WASHINGTON — Immigrants living in the United States with humanitarian status from Ukraine and Sudan will retain their deportation protections and work authorizations for now, the Department of Homeland Security said over the weekend. 

More than 100,000 Ukrainians and roughly 2,000 Sudanese with Temporary Protected Status will keep their protections until “such an announcement is made,” the agency said.

It’s the same move the Trump administration made as the deadline for TPS renewal for more than 200,000 Salvadorans approached last month. 

While immigrants with TPS from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine will have deportation protections, it places more than 300,000 people in limbo because it’s not clear how long the protections will last.

“Families who depend on this status to stay safe and keep working deserve a formal decision in writing, not a weekend statement to press,” Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, which helps resettle refugees and advocates for immigrants, said in a statement. “Keeping protections in place is the right call, but a promise to a reporter is not a policy.” 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has not indicated if DHS will renew protections for those TPS recipients who were granted the designation because they hail from countries deemed too dangerous for return.

Ukrainians received TPS in 2022 after Russia invaded their country and Sudanese were granted the designation several times, most recently in 2022, because of an ongoing civil war. The State Department currently has a do-not-travel advisory, its highest advisory level, for Ukraine and Sudan.

If no decision is made, an automatic six-month extension kicks in, based on the TPS statute. But DHS has not confirmed whether any such extension is in place for Salvadorians, Sudanese or Ukrainians. 

After Monday, the last remaining country with TPS will be Lebanon, which is set to expire Nov. 27.

The second Trump administration has moved to wind down the TPS program established by Congress in the 1990s. The Supreme Court cleared the way for that initiative after it ruled this summer that decisions from the executive branch regarding a TPS designation are not subject to judicial review. 

So far, more than 1 million immigrants who have TPS have been stripped of their legal protections from the 17 countries that initially had the designation at the start of the second Trump administration.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party sued President Donald Trump and a group of federal agencies Friday for using federal funds on partisan campaign ads ahead of the November midterm elections.

“Weeks before a midterm election that will largely serve as a referendum on the President’s policies, the Trump Administration has turned the federal treasury into a campaign war chest,” the lawsuit charges.

“Over the past three weeks, the Administration has transferred millions of taxpayer funds to run thousands of illegal campaign ads that promote the Administration and attack the President’s opponents — all aimed at improving the chances of Republican Party candidates in the upcoming election.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia.

“To pay for this campaign, the Administration took money Congress appropriated for two very different purposes: securing the Nation’s borders, and honoring Department of Homeland Security employees, including those who died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit states.

Democracy Defenders Action and the law firm Hecker Fink filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin as well as Yee Leng Xiong, the Democratic candidate for state treasurer.

“The Trump administration has effectively looted the federal treasury, taking funds meant to protect our borders and honor fallen officers to finance their own election propaganda,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and board member of Democracy Defenders Action. “This is an insult to every taxpayer in our country and an assault on our democracy, an attempt to tip the scales that is as desperate as it is offensive and illegal.” 

“When Wisconsinites turn on the TV, we want to watch the Brewers and Packers keep winning, not be insulted with our own tax dollars being wasted on ads to prop up a failing President,” said Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker.

The lawsuit says the federally funded ads that the Trump administration began running Sept. 23, featuring Trump, aired on broadcast, cable and streaming platforms, including Sunday political talk shows and college and professional football broadcasts.

“The timing, content, and context of these ads demonstrate that they have no legal non-electoral basis and were instead directed toward supporting the Republican Party and Republican candidates for partisan political offices in the upcoming election,” the lawsuit charges.

The ads ran between Sept. 23 and Sept. 29, airing at least 2,766 times, with one ad airing more than 1,300 times, the lawsuit states. It cites a New York Times article published Oct. 2 that reported the ads were produced under a $20 million contract using Homeland Security funds, as well as other reports by ABC, NBC and the Washington Post about the movement of funds to a Customs and Border Patrol account for commemorative events and the money’s subsequent use for the ads.

“The ads do none of the things for which this money was appropriated. None of the ads have any relation to ‘Line-of-Duty death memorials,’ ‘Department or agency anniversaries,’ or ‘commendation ceremonies.’ Nor do any of the ads relate to enhancing border security,” the lawsuit states.

