WASHINGTON — Most judges on a federal appeals court seemed inclined during oral arguments Tuesday to allow a federal judge to continue investigating Trump officials for possible criminal contempt-of-court charges for defying a judicial order by sending more than 100 Venezuelan men to a brutal Salvadoran prison last year.  

The administration is challenging if U.S. District Judge James Boasberg can continue a contempt investigation after the Justice Department said former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was the sole official responsible for violating Boasberg’s oral and written orders.

Ending an inquiry would be “unfair” to Noem, “who might be a sacrificial lamb because you have picked who you want to go forward,” Judge J. Michelle Childs said. 

The case stems from a proclamation that President Donald Trump signed in March 2025 that invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to rapidly deport Venezuelan males 14 years and older who were suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang. 

The American Civil Liberties Union sued to stop several deportation flights of 137 Venezuelans, and Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order to stop the removals. But the flights landed in El Salvador and the men were detained at a brutal mega-prison known as CECOT for four months before being released in a prison exchange with Venezuela. 

The Department of Justice has only identified Noem as the official who decided to allow the planes to land in El Salvador despite the restraining order.

Boasberg is trying to identify other government officials who may also bear responsibility. The ACLU has argued the officials who provided legal advice, including now-Attorney General Todd Blanche, should be included.

All judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit participated in the rare full-court review. 

They are: Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Patricia A. Millett, Cornelia T.L. Pillard, Robert L. Wilkins, Gregory G. Katsas, Neomi Rao, Justin R. Walker, Childs, Florence Y. Pan, Bradley N. Garcia, Harry T. Edwards, Douglas H. Ginsburg, A. Raymond Randolph and Judith W. Rogers.

Former President Jimmy Carter nominated Edwards; former President Ronald Regan nominated Henderson and Ginsburg; former President George H.W. Bush nominated Randolph; former President Bill Clinton nominated Rogers; former President Barack Obama nominated Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard and Wilkins; Trump nominated Katsas, Rao and Walker in his first term and former President Joe Biden nominated Childs, Pan and Garcia.

Judge not a prosecutor, DOJ says

Representing the Trump administration, Brett A. Shumate, the assistant attorney general leading the DOJ’s Civil Division, argued that Boasberg does not have the authority to investigate possible criminal contempt charges and that role is only for a prosecutor. 

“District judges do not investigate or prosecute crimes,” Shumate said. “That’s a role for a prosecutor, and so the purpose of the investigation at this point is no longer, let’s figure out who the decisionmaker was. It is now, let’s probe the mental state of senior government officials.”

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the March 2025 order from Boasberg clearly prohibited the Trump administration from transferring the Venezuelan men to CECOT, and that Boasberg should be allowed to conduct his preliminary inquiry to identify any other potential official who violated his ruling.  

“The oral order was crystal clear,” Gelernt said. 

Blance, Bove provided legal advice

Boasberg’s inquiry involves Blanche and Emil Bove, who were both high-ranking DOJ officials at the time. Bove is a judge in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Blanche and Bove gave legal advice to Joseph Mazzara, then the acting general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, who informed Noem of Boasberg’s oral and written temporary restraining order that blocked the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. 

“After receiving that legal advice, Secretary Noem directed that the (Alien Enemies Act) detainees who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador,” according to a filing by DOJ.

According to a June 2025 whistleblower account, Bove told a group of attorneys at the department before the Venezuelan men were removed, that the deportations would still occur and “we may have to say f— you to the courts,” if an order blocking the removals was issued by a judge. 

Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing to become a judge, Bove denied the June 2025 whistleblower account.

Boasberg also wants to hear testimony from the whistleblower, then-DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, and Drew Ensign, a DOJ attorney who appeared before him in March 2025.

More facts needed

Shumate argued Tuesday that Boasberg already had the information he needed, and that the DOJ already noted that Noem was the government official who ordered the planes to continue to El Salvador.

