News
Many Afghans living in the U.S. fear being tortured or killed if they get deported
Sayedyaqoob Qattali moved to Houston with his family after legally entering the United States in late 2023.
Sayedyaqoob Qattali
hide caption
toggle caption
Sayedyaqoob Qattali
HOUSTON — Sayedyaqoob Qattali spent years aiding U.S. forces as a security commander for the Afghan Interior Ministry in Herat province. He was caught there when Afghanistan’s government fell to the Taliban in August 2021 and was unable to get U.S. help to evacuate.
“I went to Iran, and I applied for Brazil, [to get a] humanitarian visa. That was just the option that was left. Then, after one year, I got the visa, humanitarian visa,” Qattali said.
What happened next was an odyssey. From Brazil, he and his family went to Peru, then to Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and finally Mexico. Most of the time, they walked.

“In all these countries, we got … the legal paper that [said] we can stay there,” Qattali said.
When they arrived in Mexico in November of 2023, Qattali and his family used the CBP One app to apply for U.S. humanitarian parole.
“Some of [the] people … they were waiting one, two, three months,” Qattali said. “And, fortunately, we received an appointment after two days.”
Qattali and his family entered the U.S. at the San Ysidro Port of Entry between Tijuana and San Diego. They came to Houston, getting relocation help from the Houston-based veterans organization Combined Arms.
Qattali speaks seven languages. He got a job as an apartment leasing agent, where his language skills enabled him to help fellow Afghans settle into the community. And he enrolled his two children in a charter school.
Everything was going well. Then, President Trump took office, and one of his first actions was to end the CBP One function for new applicants.
Initially, that wasn’t a problem for Qattali, as he and his family were already settled in the U.S. and had begun applying for asylum.
That changed last month.
“Unfortunately,” he said, “we got an email … that you have to leave. We have like seven days. After that, they’re going to charge … $900 per day.”
Qattali’s attorney told him not to worry, as he’s protected by the asylum application process, but he’s still frightened for his future.
“I have … a threatening letter,” Qattali said. “If I go back, like, 100% they’re going to kill me and my family as well.”
Khalil Yarzada, a former interpreter for U.S. and NATO forces, now heads a program with the Houston-based veterans group Combined Arms, which helps Afghans who aided U.S. forces to settle in the United States.
Andrew Schneider
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Schneider
“We don’t feel safe”
Even Afghans who have legal permanent residency in the U.S. worry what Trump’s policies mean for them.
Muhammad Amiri is a former pilot trainee with the Afghan air force who found himself stranded in the United Arab Emirates when the Taliban took Kabul.
Amiri managed to get to the United States on what’s known as a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV), a status for which individuals who fought and worked alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan are eligible and which can lead to permanent legal status.
Four months ago, Amiri received his green card.
“The words cannot express just my feeling,” Amiri said. “It was out of my control. I started crying, and the tears were coming, just without any control. And just, I thanked God.”
Amiri has had several jobs since coming to the U.S. He’s currently a security supervisor at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, and he’s taking IT courses with the goal of getting a job working as a computer help desk associate. He also recently got engaged.
But Amiri’s fiancée is still in Afghanistan, and until his legal situation is settled, he doesn’t dare leave the U.S. to see her, for fear he might not be allowed to return.
Indeed, he worries even his green card won’t protect him in the current political climate in the U.S.
“It doesn’t matter just how you got here,” Amiri said. “We don’t feel safe, and we don’t feel good because now, we feel threatened, if they send us back to our country, it will be the same story. [We] feel threatened to be tortured, maybe be killed by [the] Taliban.”
Ali Zakaria, an immigration attorney based in West Houston, said people like Amiri are right to be worried.
“As unfortunate as it sounds,” Zakaria said, “my first advice to all my clients — and my family and friends — is that, if you’re not a U.S. citizen, do not talk or post on your social media anything that’s negative about the current administration. Do not voice your opinion. Do not engage in any protest, because you will be targeted by this administration for revocation of your status.”
The end of Enduring Welcome and temporary protected status
Roughly 200,000 Afghan immigrants and refugees came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021. That includes about 10,000 in Greater Houston.
Sayedyaqoob Qattali served as a security commander with the Afghan Interior Ministry in Herat province, Afghanistan, before the Afghan government fell to the Taliban in August 2021.
Sayedyaqoob Qattali
hide caption
toggle caption
Sayedyaqoob Qattali
While some of them have since received green cards or even U.S. citizenship, many have more tenuous legal status, such as humanitarian parole or temporary protected status (TPS).
TPS is a program that allows individuals from countries where their lives might be in danger — due to wars or natural disasters — to legally live and work in the United States until it is safe for them to return home.
The current TPS for Afghans began in September 2023 and extends through May 20 of this year.
Afghans who are here on TPS got a shock in April when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that she would not be renewing the protection when it expires.
After that, any Afghans in the U.S. under the program will be at risk of deportation to Afghanistan.
“Everyone I speak to is concerned that if this protection is revoked, a lot of people’s lives are going to be in danger,” said Khalil Yarzada, a former Afghan translator for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan who became a U.S. citizen in February. “A lot of people are going to see a target on their back.”
Soon after President Trump took office, the State Department shut down its Office of the Coordinator for Afghan Relocation Efforts (CARE) and the program that CARE oversees, Operation Enduring Welcome.
U.S. Congressman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, is the former chair of both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee.
In March, he and two other Republican representatives sent a joint letter to President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Noem urging them not to end the Enduring Welcome program.
“Such a decision would abandon over 200,000 wartime allies and have lasting consequences for America’s global credibility, military operations, and veterans,” McCaul and his House colleagues wrote. “The Taliban considers anyone who worked with the U.S. to be an enemy. They are being hunted, detained, and executed. Over 3,200 documented killings and disappearances of former Afghan military personnel, interpreters, and U.S. government partners has already occurred.”
The reasons for the policy change
Zakaria, the Houston immigration attorney, thinks the president’s motivation for ending programs like TPS for Afghans is because of his campaign pledge to enact mass deportations when he took office.
“What the Trump administration’s policy [is] at this moment is to create this mass group that can be deported,” Zakaria said, “and one way is to cancel the existing legal protocols or legal protections that are in place, and thus making those people unlawfully here, and then deport them.”