While Trump announced Oct. 5 that his super PAC MAGA Inc. would pay for the ads, the White House said the super PAC would not reimburse more than $10 million that had been spent on the ads. In addition, the suit charges, on Oct. 6 the administration aired another taxpayer-funded ad praising the administration for its removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The ad campaign “strikes at the heart of our constitutional order,” the lawsuit declares. “The Constitution forbids the government from tipping the electoral scales. By deliberately launching these illegal ads in contemplation of, and with a view towards influencing, the 2026 federal and state mid-term elections, Defendants have interfered with the electoral process.”

In addition to Trump, the lawsuit names the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office, the Office of Management & Budget, and the heads of those agencies: Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott and OMB Director Russell Vought.

The ad campaign violates several federal laws, the suit charges. Those include a blanket ban on using federal appropriations “for publicity or propaganda purposes” in the U.S. as well as bans on “purely partisan activities” and “self-aggrandizement” by federal agencies.

The Trump ads “are ‘designed to aid’ Republican candidates and the Republican Party, and the ‘aggrandizement’ of President Trump,” the lawsuit charges.

In addition, the ads violate the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits political advocacy by federal officials, the suit charges. They also violate a federal law that blocks agencies from spending federal funds Congress hasn’t appropriated and blocks using appropriate funds “to pay a publicity expert unless the funds are specifically appropriated for that purpose,” the suit states.

Besides violating the U.S. Constitution by putting “the government’s thumb on the electoral scale,” the suit says the administration spent taxpayer funds on partisan ads without legal authority and in violation of federal laws, violated the Administrative Procedure Act and  exceeded the administration’s authority under federal laws.

“It is particularly egregious that Defendants have funded their illegal propaganda campaign by converting funds Congress appropriated to keep the citizens of this country safe and to commemorate Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) employees, including those who have died in the line of duty,” the lawsuit charges.

Misappropriating and misusing taxpayer funds for “partisan, self-aggrandizing, political propaganda inflicts real harm” on political candidates, the lawsuit charges, and the campaign further harms the plaintiffs because “it requires them to expend more financial and other resources to counter Defendants’ taxpayer-funded ads.”

A federal grand jury indicted 10 noncitizens for unlawfully voting in Minnesota, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday, highlighting the administration’s effort to keep election security a top issue, in line with President Donald Trump’s longstanding unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud.

The indictments, which include nine counts of unlawful voting and nine counts of falsely claiming citizenship to register to vote, bring the number of noncitizens charged nationwide with election-related crimes since Trump re-took office last year to 90. The census reports 154 million people voted in the 2024 election.

Blanche said at a news conference at Justice Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., that the indictments show how seriously the administration takes election security.

“We have talked repeatedly about the importance of election integrity, and we’re certainly not going to stop talking about that now,” he said. “Voter fraud erodes the public’s trust in our electoral system, and it’s vital to our democratic process that we do everything that we can to restore that trust.”

Blanche’s participation in a press conference, alongside fellow Cabinet member Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, underlined the administration’s continuing focus on noncitizen voting, though numerous studies have shown it to be rare. Trump has for years amplified debunked conspiracy theories centered on election fraud.

Mullin made that connection explicit Wednesday, saying the indictments confirmed Trump’s accusations.

“The president said it for a long time, and the Democrats were sitting there denying it and saying, ‘There’s no fraud. That wasn’t taking place. There’s no fraud. There’s nothing, nothing here. Don’t look over here,’” he said. “We’re realizing there’s actually a lot. And we believe that some of these states probably even knew about it, chose not to look into it. Well, we are.”

But the allegations of illegal voting in Minnesota in the 2022 and 2024 general elections and 2026 primaries made virtually no difference to election results. 

The seven alleged illegal votes in the 2024 presidential election, for example, would account for only .0002% of votes cast in that election in Minnesota.

WASHINGTON — A coalition of civil rights groups and union organizations Friday sued the Trump administration to prevent the deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations during November’s midterm elections.

The suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the second this month, following comments from top Trump officials citing a federal policy to allow ICE officers to enter polling locations in certain circumstances to conduct immigration enforcement.

The groups argue the policy violates the federal law that prohibits “armed men” at election sites, and also causes voter intimidation, which is barred under the Voting Rights Act.