Childs disagreed and said that there could be officials in that decisionmaking process other than Noem.

Shumate said that all Boasberg had asked the federal government was who made the decision.

“We’ve provided that information, but somehow that’s no longer good enough,” he said. 

Millett agreed with Childs that there seemed to be multiple people involved in the decision that Noem made. 

“It’s clear from the declarations that she was receiving legal advice from a number of people within the Justice Department,” Millett said. “Now, if an attorney providing legal advice to the secretary were to tell the secretary, ‘you have the legal authority to f-expletive the court order on this and go ahead and disembark people,’ might it be accurate that that attorney would just as well be in contempt of court as the secretary, potentially?” 

Shumate said that would “depend on the facts.”

“Well, then the district court has to ask some more questions,” she said.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• A federal judge ruled Sept. 21 that the Trump administration did not give the required notice and public comment period when it released a controversial new rule in 2025.
• The rule would have required state officials to check the immigration status of anyone who uses federally funded adult education classes, Head Start programs, community health centers, and more. 
• The rule excluded undocumented immigrants and several categories of immigrants with legal status from accessing federally funded services.
• Wisconsin was among the states that sued to block the rule, arguing the measure would require them to “dramatically restructure their social safety nets and render them inaccessible to countless of the States’ most vulnerable residents.”
• An official who runs a group of Wisconsin community health centers told Wisconsin Watch he will continue to watch this case.

A federal judge has thrown out a controversial rule that would have required states to check the immigration status of anyone seeking to use federally funded adult education, Head Start, community health centers and other programs. 

The government did not give the required notice and public comment period when it released the rule last year, U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy wrote in a Sept. 21 ruling. 

The ruling means millions of Wisconsinites — immigrant and native-born — won’t have to jump through hoops to prove their legal status before attending classes, seeing a doctor or receiving assistance at a food pantry. 

Federal agencies overhauled the rule in response to an executive order from President Donald Trump that dramatically reinterpreted a 1996 welfare law that had long barred many categories of immigrants from cash assistance and Medicaid. For three decades, the federal government has deemed that that law — the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act — does not apply to social safety net programs open to everyone, including a variety of educational, health and community services. 

Calling that exemption too broad, the Trump administration declared that nearly all federally funded programs would be available only to U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, refugees and people granted asylum or certain other humanitarian statuses.  

The new rule excluded undocumented immigrants and several categories of immigrants with legal status. Those ineligible included people with Temporary Protected Status, student or work visas and U visas for survivors of serious crimes, as well as people with pending asylum or U visa applications.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul and 20 other state attorneys general quickly sued to block the new rule. The states argued that checking the immigration status of every participant in federally funded services would create unreasonable burdens for program staff and would discourage eligible people from seeking services.

“For the first time, millions of people are facing a new demand before they can access the Nation’s most essential programs: ‘show me your papers,’” the states wrote in a July 2025 complaint. 

The states argued that they would “suffer continued, irreparable harm if forced to dramatically restructure their social safety nets and render them inaccessible to countless of the States’ most vulnerable residents.” They accused the administration of violating a law that requires the federal government to give notice and seek public comment before releasing a new rule. 

The lawsuit put the rule on hold in those 21 states, first because of a voluntary agreement and later because of a temporary injunction. 

Now the judge has issued a final decision finding the rule violated the notice-and-comment requirement. Her ruling this week blocks the federal government from implementing or enforcing the new rule, but it doesn’t prohibit it from trying again. Federal agencies could issue a new rule if they comply with the notice and comment requirements, McElroy wrote.

Sabin Sidney, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Education, called the ruling “an unfortunate betrayal of hardworking, American taxpayers.” 

“This lawsuit demonstrates again that Democrats will adamantly defend federal taxpayer dollars supporting illegal aliens,” Sidney said, though the rule would also have excluded various groups of authorized immigrants.