Ali Zakaria is an immigration attorney based in West Houston.
Andrew Schneider
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Schneider
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS,) issued the following statement explaining the decision to end TPS for Afghans:
“Secretary Noem made the decision to terminate TPS for individuals from Afghanistan because the country’s improved security situation and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country,” McLaughlin wrote. “Additionally, the termination furthers the national interest and the statutory provision that TPS is in fact designed to be temporary. Additionally, DHS records indicate that there are Afghan nationals who are TPS recipients who have been the subject of administrative investigations for fraud, public safety, and national security.”
While Noem argues that the security outlook in Afghanistan has improved, the U.S. State Department’s website lists the travel advisory for Afghanistan at the highest risk, Level 4: “Do Not Travel, due to armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. Travel to all areas of Afghanistan is unsafe.”
NPR reached out to two of the staunchest critics of former President Joe Biden’s handling of Afghanistan, Congressman McCaul and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, for their reactions to the approaching end of TPS for Afghans.
Cornyn did not respond to repeated requests for comment. McCaul sent the following statement:
“From the Houthis in Yemen to the cartels on our coasts, the Trump administration is taking decisive action to root out terrorism and make our world safer,” McCaul wrote. “The Taliban, however, have made their thirst for retribution against those who helped the United States clear. Until they demonstrate clear behavioral changes, I urge the administration to continue prioritizing the safety of the Afghan men and women who risked their lives to help our troops.”
The last two Congresses have taken up a bill called the Afghan Adjustment Act, aimed at speeding up the path to permanent legal status for Afghans who aided U.S. forces during the war and expanding the eligibility for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs).
The measure died at the end of 2022 and 2024, and the current Congress has yet to refile the bill.
“Personally, I would like to see that happen yesterday,” said Yarzada, who heads the SIVs and Allies Program at Combined Arms. “The SIVs have given so much of their life, of their livelihood, to be in a place where they are, and I think it is our duty as Americans to support them, to give them a fair shot, a fair chance to be able to build a life here in the United States, because this is the most American thing that we can do.”
News
Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn
Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP
Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.
Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.
A sloppy edit
At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.
The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”
Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”
The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”
While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.
A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.
Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.
The appeal of BritBox
For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.
That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.
Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”
Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)
It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.
Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.
Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)
“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.
NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.
Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn
Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.
Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.
In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.
Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.
Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.
“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”
An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.
“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”
Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement
Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.
“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”
Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.
News
Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
transcript
transcript
Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.
-
Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.
By Shawn Paik
December 16, 2025
News
Nick Reiner will be charged with first degree murder in his parents’ killing
Michele Singer Reiner, Rob Reiner and their son Nick in 2013.
Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue
hide caption
toggle caption
Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue
Nick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of filmmaker Rob Reiner and photographer Michele Singer Reiner, is being charged with two counts of first degree murder. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said at a press conference Tuesday that the charges include a “special circumstance” of multiple murders and a “special allegation” that Reiner used a dangerous and deadly weapon — a knife.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
“No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty,” Hochman added.
Hochman called Rob Reiner an “iconic force in our entertainment industry” and his wife Michele Singer Reiner an “equally iconic photographer and producer.” The police became aware of their deaths on Sunday after a call from the fire department. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the cause and time of the deaths aren’t available at this time as they await updates from the coroner’s office.
Alan Hamilton, deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said that Nick Reiner was arrested in public on Sunday, in the Exposition Park area of Los Angeles, near the University of Southern California campus. In response to questions, McDonnell said he was unable to say whether or not Nick Reiner was under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest. Reiner had been open about his struggles with addiction in the past.


When asked whether there was evidence of mental illness in Nick Reiner’s background, Hochman said “any evidence, if there is any” would be presented in court. Hochman wouldn’t answer a question about whether Reiner admitted to the crimes, saying that is the type of evidence that would come out in court.
Hochman emphasized that “charges are not evidence” and that his office would be presenting evidence to jurors in a court of law. He asked people to rely on trusted sources and not hearsay about the case.
He said that, as in any case, his office would be taking “the thoughts and desires of the family into consideration.”
Prosecutors are filing charges Tuesday afternoon. Reiner is going through medical clearance – a normal process, according to officials – and will be brought to court for arraignment, where he will enter a plea. Reiner is currently being held without bail.


-
Iowa2 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa1 week agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Iowa4 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Cleveland, OH1 week agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World1 week ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans
-
Maine20 hours agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Technology6 days agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster