The US Supreme Court has cleared the path for the Trump administration to halt deportation protections for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans residing in the United States.

This decision overturns an earlier order by a California judge that had maintained Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans whose legal protections were set to expire last month.

TPS grants individuals the ability to legally live and work in the US if their home country is considered too dangerous due to conflict, natural disasters, or other “extraordinary and temporary” situations.

The outcome is a legal victory for President Donald Trump, who has consistently turned to the Supreme Court to push through immigration-related policies.

At the time, Alejandro N Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, said the Biden administration extended the program “due to extraordinary and temporary conditions in Venezuela that prevent nationals from returning safely.”

He described Venezuela as being in the midst of “a complex humanitarian crisis marked by widespread hunger and malnutrition, a growing influence and presence of non-state armed groups, repression, and a crumbling infrastructure”.

Figures from the UN refugee agency reveal that nearly eight million Venezuelans have left the country since 2014. While many settled in Latin American and Caribbean nations, a significant number relocated to the United States.

The Trump administration had aimed to end TPS protections and associated work permits by April 2025 — over a year ahead of their original expiration date in October 2026.

In court, government attorneys contended that the US District Court for the Northern District of California had interfered with “the Executive Branch’s inherent powers as to immigration and foreign affairs” by blocking the administration’s plan.

Ahilan Arulanantham, legal representative for the TPS holders, told the BBC that this case may represent “the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern US history”.

“That the Supreme Court authorized this action in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking,” Mr Arulanantham added. “The humanitarian and economic impact of the Court’s decision will be felt immediately, and will reverberate for generations.”

Because this case was presented as an emergency request, the Supreme Court justices did not explain their decision.

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson registered a dissent, according to the court’s brief order.

The Trump administration is also expected to move forward in August with plans to terminate TPS protections for many Haitians.

This ruling is one of several recent immigration-related decisions the Supreme Court has been asked to resolve under the Trump administration’s policies.

Just last week, the administration requested the high court to eliminate humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

However, not all efforts have succeeded — on Friday, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s attempt to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants from north Texas. The justices questioned whether the president had the legal authority to enforce such an action.

Following a conversation on Monday between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump announced that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine for a ceasefire would begin immediately. However, the Kremlin tempered expectations, saying progress would take time, and Trump himself seemed hesitant to align with Europe on new sanctions against Moscow.

Trump, in a social media update, said he had shared this development with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and leaders from the European Union, France, Italy, Germany, and Finland during a joint call held after his meeting with Putin.

“Russia and Ukraine will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War,” Trump declared. He later told reporters at the White House that he believed “some progress is being made.”

Putin expressed appreciation to Trump for backing renewed dialogue between Moscow and Kyiv, referring to recent face-to-face discussions in Turkey– the first since March 2022. But after the Monday call, Putin cautiously stated that things were “generally on the right track.”

“We have agreed with the president of the United States that Russia will propose and is ready to work with the Ukrainian side on a memorandum on a possible future peace accord,” Putin said.

Though the resumption of direct contact signaled a positive shift after over three years of conflict, expectations of a major breakthrough once again went unmet.

European leaders opted to ramp up sanctions against Russia following Trump’s debrief, according to a late Monday post from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Meanwhile, Trump held off on further punitive measures. When asked about the delay in sanctions, he responded: “Well because I think there’s a chance of getting something done, and if you do that, you can also make it much worse. But there could be a time where that’s going to happen.”

Acknowledging the diplomatic challenges, Trump noted that there were “some big egos involved.” He added that without tangible movement, “I’m just going to back away,” reiterating that “This is not my war.”

No Timeline For Accords

European officials and Ukraine continue to urge Russia to enact an immediate ceasefire, while Trump has tried to persuade Putin to agree to a 30-day halt in hostilities. Putin, however, remains firm that certain conditions must be satisfied first.

According to Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov, no specific timeline for a ceasefire was discussed during the Trump-Putin call. However, the two leaders did talk about a potential prisoner exchange involving nine individuals from each country. Ushakov also noted Trump called the future of U.S.-Russia relations “impressive.”

State news outlets reported Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov saying that discussions between Russia and Ukraine would be complex as both sides work to draft a common peace and ceasefire framework.
“There are no deadlines and there cannot be any. It is clear that everyone wants to do this as quickly as possible, but, of course, the devil is in the details,” he mentioned.

Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister, reacted to the call by saying it was “undoubtedly a win for Putin.”

The Russian president, Bildt noted, “deflected the call for an … immediate ceasefire and instead can continue military operations at the same time as he puts pressure on at the negotiating table.”

Potential For Multinational Summit

Following his discussion with Trump, Zelenskiy stated that Ukraine and its allies could consider organizing a high-level summit involving Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom to facilitate a resolution.

“Ukraine is ready for direct negotiations with Russia in any format that brings results,” Zelenskiy said on X.

He proposed possible venues such as Turkey, the Vatican, or Switzerland, though it was unclear if this initiative aligned with the negotiations Trump mentioned.