Asked whether the agency planned to appeal or issue a new rule, Sidney referred Wisconsin Watch to the U.S. Department of Justice, which did not respond to a request for comment. 

Wisconsin clinics, classrooms keep welcoming immigrants

The rule, if it takes effect, could bar immigrants from receiving health care at the nation’s more than 17,000 community health center clinics, despite the fact that federal law requires those clinics to accept all local residents. One in seven people across the country use those clinics, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers. In rural areas, it’s one in three.

Uncertainty surrounding the rule has already interfered with medical care, said Dr. Ken Loving, CEO of Access Community Health Centers, which provides medical, dental and mental health care at five southwest Wisconsin clinics. Many patients may not know the specifics of the case, Loving said, but they know politicians are trying to restrict access to care. 

“I think what does (register) is the drumbeat of questions about whether they’re going to be able to access care in the longer term. … It undermines trust in the system at large,” Loving said. 

“We try to focus on the health care we’re delivering to people, and we wind up having to spend a lot of time and effort just reassuring people that we’re there for them.”

In Wisconsin and the other states that sued, the rule has been on hold for more than a year while the lawsuit played out. But many other states have already adopted the restrictions, said Jacob Hofstetter, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute who is tracking the lawsuit and its implications for adult education students and teachers.

Many immigrants take classes to improve their English, build job skills or earn a high school equivalency. In some cases, these classes receive federal funding, which would have made them subject to the restrictions. A staff member at one adult education program — in a state that implemented the new rule  — told Hofstetter the program had kicked out a third of its students to comply.

The rule also created a “huge implementation burden” for adult education providers, who would now have to check — and understand — the specific immigration status of every student, Hofstetter said. 

“This isn’t just, ‘Do you have legal status or do you not have legal status?’” Hofstetter said, noting that programs, many of which are already stretching their resources to serve students, would need to develop expertise in immigration law.  

Under the rule, all students must provide proof that they qualify — not just immigrants. Hofstetter said he talked with some providers who’d been forced to turn away U.S.-born students who lacked the paperwork to prove their citizenship or just didn’t want to jump through another hurdle.

“(Staff) knew they were eligible to participate, but because they didn’t have that documentation, or they were unable to participate in that extra administrative step, they had to exclude those students as well,” Hofstetter said.

The new rule, if implemented, would make it harder for immigrants to learn English and obtain the skills employers need, Hofstetter and colleague Margie McHugh wrote in a January article, calling those “widely supported goals that the administration itself has publicly endorsed.” 

Worries remain

For now, Loving said, he and his colleagues at community health centers nationwide will keep watching this and other ongoing court cases that could discourage patients from seeking health care when they need it.

So too will staff at Wisconsin’s 16 technical colleges, which would have to check the immigration status of all adult education students and some career training students if the administration reintroduces the restrictions. 

“As the legal process is likely still ongoing and the decision may be appealed, it may be premature for us to speculate on any potential future actions or changes,” said Katy Pettersen, a spokesperson for the Wisconsin Technical College System.

Hofstetter agrees. While the ruling offers some “relief,” he said, the Trump administration has consistently sought to create a hostile environment for immigrants as part of its wider push to limit new immigration and deport millions already here. 

“I don’t expect this to be a settled issue at all, especially since this has been such a priority for the administration,” Hofstetter said.

Natalie Yahr reports on pathways to success statewide for Wisconsin Watch, working in partnership with Open Campus. Email her at nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org.

Wisconsin immigrants can keep using clinics, Head Start and adult education, judge rules is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Vice President JD Vance took to the GOP convention stage in Dallas on Thursday in what served as a re-introduction ahead of a widely anticipated run for the party’s presidential nomination in 2028. 

The former U.S. senator from Ohio sought to rally the GOP base on the second and final day of the unusual gathering, as Republicans vie to retain control of the U.S. House and Senate in the midterms less than two months away, even as President Donald Trump faces anemic approval ratings amid the war in Iran and concerns surrounding the economy. 

