El Salvador as proof: According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), 180,375 Salvadorans are still protected by the program.

TPS only protects nationals of a country who were physically present in the United States as of a certain date. For Salvadorans, that date is February 13, 2001, meaning Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries have lived and worked legally in the United States for nearly a quarter century.

But Salvadorans are no longer the largest group of people in TPS; as of March, there are 200,005 active grants of TPS for Haitians and 344,335 for Venezuelans, after the Biden administration included those countries in the program.

That growth — there are 863,880 active TPS grants, according to CRS — could provide the future Trump administration more ammo to argue TPS has been misused.

Since 1990, and more consistently since 2001, successive Republican and Democratic administrations have more or less automatically renewed certain key TPS designations, a practice the first Trump administration sought to end by terminating the designations.

“We’ve seen courts signal skepticism about revoking protections to people who were assured that they’d receive that protection for a certain amount of time, but in terms of whether or not a protection should be extended and who should get protection, the courts have always seen that as a political question, squarely in the realm of the executive branch and its discretion,” said Nayna Gupta, director of policy at the American Immigration Council, adding that the law requires a 60-day period after any termination, and terminations are still susceptible to litigation.

Immigrant advocates are hopeful the Biden administration will issue last-minute renewals for TPS designations in an effort to give beneficiaries at least an 18-month runway before the country designations expire.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to a question on whether TPS extensions are in the works.

But if and when those designations expire, current TPS beneficiaries will be at a relative disadvantage because of the program’s registration requirements and statutory exclusion from a path to citizenship.

“A major concern is that, as opposed to other people in the unauthorized population, who DHS doesn’t know who they are, doesn’t know where they live, someone with TPS, the government knows who they are and what their most recent address is. So if anything, they might be more vulnerable to deportation if and when their status is terminated,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.

“But as a general matter, this does all come back to the lack of congressional action on immigration. The executive branch has taken a record number of actions on immigration using the tools that it has available, but these actions are vulnerable to litigation and do not provide a pathway to citizenship, because ultimately, only Congress can provide that.”

DACA

If TPS is the highest-profile statutory humanitarian relief program for foreign nationals, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is its executive action counterpart.

DACA was the Obama administration’s most visible immigrant relief effort, an origin story that attracts Democrats and repels Republicans.

But through its lifetime, DACA has gained bipartisan clout because it protects a publicly sympathetic group of people known as “Dreamers.”

Dreamers are undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors — DACA beneficiaries are a subset of Dreamers who fulfilled the program’s requirements, including being born on or after 1981 and arriving before 2007 and passing the relevant background checks.

Because DACA started in 2012 with age-specific rules, the DACA-eligible population has shrunk significantly since its inception. At its peak, the program had more than 800,000 beneficiaries, a number that as of June shrunk to 535,030, according to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Throughout its lifetime, DACA has faced multiple challenges on its legality, primarily through lawsuits led by red states, and a case is currently under review by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. During litigation, DHS has been barred from processing any new DACA applications, increasing the rate of membership attrition.

DACA was first declared illegal in 2021 by a federal judge in Texas, who argued the Obama administration circumvented Congress in its creation by not issuing it as a rule subject to a comments period. In 2023, that same judge ruled Biden’s re-issuing of the program as a rule subject to comments was also illegal.

“DACA is already being litigated, right? We’re waiting for that final decision. So in some ways, like the question of how sound DACA is, is already in the hands of the judiciary,” said Gupta.

That could make a Trump rescission of the program moot, though he did order its termination in 2017, despite faint hopes from immigrant advocates that he would spare Dreamers.

Biden parole programs

A second Trump administration is certain to stop accepting migrants into the country under parole programs started under President Biden, but it’s less clear what will happen to people who have already received parole.

According to MPI numbers, the current administration has granted parole to Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan nationals 531,000 times as of September.

But the Biden administration has also said it will not renew CHNV parole status, forcing beneficiaries to seek a different status, including asylum or TPS.