Under federal law, “troops” or “armed men” are allowed at polling locations only if “such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” And the section of the Voting Rights Act the groups cite prohibits “intimidation,” “threats,” or “coercion” against a person for voting or attempting to vote.

“The result is predictable: voters across the country—particularly Black, Latino, and Asian voters, naturalized citizens, and members of mixed-status families—are afraid to vote, help others vote, and participate in civic life,” according to the suit. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin earlier this month noted that agents could conduct immigration enforcement at polling places. And before U.S. senators this week, FBI Director Kash Patel did not rule out sending FBI agents to polling locations, but said officers would “follow the law.”

The Department of Justice dismissed the idea that officers would be sent to polling locations. 

“The DOJ has never said it would send federal law enforcement to polling locations,” a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement to States Newsroom. “Any suggestion otherwise is fearmongering.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said those “who are here legally and are not breaking other laws have nothing to fear.”

“Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” the spokesperson said. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”

The DHS spokesperson added that ICE was not planning any operations that targeted polling locations. 

NAACP among groups suing

“We reject this administration’s attempt to desecrate our polling sites by converting them into militarized zones through the unlawful deployment of ICE or any other federal agent,” Kristen Clarke, the NAACP’s general counsel, said in a statement. 

NAACP is one of nine groups that filed suit. The rest are Mi Familia en Accion, Asian Pacific American Advocates, the National Urban League, Minnesota 8, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the International Union of Painters and the United Food and Commercial Workers International.

“Turning the fundamental right of exercising our vote into a high-stakes encounter with the militarized strong arm of the current administration isn’t protection and it isn’t oversight; it’s disenfranchisement, period,” Clarke said. “The NAACP calls on the court to reject this blatant attempt by federal officials to obstruct our elections through tactics pulled straight from the Jim Crow playbook.” 

The nine groups are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the National Immigration Law Center, Protect Democracy and the Democracy Defenders Fund. 

WASHINGTON — Latino advocacy groups and voting rights organizations Thursday filed a suit in federal court challenging the Trump administration’s policy of allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to enter polling locations in certain circumstances to conduct immigration enforcement during the 2026 midterm elections. 

The suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia argues that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s recent comments that ICE agents would be at polling locations for the purpose of immigration enforcement violates federal law that prohibits federal “armed men” at election sites. 

The statute allows for “troops” or “armed men” at polling locations only if “such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” 

“The specter of armed officers at polling places threatens the freedom of this upcoming election,” according to the lawsuit. “It places voters in fear that they will be confronted by armed federal immigration enforcement officers if they choose to cast a ballot.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a DHS spokesperson said that “ICE is not planning operations targeting polling locations.” 

“ICE conducts intelligence-driven targeted enforcement, and if an active public safety threat endangered a polling location, they may be arrested as a result of that targeted enforcement action,” the spokesperson said. 

Earlier this month, Mullin said that ICE officers at polling locations would be there “to enforce specific threats.” 

“The only reason why we would be at polling places, if there is a threat to that polling place or we’re serving a warrant on someone that we have been actively tracking down,” he said. “ICE’s job is immigration (and) custom enforcement. That’s their job and so if we’re doing something, we’re doing that specifically.”

The suit asks the federal court to prevent the Trump administration from following that polling place policy and declaring it unlawful, as well as barring “officers from operating or carrying weapons in the vicinity of open polling places, including dropboxes, curbside voting locations, and similar places where votes are taken, collected, received, counted, or certified during early voting periods and on Election Day itself, for any reason other than repelling armed enemies of the United States.”

The civil rights groups that joined the suit said the tactic would lead to voter suppression.

“Sending armed ICE officers to polling places is not immigration enforcement — it is voter suppression, plain and simple,” UnidosUS President Janet Murguía said in a statement. “All Americans — including Latino voters  — have a constitutional right to cast their ballot without fear of interrogation, detention, or family separation.”

The suit was filed by the oldest U.S. Latino civil rights organization, League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC; the largest Hispanic civil rights organization, UnidosUS; the voter mobilization group Common Cause; and the city and county of Denver, Colorado, which has a large immigrant population and has been targeted by ICE multiple times for immigration enforcement. 

“The right to vote, and to do so without fear of intimidation, is fundamental to our democracy and to being an American,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said in a statement. “Stationing ICE agents near polling places is only meant to scare people and suppress votes. We’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent it.”