Vance repeatedly maligned Democrats as “crazies,” referencing some of the more controversial statements recent primary winners have made. And he urged the enthusiastic crowd to put aside policy differences with GOP candidates to keep “the party of common sense” in power.

“It’s so much more than having good politicians in Washington,” he said. “It’s about sending a message to the Democratic Party that if you send your crazies, we’re going to send you packing.” 

At one point during his speech, members of the crowd chanted “48” — an apparent signal of support for Vance to become the 48th president. Vance responded: “We got to take care of business this November — then we’ll worry about what comes next.” 

‘Birthright’

Vance infused the recent birth of his fourth child into his speech. He and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, welcomed son Alec Neel Vance in July.  

And he portrayed what he called Republicans’ support for Americans’ “birthright” as a major theme heading into November. 

“I believe that our founders built this nation on a promise that echoes our creator: That every American child is born an heir — is born with a birthright,” Vance said, adding that “that birthright, ladies and gentlemen, is what this November is all about.” 

Several times, Vance accused immigrants living in the country illegally of stealing what should belong to U.S. citizens. He said that Democrats, particularly former President Joe Biden, encouraged that theft.

“My little boy, he is now our fellow citizen, though he doesn’t know it,” he said. “And I think about what the Democrats have said about our shared birthright as Americans, or frankly, the lack thereof.” 

Vance said the birth of his youngest son shifted his focus to the future.

“Now, because we got a new kid around, I can’t help but look at the future of this country through the eyes of the future of my son,” he said. “And I can’t help but think about what it is that we’re fighting for and what it is that we want for all of our children.” 

Vance honors Charlie Kirk

The vice president also paid tribute to his late friend and conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot while speaking on a Utah college campus one year ago Thursday. 

Vance praised Kirk as a devoted husband and father, addressing Kirk’s two young children, saying: “For those of us who loved your dad, we knew him as something even better than a great man. He was a good man.” 

Later in his speech, Vance urged voters to “do what Charlie did: Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater — don’t give the country over to a bunch of crazy people because you happen to disagree with us on a policy issue here or there.” 

‘Trump’s most loyal puppet’

Kendall Witmer, rapid response director for the Democratic National Committee, blasted Vance as “Donald Trump’s most loyal puppet,” noting that the vice president is “working in lockstep to enact an agenda that has hiked prices and made life unaffordable for working families,” in a statement Thursday night.  

“Vance has defended even their most disastrous policies, proving his loyalty to Trump over the American people,” Witmer said. “Vance will continue to gaslight Americans, but voters know the truth: Trump and Vance have tanked the economy, plunged the country into more endless wars, and failed to make life more affordable for everyday Americans.”

Vance is slated to deliver remarks Monday at an industrial manufacturing facility in Olathe, Kansas, during an event hosted by Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc. 

On Monday, he will also visit a federal law enforcement facility in Kansas City, Missouri, where he is set to speak on the Trump administration’s sweeping anti-fraud effort, which he has helmed. 

WASHINGTON —  Temporary protected status for 170,000 Salvadorans is set to expire at midnight Wednesday, but the Department of Homeland Security said protections will remain in place until the Trump administration makes a decision to extend or terminate El Salvador’s designation, in place since 2001.

“An announcement on El Salvador’s TPS will be made at the appropriate time,” a DHS spokesperson said in an email to States Newsroom. “Until such announcement is made, Salvadoran individuals present in the U.S. under TPS retain protection.”

Based on the temporary protected status statute, if a determination to extend or terminate a country’s protections is not made by the government by the expiration of the deadline, then TPS is automatically extended for six months.

If the Trump administration does make a determination to end protections, then Salvadorans will have 60 days to leave the United States.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has not indicated his plans for El Salvador’s temporary legal protections. Additionally, there is no notice in Wednesday’s Federal Register or a preview of Thursday’s edition regarding TPS for El Salvador. 