The first Venezuelan CHNV grants started expiring in October; nationals of the three other countries have until early next year before their parole expires.

The short time frame could make it convenient for the Trump administration to simply wait for parole status to expire rather than acting to terminate it proactively.

Advocates are calling on the Biden administration to extend all possible parole designations, hoping to give current parolees more time before potentially being targeted for deportation.

“Parolees who can receive extensions of parole — in any way in which those can be expedited — those pending requests for parole, that will be hugely helpful. That will mean that on day one, people have protection for a certain amount of time. Of course, this could be terminated at any moment, but it’s more likely that we would just see them expire and the Trump administration not renew them,” said Gupta.

Other parole programs include Uniting for Ukraine — with 214,800 parole orders issued — family reunifications for Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras — 58,776 grants — and Operation Allies Welcome, a program that issued 75,000 grants of parole to Afghans who helped the U.S. war effort.

Many if not most of the parolees who entered the United States through those programs are likely to have claimed asylum.

Asylum

The United States asylum system is overwhelmed, with a backlog of more than 2 million cases between immigration courts and USCIS.

But there is significant overlap between asylum, gray area statuses and visas, including green cards.

“The number of people with these statuses who have also applied for asylum is probably really high, so that would really get into a double counting problem,” said Bush-Joseph.

Prospective asylees who have already passed their initial screening — those in the backlog — are protected from deportation by statute, meaning the Trump administration would face significant legal challenges in trying to deport them before their cases are heard.

But immigrant advocates say the incoming administration’s build-up of expectations is already rattling immigrant communities with uncertainty.

“The real challenge for people who are in these temporary protective statuses or temporary parole postures is the absolute uncertainty of whether this administration is going to affirmatively terminate those protections on day one, whether they’re going to do let them run their course and expire and not renew those, whether they’ll just pick a couple and target certain countries,” said Gupta.

“Then, even if those protections evaporate, what does it look like after? Is there a roundup? Is there detention? Is it feasible to remove all those people? And how can they even survive in our community if they lose work authorization, and they have to go into hiding?”

President Biden made a historic visit to the Amazon rainforest Sunday to view the Amazon River and the ongoing effects of climate change.

With his visit Sunday, Biden became the first sitting American president to set foot in the Amazon rainforest.

After an aerial tour to view the ecosystems and deforestation, Biden said he was proud to visit the region.

He signed a U.S. proclamation designating Nov. 17 as International Conservation Day.

With President-elect Trump’s election victory, some are concerned that he will rollback some of the climate change efforts done under the Biden administration.

“It’s no secret that I’m leaving office in January. I will leave my successor and my country a strong foundation to build on if they choose to do so,” Biden said from the Amazon.

Last year, the Biden administration designated $500 million for the Amazon Fund, making it the most significant international effort to preserve the rainforest. So far, the U.S. has provided $50 million to the fund and Biden said Sunday the U.S. will provide $50 million more.

A senior Biden administration official said Sunday that it will be up to Trump if he wants to continue their efforts on the front.

“Maybe he’ll come down here and see the forest and see the damage being done from drought and other things and change his mind about climate change,” the official said.

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) said in an interview Saturday that former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), who has been chosen by President-elect Trump to serve as director of national intelligence, is “not a serious pick” for an “extraordinarily important position.”

“She’s not a serious pick for this extraordinarily important position of national intelligence, overseeing 18 different national intelligence agencies, knowing every single one of the most important secrets that our country has to be able to hold closely,” Dean told MSNBC’s Alex Witt on her show. “It’s a very unserious pick and actually a very dangerous one.”

Trump announced Wednesday that he has selected Gabbard to be director of national intelligence in his next administration.

“For over two decades, Tulsi has fought for our Country and the Freedoms of all Americans. As a former Candidate for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, she has broad support in both Parties – She is now a proud Republican! I know Tulsi will bring the fearless spirit that has defined her illustrious career to our Intelligence Community, championing our Constitutional Rights, and securing Peace through Strength. Tulsi will make us all proud!” Trump said in a statement.

Gabbard has in the past shared content implying that the U.S. has previously had involvement in Ukraine making biological weapons, perpetuating a narrative from the Russians. She also met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has been accused of the use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians, seven years ago.

“She will also need to be confirmed by the Senate. Does she have the credentials for such an important position?” Witt asked Dean about Gabbard.

“Well, clearly not,” Dean responded. “Again, with all of these appointments, or at least most, we’re finding that they are not serious picks. This is not a serious person, this is somebody — I served alongside her in the first Congress that I was here, three Congresses ago, when she was on [the House Financial Services Committee] alongside me, literally in my row.”

“She was seldom there, because she was moving on to either visit … mouthing of the talking points of the — Vladimir Putin, or visiting Syrian President [Bashar al-Assad,] but she also just wasn’t there,” Dean added.

The Hill has reached out to the Trump transition team for comment.

President-elect Trump is compiling one of the most pro-Israel teams of any administration in history, following a presidential battle that saw Vice President Harris lose support from voters upset the Biden administration armed Israel in its war against Hamas.

The emerging team suggests the Trump administration, backed by a GOP-controlled Congress, will give the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even more unfettered support than the Biden administration, which frequently tangled with the country even as it offered its support.

The team includes a number of strong personalities, who may disagree on various aspects of policy even if they all share a strong support for Israel.

“I don’t assume that all of these people are going to always be rowing in the exact same direction,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer for the Israel Policy Forum. 

“I think that there will be differences and conflicts, and ultimately it’s going to be up to Trump to decide what direction he wants to go.”

Here’s a look at who are the key players.

Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Mike Waltz

Trump’s picks of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for secretary of State and Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) as his national security adviser put two experienced foreign policy and national security strategists in Trump’s orbit.

Both have staked out hard-line positions on supporting Israel in its defense against Iran and Iranian-backed proxies, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. 

In 2020, Waltz issued support for then-President Trump’s peace plan for the Middle East —which gave Palestinians limited autonomy among disconnected territory in the West Bank and gave Netanyahu a green light to de facto annexations of Israeli settlements. 

It’s not clear how much of Trump’s 2020 peace plan he’ll try to employ in a second administration, but he has talked about expanding the Abraham Accords, which established relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. 

The next goal would be to bring Saudi Arabia into participation, something Trump in his first term and President Biden were unable to do, largely because of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. 

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has called for an irreversible path to a Palestinian state as necessary for any deal with Israel, but he also wants a mutual defense pact with the U.S. and help on building a civilian nuclear program. 

Rubio has previously joined forces with Democrats in raising concerns over entering into nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia, but the Florida senator has shown he can shift positions to align himself with Trump. 

His experience on Capitol Hill could help Trump find a workable path forward on carrying out the president’s vision.

Rubio’s position requires Senate confirmation, while Waltz’s does not. Rubio is not expected to have a hard time getting confirmed.

Rep. Elise Stefanik

Trump’s nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations signals a ringing endorsement for the congresswoman to take her combative and confrontational public persona to the microphones at the U.N.

She stands a strong chance of confirmation in a Republican-controlled Senate, especially because Democrats have also expressed frustrations with the United Nations.

Trump in his first term used then-Ambassador Nikki Haley to call out what was viewed as anti-Israel bias at the U.N. The previous Trump administration ended support for the U.N. body providing aid for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA; pulled the U.S. out of the human rights council; and initiated a withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

Stefanik is expected to continue that approach but with more skepticism toward the institution as a whole, said Koplow.

“From what we’ve seen from Stefanik, I think she may be more skeptical that the United Nations has any value at all, or can be redeemed in any way. I think it’s probably going to be a much more anti-institutional stance.”

A five-term congresswoman and member of the House Republican leadership, Stefanik had a standout moment in December over her questioning of three Ivy league university presidents about antisemitism on college campuses.

The questioning went viral on social media, and two of the three presidents eventually resigned.

