Breaking news

Federal Judge halts Trump administration’s efforts to end TPS for Venezuelans

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's plan to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Venezuelans, preventing the expiration of protections scheduled for April 7, 2025.

Judge halts the Trump administration's plan to end TPS for Venezuelans, providing relief to 350,000 immigrants. Photo: France24 & La Republica
Judge halts the Trump administration's plan to end TPS for Venezuelans, providing relief to 350,000 immigrants. Photo: France24 & La Republica

A significant legal development has emerged for Venezuelan immigrants in the United States. On March 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen paused the Trump administration’s plan to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans.

This decision grants relief to TPS holders who were set to lose their status on April 7, 2025. The ruling comes after a lawsuit was filed by the National TPS Alliance, challenging the government's actions.

What does the Judge's ruling mean for TPS holders?

Judge Edward Chen’s decision is a very good thing for Venezuelan immigrants because it prevents the immediate expiration of their TPS, which would have been on April 7, 2025.

Judge Chen explained that his verdict emphasized that the government had failed to produce sufficient or legitimate reasons to end the program, along with the fact that the potential harm to individuals was too big to ignore.

He also added that ending TPS would cost the United States billions in economic activity and would be a serious public health problem across the country.

Trump administration’s plan to end TPS

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that TPS for Venezuelans was no longer available, with protections set to end in April. This was part of a broader plan to end immigration policies, with approximately 350,000 Venezuelans facing immediate deportation risks and 250,000 more later that year.

Judge Chen said that given this information, it would be very easy for plaintiffs to prove that Noem’s actions “are unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.”