On Tuesday, White House border czar Tom Homan said the decision would be up to Mullin, but added that El Salvador is now much safer than when its previous designation was made in 2001. 

If TPS is terminated for nationals for El Salvador, they will be the latest large group of immigrants to lose their legal status in the country as President Donald Trump has sought to dismantle the program Congress created for people who hail from countries deemed too dangerous for return. 

The Supreme Court has accelerated that move. The court’s conservative majority this summer determined that the TPS statute does not allow decisions on country designations, terminations and extensions to be subject to judicial review. 

Before the start of the second Trump administration, 17 countries had TPS, totaling to about 1.3 million immigrants with legal status. 

Now, if TPS for El Salvador ends, only three countries will remain: Lebanon, Sudan and Ukraine. 

TPS is granted to nationals who hail from a country experiencing a natural disaster, violence, or other extreme circumstances, allowing them to remain in the U.S. and obtain work permits that last for six-to-18-month cycles. 

Each renewal process requires a TPS holder to go through a background check and pay hundreds of dollars in fees as well as undergo other vetting.  

If TPS ends for El Salvador, it could stymie the country’s economy, where more than a quarter of its gross domestic product relies on money sent back to the country from Salvadorans in the U.S., known as remittances. 

El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, also has a close relationship with the Trump administration, ranging from accepting deportees that are not Salvadoran into his country to visiting the president at the White House.

In 2019, Bukele asked the first Trump administration to extend TPS protections, not because El Salvador was unsafe, but because the end of designation would break apart families in the U.S. 

Bukele has not made any recent public calls for the Trump administration to continue TPS for Salvadorans. 

WASHINGTON — For years, Jose Palma has advocated for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status who hail from countries deemed too unstable for return.

But as the Trump administration has stripped those humanitarian protections for nearly a million people, the Salvadoran national is uncertain if his own legal status will remain in place next week. 

“I’m going day by day,” Palma, who lives in Texas, told States Newsroom in an interview. 

Within two years under the Trump administration, the bipartisan humanitarian Temporary Protected Status program created by Congress in 1990 and signed into law by former Republican President George H.W. Bush has been nearly obliterated.

Palma first obtained TPS in 2001, along with roughly 170,000 recipients from El Salvador, due to several earthquakes that displaced more than one-sixth of the population and left thousands dead. The United States renewed protections over the years, citing continued displacement and ongoing violence.

But the TPS designation for El Salvador is set to expire Sept. 9, and the Department of Homeland Security has made no indication if protections will be renewed. 

Under DHS policy, an announcement typically is made 60 days in advance of the date of a TPS expiration if a renewal is planned. 

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, who helped write the statute for TPS when he was a congressional staffer, said he’s asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to renew protections for El Salvador.

“I still haven’t received a response back,” McGovern said during a Thursday press conference at the U.S. Capitol. He was joined by Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who said many Salvadoran TPS recipients work and live in his Omaha district. 

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

The Trump administration’s position on the program is that it’s “temporary,” and that country conditions have improved, despite warnings from the State Department to not travel to some of those countries where TPS designation has ended, such as Haiti.

If TPS for El Salvador ends, only 103,000 out of initially 1.3 million recipients from around the globe will have protections: 150 from Lebanon, 1,790 from Sudan and 101,150 from Ukraine.

Supreme Court decision

TPS is granted to nationals who hail from a country experiencing a natural disaster, violence, or other extreme circumstances, allowing them to remain in the U.S. and obtain work permits. 

Some protections can last through six-to-18-month cycles, and each renewal process requires a TPS holder to go through a background check and other vetting.  

Before the second Trump administration, 17 countries were in the program. Only four, including El Salvador, remain as the White House has forged ahead aggressively on its mass deportation campaign. 

The Supreme Court made the move easier after it ruled this summer that decisions from the executive branch to end TPS were not subject to judicial review. The order meant that lower courts that initially blocked the Trump administration from ending the designations had to reverse their decisions.

