Connect with us

News

Trump Officials Move to Quickly Expel Migrants Biden Allowed In Temporarily

Published

on

Trump Officials Move to Quickly Expel Migrants Biden Allowed In Temporarily

The Trump administration is giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials the power to quickly deport migrants who were allowed into the country temporarily under Biden-era programs, according to an internal government memo obtained by The New York Times.

The memo, signed Thursday night by the acting head of the Homeland Security Department, offers ICE officials a road map on how to use expansive powers that were long reserved only for encounters at the southern border to quickly remove migrants. It also appears to give the officials the ability to expel migrants in two major Biden-era programs that have allowed more than a million people to enter the country temporarily.

Those programs — an app called CBP One that migrants could use to try to schedule appointments to enter the United States, and an initiative that let in certain migrants fleeing Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti — were key pillars of the Biden administration’s efforts to discourage illegal entries by allowing certain legal pathways. Immigrant advocates also worried that the memo could apply to Afghan and Ukrainian immigrants brought to the United States under separate programs.

The decision indicates that President Trump will try to use every facet of the immigration enforcement apparatus to crack down on a system he has long said has been abused, and that he intends to target not just those who sneaked across the border but even those who followed previously authorized pathways to enter.

It is also sure to raise fears among a large class of immigrants, many of whom had fled desperate conditions, believed that they were in the country legally and might be afraid to return to their often-dangerous home countries.

Advertisement

Both of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s signature programs had faced heavy criticism from Republicans, including Trump administration officials, as a way to facilitate illegal immigration through the guise of a government program. The migrants were given a grant to stay in the country for up to two years under a temporary legal status known as “parole.” The memo appears to allow for their deportation, regardless of whether they have reached the end of that legal status or still have time remaining.

In total, around 1.4 million migrants entered the country through the two programs since the beginning of 2023.

A senior Homeland Security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the effort rested on Mr. Trump’s belief that Mr. Biden’s immigration programs were never lawful and that migrants in the country unlawfully should be removed quickly.

Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff and the architect of Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, has made clear that he opposed both programs.

“Here’s an idea: Don’t fly millions of illegals aliens from failed states thousands of miles away into small towns across the American Heartland,” Mr. Miller said on social media in September.

Advertisement

News of the memo was met with immediate criticism from immigrant advocates and former Biden officials.

“In addition to raising serious legal concerns, subjecting people who played by the rules to a summary deportation process is an outrageous and unprecedented betrayal,” said Tom Jawetz, a senior lawyer in the Homeland Security Department in the Biden administration.

Karen Tumlin, the director of the Justice Action Center, an immigrant advocacy group, said the decision was a mistake. She said she believed the memo could also allow ICE officials to try to deport migrants from Afghanistan and Ukraine.

“American communities have opened their hearts and homes for people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Ukraine,” she said. “Punishing people who did everything the government asked, and many of whom had U.S.-based sponsors, to this summary deportation procedure is appalling.”

Mr. Trump ordered the agency to shut down the Biden-era programs on Monday. That same day, Benjamine C. Huffman, the acting homeland security secretary, issued a separate memo ordering the phaseout of all such programs. On Tuesday, the administration widened the deportation powers.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Mr. Huffman provided additional guidance to the agency on the two key decisions and how they interact with each other.

In the memo, he directed ICE officials to analyze immigrants the agency is “aware of” who can be deported under the new fast deportations, which sidestep immigration courts, and consider whether they should be removed from the country. The memo suggests that officials prioritize immigrants who have been in the country longer than a year but who have not applied for asylum.

As part of that, the memo says that officials can, if necessary, decide to move to strip parole, a form of temporary legal status. Migrants brought under the two Biden-era programs — as well as other initiatives involving Afghans and Ukrainians — are in the country under that specific form of temporary status.

If migrants are already in the formal deportation process — which can take years — ICE officials can move to terminate their case and place them into the sped-up deportation program.

The memo also provides ICE officials the ability to target those who have been in the country under a temporary program but have remained more than two years for formal deportation proceedings.

Advertisement

The fast-track deportation powers have already been challenged in federal court in Washington by the American Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, argues that the decision violated federal law.

“The Trump administration wants to use this illegal policy to fuel its mass deportation agenda and rip communities apart,” Anand Balakrishnan, an A.C.L.U. lawyer, said in a statement. “Expanding expedited removal would give Trump a cheat code to circumvent due process and the Constitution, and we are again here to fight it.”

News

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Reported North of New York City

Published

on

Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Reported North of New York City

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Eastern. The New York Times

A minor, 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck about 12 miles north of New York City on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 10:17 a.m. Eastern in Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., data from the agency shows.

The Westchester County emergency services department said in a statement that it had not received any reports of damage.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Eastern. Shake data is as of Tuesday, March 10 at 10:30 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, March 10 at 2:18 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Published

on

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Ed Martin, an outspoken Trump administration official, is facing attorney discipline proceedings in Washington, DC, for a letter he sent to Georgetown Law about its diversity programs, the district’s professional conduct investigator announced on Tuesday.

Martin is formally accused of violating his ethical codes as an attorney for telling Georgetown Law’s dean last year that his Justice Department office wouldn’t hire students because of the school’s diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives programs, according to the filing from Hamilton Fox, the disciplinary counsel for DC who acts as a quasi-prosecutor on attorney discipline matters.

Unlike unsolicited complaints, Fox’s formal disciplinary complaint kicks off professional conduct proceedings for Martin in which he will need to respond and could be sanctioned or ultimately lose his law license.

Fox’s announcement on Tuesday marks the first major bar discipline proceeding against a high-profile administration official or attorney supporting President Donald Trump during Trump’s second term. Several Trump lawyers faced disciplinary proceedings after the efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, who lost his law license.

“Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of ‘DEI,’” Fox wrote in the complaint. “He demanded that Georgetown Law relinquish its free speech and religious rights in order to continue to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students.”

Advertisement

Martin was removed from the top prosecutor job in DC after senators made clear he would not be confirmed to the role, but has remained at the Justice Department in several roles, including as pardon attorney.

“Mr. Martin knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,” Fox wrote.

Martin is being represented by a Justice Department attorney, a source told CNN.

A spokesperson for DOJ attacked Fox’s complaint. “The DC bar’s attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda,” DOJ said.

Martin had sent the letter to Georgetown Law while serving temporarily as US attorney for DC, a prominent Justice Department position, and told the school his federal prosecutors’ office wouldn’t hire Georgetown’s law school students. It came at a time when the Trump administration was beginning to crack down on universities for their DEI efforts.

Advertisement

In his letter, Martin claimed a whistleblower told him that the school was teaching and promoting DEI.

Martin also violated attorney ethics rules by contacting judges of the DC court directly, Fox alleged, rather than going through official channels, once he was informed he was under investigation for his professional conduct. The DC Court of Appeals ultimately signs off on attorney discipline findings.

Early last year, Fox’s office had formally asked Martin to respond to a complaint it received by a retired judge regarding the Georgetown letter.

Martin instead wrote to the judges on the DC court complaining about Fox.

“In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,’” Fox wrote.

Advertisement

“He copied the White House Counsel ‘for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed,’” Fox said.

The top judge in the DC courts told Martin the court wouldn’t meet with him about the disciplinary matter and that he would need to follow procedure.

With Fox’s complaint, there will now be several steps ahead of bar discipline authorities looking at Martin’s action, and Fox didn’t specify how Martin should be reprimanded or punished if the discipline boards and the court ultimately determine he violated his ethical codes.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday morning.

In recent days, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her office would have a more powerful role in reviewing attorney discipline complaints against Justice Department attorneys, potentially setting up an approach that could keep the department at odds with the bar on behalf of DOJ attorneys facing their own individual disciplinary proceedings.

Advertisement

CNN’s Paula Reid contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

News

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Published

on

Europe and Asia battle for LNG as Iran war chokes supply

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Asian and European buyers are battling to source liquefied natural gas after the war in the Middle East choked off shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, blocking a fifth of global supplies.

In an indication of the intensifying contest for LNG since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, a handful of gas carriers have abruptly changed course while sailing to Europe and swung towards Asia instead, according to ship monitoring data analysed by the FT.

Countries across Asia are highly dependent on oil and gas sent through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway where shipping has slowed to a near standstill.

Advertisement

Most of the LNG produced in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates is ordinarily shipped through the strait to Asia, and Asian LNG prices surged almost immediately after war broke out, creating an incentive to divert US gas to the region.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are among the countries that need to source LNG to make up for supplies they will not receive from the Gulf, said Massimo Di Odoardo, head of gas and LNG analysis at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Taiwan relied on Qatar for more than 30 per cent of its gas consumption in 2025, according to Citigroup, while for South Korea and Japan the figures were 15 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Asia typically uses more gas than Europe in the hotter summer months because of more air-conditioning use, creating urgency for Asian utilities to secure cargoes.

The vast majority of LNG is sold under long-term contracts rather than on the spot market, but some buyers are able to change the final destination of their purchases and some sellers are willing to break contracts if prices rise high enough.

Advertisement

By Thursday, surging European gas prices and rocketing shipping rates had swung the balance back against diversion of US LNG to Asia, according to data company Spark Commodities.

The decision on where to send gas carriers can depend on the relative levels of the European gas price, Asia’s JKM benchmark for LNG and shipping rates.

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

For European buyers, the battle with Asia for LNG supplies is eerily familiar to the situation four years ago after Russia slashed pipeline natural gas flows to the continent following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Competition for spare cargoes then pushed prices to record levels.

On Monday, European gas prices reached as high as €69.50 per megawatt hour, more than double their level before the Iran conflict began. Even so, prices are still far from the €342 per megawatt hour reached in 2022.

JKM gas prices also more than doubled since the start of the war to $24.80 per 1mn British thermal units by Monday, equivalent to €73.10/MWh.

Advertisement

European buyers have learnt from their experience in 2022. “Europe has more weapons at its disposal in this extreme price scenario to try and fight,” said Alex Kerr, a partner at law firm Baker Botts.

Buyers had started putting clauses in contracts to say that suppliers would face much higher penalties if they diverted cargoes for commercial gain, Kerr said.

There is also much more LNG on the market now that is not committed to set destinations, largely because of new projects starting in the US.

While producers such as Qatar impose strict rules on where its LNG can be sent, almost all US exports are allowed to sail wherever buyers want. Several analysts said there had also been an increase in the willingness of some producers to break contracts for financial advantage.

This makes diversions more likely, while the reluctance of some European buyers to sign long-term supply contracts before the outbreak of war this month could prove costly.

Advertisement

Expectations of a global supply glut convinced some European buyers that it would be cheaper to wait until later in the year to sign supply deals.

Wood Mackenzie’s Di Odoardo said the buyers had also held off on LNG purchases because new EU legislation on methane emissions made it unclear whether they could incur penalties in the future.

The risk of prices rising as Europe and Asia fight for available cargoes is increasing every day the Strait of Hormuz stays almost closed.

Gas is more difficult to store and to carry in tankers than oil, making its markets more vulnerable to shortages and price shocks.

“The longer the Strait remains shut, the greater the risk that the shipping disruption turns into a genuine gas shortage, as tankers cannot load and facilities have limited storage,” said consultancy Oxford Economics in a research note.

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Harry Dempsey in Tokyo. Data visualisation by Jana Tauschinski

Continue Reading

Trending