Israel’s mission to the U.N. welcomed Stefanik’s nomination, which requires Senate confirmation. 

“Rep. Stefanik has been a powerful voice of moral clarity over the past year regarding the spread of college antisemitism. Now, her attention will turn to the scourge of bias and antisemitism at the UN. We look forward to further strengthening our countries’ eternal bond,” said Jonathan Harounoff, Israel’s international spokesperson to the United Nations.

Mike Huckabee

Trump has nominated former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) as ambassador to Israel, a position that requires Senate confirmation.  

Huckabee is familiar to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the Netanyahu government. He’s a Christian evangelist who has led paid tours to Israel and supports religious, Jewish claims to the West Bank, rejected Palestinian claims to territory and offered support for Israeli annexation.

If confirmed, Huckabee would likely play a role in shifting U.S. policy to recognize Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law. He’d also likely seek to deepen those ties with public visits to these communities, or establish business, education or research partnerships with settlements, similar to policies carried out during the first Trump administration. 

“He supports this concept of a greater Israel, Israel controlling the entire territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, that’s a Mike Huckabee vision, it’s a vision that has been embraced by the far-right in Israel including members of the Netanyahu government,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who will participate in the confirmation hearing. 

“This is a recipe, if he continues to pursue these views, for continued instability and violence in the Middle East,” he told MSNBC.

Steve Witkoff

Steve Witkoff, who is less known among lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, has been appointed as special envoy for the Middle East.

Witkoff is a businessman, real estate developer and close personal friend to the president-elect, with no discernible foreign policy or Middle East experience. 

“As so many business people have public policy concerns, that must be his,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif), a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee.

It’s not clear what responsibilities Witkoff will have, but Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner similarly had no Middle East or foreign policy experience and helped shepherd through the Abraham Accords. 

Witkoff’s greatest asset is viewed as his direct line to the president. Witkoff was with Trump on the golf course in Florida when he came under fire in a second assassination attempt in July.

“Steve will be an unrelenting Voice for PEACE, and make us all proud,” Trump said announcing his appointment. 

The wild card: Elon Musk

Elon Musk has emerged as one of Trump’s most powerful and ardent supporters, a close adviser increasingly brought into discussions on foreign affairs. 

While he has no official title on foreign policy, Musk has been pulled by Trump into calls with foreign leaders such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the billionaire tech giant reportedly met with Iranian officials in New York over easing relations between Washington and Tehran.  

Trump announced Musk would head up a yet-to-be created “Department of Government Efficiency” that does not have any immediate mandate related to foreign policy.

But Musk has ties to Israel and a relationship with Netanyahu, an about-face that came after Musk shared antisemitic conspiracy theories on social media and faced a reckoning with the White House and advertisers. 

In November 2023, Netanyahu led Musk around Israeli communities that were ground zero for Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks. Musk during the visit also agreed to provide Starlink communication satellites for use in Gaza only with the approval of the Israeli government.

Musk also attended Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress.

Former President Clinton said in an interview that aired Sunday that he believes the U.S. is set to have a woman-led executive branch “pretty soon.”

“I still think we’ll have a … female president pretty soon,” Clinton said in an interview on “CBS News Sunday Morning” with the outlet’s Tracy Smith.

Vice President Harris, who recently lost her bid for the White House to President-elect Trump, would have been the first woman, Black woman and person of South Asian descent to secure the presidency if she had won. Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also would have been the first woman to hold the office of the presidency if she had won in 2016. 

Both Hillary Clinton and Harris faced off against Trump in their respective races. However, he defeated them both.

The former president said in his interview with Tracy Smith that he believes “it would probably be easier for a conservative Republican woman to win” the presidency and said that the country has “moved to the right.”

“I think if Hillary had been nominated in 2008, she woulda walked in, just like Obama did,” Clinton said in the interview.

Clinton campaigned for Harris during the past election cycle but drew criticism for comments he made in late October at a Harris event in which he defended Israel’s killing of civilians and said Hamas had been using them as human shields.