Now recipients face the end of TPS with just 60 days’ notice.

“It’s one of those things that is kind of cruel, to have families who are stable and have been stable for decades, to have people who have been doing everything the government asked them to do for 25 years, and suddenly, if the decision is to end TPS, provided only 60 days protection before forcing people to go back to a country they haven’t been for decades,” Palma said. 

One of the first countries after TPS was written into law to receive the designation was El Salvador. 

Stripping TPS from Salvadorans would not only harm the U.S. economy, but it would also negatively impact El Salvador’s fragile economy, advocates predict. More than one quarter of El Salvador’s Gross Domestic Product comes from family members sending money back to relatives in their country of origin, known as remittances. 

“El Salvador’s economy has been built thanks to all the remittances,” said Ana María Méndez-Dardón, the director for Central America at the Washington Office on Latin America, or WOLA.  “So if people are returning, that would have a huge impact because the economy depends on the money that people from El Salvador living in the U.S. send to El Salvador.”

The spending also has an impact in the United States. Salvadoran TPS recipients contribute $5.4 billion to the U.S. economy and pay $1.5 billion in federal, state and local taxes, according to the immigration advocacy research group FWD.us. 

About 152,000 TPS recipients from El Salvador are in the workforce, mainly in construction, manufacturing, building and transportation.

Attempts in Congress

TPS does not create a pathway to citizenship and a recipient can only apply for it when the country receives its designation. 

Some TPS recipients can apply for asylum if they qualify, or others could apply to adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident, or green-card holder, through a family-based or employer-based petition. 

Congress has made some effort to extend TPS for some recipients. Earlier this year, the House passed a bill to extend TPS for up to 350,000 Haitians on a bipartisan basis, but it’s stalled in the upper chamber. 

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen attempted to advance a bill in the Senate to create a legal pathway to citizenship for immigrants with TPS, but was blocked by Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt. 

McGovern said Thursday that there is a bipartisan push to extend protections for TPS recipients. Proof of that was Bacon’s presence at the press conference.

“What good is it to force out folks who’ve been here legally, who are working, who are part of our community?” Bacon said. “It does no one any good.”

Human rights in El Salvador

Many Salvadorian TPS recipients are worried about being forced back to El Salvador, where human rights groups have raised concerns about the authoritarian government of President Nayib Bukele, said WOLA’s Méndez-Dardón.

WOLA is a research and advocacy group that aims to advance human rights in North and South America. It has documented how Bukele’s political party has suspended due process rights and has carried out a mass incarceration of suspected gang members in an effort to reduce crime and murders. 

More than 90,000 Salvadorans have been jailed without due process and hundreds have died in prisons and altogether disappeared, human rights groups have reported.

“So for Salvadorians who might be returned, the risk no longer are the criminal groups or the gangs because many of them fled the country because of the security situation,” Méndez-Dardón said. “But although the gangs are no longer the threat, now the threat is the state.” 

Bukele has met with President Donald Trump several times at the White House and has a years-long working relationship with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who last year granted El Salvador the highest possible safety rating for travel, a level 1. 

In 2024, the State Department gave El Salvador a level 3 advisory, warning people to reconsider travel because of security and safety concerns.

The Trump administration also last year made a deal with the Salvadoran government to pay up to $6 million to detain hundreds of Venezuelans at a brutal mega-prison. In the high-profile case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland Salvadoran who was mistakenly deported to the mega prison, lawyers documented mental and physical torture he experienced while there. 

“People are basically under a constant fear of being detained by the security forces,” Méndez-Dardón said. 

U.S. citizen children

Palma, who also attended the press conference, said he, along with other Salvadoran TPS recipients, are concerned about El Salvador’s government.

“So crime has gone down, but now abuses to human rights have increased,” he said. “That is concerning, because it’s also the government is becoming more aggressive against opposition, public media.”

Palma questioned if El Salvador would have the infrastructure to accept as many as 200,000 Salvadorans, made up of the TPS recipients and their families. Many have U.S. citizen children. 

Palma, who has four U.S. citizen children, said two of his kids are still in primary school. One is 11 and another is 8 years old. 

“This is their country,” he said of his four children. “They are from here. But if I were to lose the TPS protection and I were to be forced to go back to El Salvador, it’s not just affecting me. It’s affecting the whole family. That’s kind of like the situation that so many people across the country are going through right now.”

Supporting her mom

There are roughly 150,000 U.S. citizen children who have a parent who is a Salvadoran TPS recipient, according to the National TPS alliance. 

Cristel Argueta is one of those children. At 20 years old, she’s a college student at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey. But on Thursday, she missed four classes relating to her criminology and criminal justice degree to travel to the nation’s capital and advocate for an extension to TPS for El Salvador. 

“I’m missing class to be here, but it’s worth it because it’s for my family,” she said.

Her mother, a TPS holder from El Salvador, came to the U.S. when she was 19, fleeing the civil war that lasted from 1979 until 1992. Her mother was able to get TPS in 2001.

“She has been in this country longer than she has been in El Salvador,” Argueta said. “TPS was started by Salvadorans, and I don’t want to lose my mother.” 

She’s hoping her mother’s TPS is extended until at least Argueta’s 21st birthday, when Argueta will be able to become a sponsor and apply to change her mother’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident. 

“No one should be going through this at any age,” she said. “Seeing the difference in my peers at school who are 20 years old, waiting to turn 21, to get that first legal drink or go party, but I want to turn 21 just to give my mom a legal status. A permanent legal status.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge over the weekend allowed the Trump administration to force-feed the man charged with shooting two National Guard members, killing one and injuring another, in the District of Columbia in November.

For months, Rahmanullah Lakanwal has refused to eat while incarcerated. 

The Aug. 29 order from U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta of the District of Columbia gives the go-ahead for medical staff at the Bureau of Prisons to conduct several types of nonconsensual feeding methods “to preserve defendant Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s life or to prevent a foreseeable deterioration in his condition that if not treated is likely to lead to death; replacement, maintenance, and care of defendant’s feeding tube when medically necessary; and lab work relating to the administration of nutrition.”

The order will allow for a feeding tube through Lakanwal’s nasal passage and into his stomach to provide nutrients; feeding through veins; or feeding through an already established tube connected to his stomach. The order does not allow for a tube to be established through his stomach, usually done via surgery. 

The Department of Justice charged Lakanwal with first-degree murder in the shooting of 20-year-old U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and with the attempted murder of U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe. Lakanwal has pleaded not guilty to all 17 DOJ charges. 

He is an Afghan national who came to the United States under a humanitarian program after the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from the country. Following the shooting, the Trump administration paused all immigration processing for nationals from Afghanistan. A federal judge later reversed that move.  

The two West Virginia guard members last year were shot on Thanksgiving eve while stationed blocks from the White House as part of the president’s crackdown on crime, despite a continued decrease in violent crime.

Mehta, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, has in the past considered but turned down the Trump administration’s requests for a court-ordered nonconsensual nutrition supplement, noting that Lakanwal has refused meals and medical treatment. 

In several hearings in federal court before Mehta, Lakanwal has appeared gaunt and has used a wheelchair. 

Mehta’s order will remain in effect until Oct. 28 and will allow the DOJ to request an extension if needed. 

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin will begin enforcing new federal eligibility restrictions for FoodShare and Medicaid this week, cutting off thousands of refugees, asylees and other legally present immigrants from public benefits they were previously eligible to receive.

The state’s refugee services providers warn that fallback options are already stretched thin.