Trump noted that Pope Leo had shown interest in hosting the talks at the Vatican, although the Vatican had not yet issued a response. According to Kremlin spokesperson Peskov, the idea of direct engagement between Putin and Zelenskiy was discussed, and the Vatican’s offer was welcomed, though no decision had been finalized regarding a meeting location for “possible future contacts.”

A source familiar with Trump’s conference call with Ukrainian and European leaders mentioned that some participants were “shocked” by his reluctance to pressure Putin with sanctions.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen commented briefly on X, saying the conversation with Trump was “good” and that it was “important that the U.S. stays engaged.”

Critics of Moscow, including Ukraine and its allies, have accused Russia of stalling negotiations and offering minimal cooperation — just enough to prevent Trump from imposing economic penalties.

Any decision by Trump to implement new sanctions would mark a significant shift, especially given his historically lenient stance toward Moscow and his rollback of Biden-era pro-Ukraine policies.

Trump had earlier encouraged delegates from both sides to meet in Istanbul last week — the first such engagement since 2022 — but the gathering ended without agreement on a truce. Hopes further dwindled after Putin declined Zelenskiy’s invitation for an in-person meeting.

Currently, Putin continues to demand Ukraine pull back troops from four regions claimed by Russia. His forces still occupy a fifth of Ukraine’s territory and are reportedly advancing. He emphasized that the proposed memorandum would address “a number of positions, such as, for example, the principles of settlement, the timing of a possible peace agreement.”

“The main thing for us is to eliminate the root causes of this crisis,” Putin said. “We just need to determine the most effective ways to move towards peace.”

On Monday, 12th of May, 2025, the United States welcomed its first group of white South African refugees under a new policy initiated by President Donald Trump. A chartered flight carrying 59 white South , primarily Afrikaners, landed at Dulles International Airport virginia.

These individuals were granted refugee status under an executive order signed by President Trump in February 2025. The order cited alleged racial discrimination and violence against white farmers in South Africa as the basis for the policy.

The move has sparked significant debate, raising questions about the motivations behind the policy and its broader implications.

Who Are the Afrikaners?

Afrikaners are an ethnic group in South Africa descended from Dutch, German, and French settlers who arrived in the 17th century. They have historically been associated with farming and played a significant role in the country’s political landscape, particularly during the apartheid era.

Although they were not direct participants in the transatlantic slave trade, they were complicit in the use of enslaved labor within the Cape Colony (South Africa). The Dutch East India Company for example, initiated the importation of enslaved individuals to the Cape in 1658, primarily from regions such as Angola and Madagascar. Afrikaner settlers, known as Boers, utilized this labor for agricultural and domestic purposes

The ‘Alleged’ Refugees’ Persecution

President Trump and his South African-born adviser, Elon Musk, had claimed that white South Africans, especially Afrikaners, are facing a “genocide” due to alleged government policies and attacks on white farmers. However, these claims have been widely disputed.

In response to the U.S. government granting refugee status to a small group of 59 white South African Afrikaners, citing alleged racial persecution, the South African government strongly denied these claims, stating that Afrikaners are among the country’s most affluent and influential citizens, and that farm attacks are part of the country’s widespread crime affecting all races, not racially targeted violence.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has been scheduled to meet with President Trump on May 21, 2025, to address these escalating diplomatic tensions .

Political Motivations

Critics suggest that the refugee policy may be politically motivated, aiming to garner support among certain voter groups. The swift implementation of the program, bypassing traditional vetting processes, has raised concerns about its legitimacy and fairness.

While the policy presents itself as a humanitarian effort, critics argue that it selectively prioritizes Afrikaners over other persecuted groups. This selective approach raises questions about the administration’s commitment to universal human rights. By portraying Afrikaners as victims of racial discrimination, Trump aims to galvanize his base ahead of the 2028 election.

President Donald Trump has defended his decision to grant asylum to white South African Afrikaners by asserting that they are victims of racial persecution and violence in South Africa. He has characterized the situation as a “genocide,” citing attacks on white farmers and land expropriation policies as evidence of systemic discrimination. Trump stated, “Farmers are being killed, they happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me” .

Domestic and International Reactions

The policy has faced criticism both domestically and internationally. Human rights organizations and religious groups have expressed concerns about the preferential treatment given to white South Africans while other refugee programs remain suspended.

The Episcopal Church has ended its refugee resettlement partnership with the U.S. government, citing the preferential treatment of Afrikaners over other refugees. Democratic lawmakers, including Senator Jeanne Shaheen, have condemned the policy as politically motivated and inconsistent with established refugee protocols.

Additionally, the South African government has condemned the policy, viewing it as an affront to the country’s democratic principles.

President Trump’s decision to grant refugee status to white South Africans has ignited a complex debate about race, politics, and immigration policy. While the administration frames the move as a humanitarian gesture, the surrounding controversies suggest that political considerations may also be at play. As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor its impact on U.S. domestic politics and international relations.