The Trump administration narrowed eligibility for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps low-income households purchase groceries. The Wisconsin program, called FoodShare, is federally funded but administered by states. The new rules —  which President Donald Trump last July signed into law as part of his “big beautiful” spending bill — exclude many noncitizens previously eligible for the program, including refugees, asylees and victims of human trafficking.

Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services (DHS) will begin enforcing the FoodShare eligibility rules on July 1, barring immigrants who fall into one of the now-excluded categories from enrolling in the program or renewing their benefits. The state will implement the Medicaid eligibility restrictions beginning Oct. 1, with some exceptions. DHS estimates roughly 7,200 people will lose access to one or both programs, nearly two-thirds of whom live in greater Milwaukee.

Neighboring states have already begun enforcing the new SNAP restrictions. Illinois, for instance, began barring refugees and asylees without green cards from the program in April. DHS spokesperson Elizabeth Goodsitt attributed Wisconsin’s slower rollout to the state’s “complex, combined eligibility system” and effort needed to “design and implement” changes.

Refugee services providers spent months bracing for impact, receiving formal notice of the cutoffs at roughly the same time as affected refugees and asylees. To ensure language barriers didn’t leave families in the dark, Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan refugee program director Omar Mohamed said his team is checking in with affected households individually. 

Those with green cards will retain access to the programs, but Mohamed noted that a recent barrage of visa restrictions leaves green cards out of reach for many recent arrivals. Refugees can typically apply for green cards a year after settling in the U.S., but the Trump administration in January froze green card processing for anyone from 39 countries — including Myanmar, the largest source of refugees resettled in Wisconsin in recent years. Of the nearly 170 people Lutheran Social Services resettled in Wisconsin between October 2024 and September 2025, only one has secured a green card, Mohamed said. 

Ongoing legal battles over the visa restrictions have yet to clear the path to legal permanent residency. 

Without access to legal permanent residency, refugees and asylees face what amounts to an  “indefinite ban on the eligibility” for SNAP and Medicaid, said Matthew Soerens, vice president of advocacy and policy for refugee services nonprofit World Relief, which has offices in Appleton, Eau Claire and Oshkosh.

Food pantries may be many refugees’ and asylees’ best backup when they lose access to SNAP, but advocates say donated food cannot directly replace lost benefits. Milwaukee food bank Hunger Task Force has seen pantry traffic increase by 50% in the past two years, said public policy and advocacy director Reno Wright. 

The nonprofit is helping other food pantries prepare for the cutoff, but those programs are “meant to provide supplemental assistance and not long-term ongoing assistance,” Wright said. 

What families should know

Mixed-status households should still apply for benefits for the members of their families who still qualify, Wright added. U.S. citizen children of refugee parents, for instance, will remain eligible for nutrition assistance — albeit only for their own needs, not their parents’.

Children who lose access to FoodShare can turn to Milwaukee’s summer meal program, organized by Hunger Task Force and a coalition of school districts and community organizations. The program provides free meals to children ages 18 and under at more than 100 locations in greater Milwaukee. 

Alternatives to Medicaid benefits are even harder to find. Free clinics often operate at capacity, Soerens said, and while refugees may still qualify for emergency medical coverage through  Medicaid Emergency Services, the program sets a high bar for eligibility and does not cover preventative care or ongoing treatment for chronic conditions. 

While some Milwaukee-area clinics are mulling subscription-based alternatives to Medicaid, Mohamed said many of the families his organization supports can’t fit a health care subscription into their budgets.

For now, Lutheran Social Services and its counterparts elsewhere in Wisconsin will rely on donors and community partners to shore up the assistance they provide to refugees and asylees. That need has grown since the Trump administration largely suspended refugee admissions last January, cutting off funding tied to new arrivals and forcing agencies to lay off staff.

But refugee arrivals haven’t ceased entirely. At least 218 refugees have resettled in Wisconsin since last January, all from South Africa.

Wisconsin to cut FoodShare, Medicaid for thousands of refugees under new federal rules is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.