标签： North America

A federal judge delivered a landmark ruling this week that blocks the Trump administration’s unilateral termination of legal parole status for hundreds of thousands of migrants who entered the United States through the Biden-era CBP One program, finding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acted beyond its legal powers when it revoked the protected status of program participants.

First launched in 2023 under the administration of former Democratic President Joe Biden, the CBP One initiative was designed to streamline southern border processing for asylum seekers. The program required migrants to schedule appointments via a mobile app to enter the U.S., and granted successful participants two years of parole, a temporary legal status that allowed them to live and work legally in the country while their asylum claims proceeded through the backlogged immigration court system. By the time Trump took office for his second term, roughly 900,000 migrants had been approved for parole through the program.

Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration moved to end the CBP One parole program, re-purposing the app for a new ‘self-deportation’ initiative. In April of this year, DHS began sending mass emails to tens of thousands of program participants, notifying them their parole status had been terminated, ordering them to leave the country, and revoking their legal work authorization. The agency framed the move at the time as a response to what it called an ‘abuse of parole authority’ by the Biden administration, arguing the program had contributed to what it calls the worst border crisis in U.S. history.

But on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Allison Skye Borroughs of the District of Massachusetts rejected the Trump administration’s action in a sweeping 38-page decision. In her ruling, Borroughs wrote that the mass parole terminations exceeded DHS’s statutory authority under federal immigration law, and directly contradicted the procedural requirements laid out in the agency’s own existing regulations. The ruling immediately restores legal parole status for all program recipients nationwide who received a termination notice from DHS.

The case was brought by the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, three individual Venezuelan women directly impacted by the termination policy, and legal advocacy group Democracy Forward. The plaintiffs argued the mass termination was unlawful and violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies implement new rules. In their lawsuit, they noted that the policy change instantly pushed hundreds of thousands of people from legal status to being considered ‘illegal aliens’ overnight, upending lives that had been built legally in the U.S.

Reacting to the ruling, Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward called the decision a clear rejection of the administration’s attempt to erase the lawful status of hundreds of thousands of people with a single mass email. Carlina Velásquez, president of the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, added that for many Venezuelan families who had lived for months in fear and uncertainty after the termination notices were sent, the ruling brings long-awaited relief. A DHS spokesperson has not yet issued a formal response to the ruling, and administration officials have signaled they are likely to file an appeal, consistent with the administration’s pattern of challenging court rulings that block its restrictive immigration policies.

While the ruling restores temporary legal status to affected migrants, it does not guarantee permanent residency or long-term legal status for most program participants. The CBP One parole only grants a two-year term, during which asylum seekers must complete their immigration claims. Many recipients have already passed their two-year deadline, and dozens more will see their parole expire in the coming months, leaving their long-term status uncertain even after the court’s ruling.

The decision marks the latest legal setback for the Trump administration’s aggressive nationwide crackdown on undocumented immigration, which has included rolling back dozens of Biden-era immigration policies and ramping up deportation operations and enforcement efforts across the country.

In a landmark 8-1 ruling that has reignited fierce national debate over free speech protections versus public health safeguards for LGBT youth, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Colorado state law that banned the discredited practice of conversion therapy for lesbian, gay, and transgender people. The court’s majority sided with Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian counselor from Colorado Springs, who argued that the state’s restriction on the practice violated her First Amendment right to free speech.

Conversion therapy, an umbrella term for interventions that purport to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, is universally condemned by leading medical and mental health professional associations across the United States. Despite this widespread rejection by the scientific community, the practice retains support among some religious conservative groups, who frame it as a matter of personal faith for clients who prioritize their religious beliefs over their gender or sexual identity.

Chiles, who launched her legal challenge against the 2021 Colorado law, argued that the ban blocked her from providing talk-based support to clients who sought help reducing or eliminating unwanted same-sex attractions or altering their gender expression. She contended that the restriction targeted her specific viewpoint, interfering with her ability to deliver care aligned with both her faith and her clients’ stated wishes.

Writing for the court’s majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed Chiles’ argument, ruling that Colorado’s law amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint-based censorship. “The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth,” Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. He emphasized that Chiles’ work exclusively involves talk therapy, with no physical interventions or prescription medications involved, and reaffirmed that First Amendment protections extend equally to licensed professionals as they do to all other Americans. The court ruled that lower courts had applied insufficiently strict scrutiny to the state’s speech restrictions, and ordered the case remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings.

Colorado state officials had defended the law, arguing that it did not regulate speech but rather governed the professional conduct of licensed mental health providers, and did not ban general discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity. But the majority rejected that framing.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the only dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority had overlooked a key contextual detail: Chiles provides services as a licensed medical professional operating in a heavily regulated field. “Chiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional,” Jackson wrote. She noted that licensed therapists are already subject to broad regulatory requirements under Colorado law, including a mandate to provide care that meets accepted national standards of care, and that First Amendment protections carry far less weight for professionals providing regulated clinical services.

Reaction to the ruling split sharply along ideological and advocacy lines. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, publicly condemned the decision as wrong, noting that conversion therapy is universally rejected by every major U.S. medical association, and that the practice is a matter of public health, not free speech.

LGBT advocacy groups have also decried the ruling as a dangerous setback that puts vulnerable youth at risk. Jaymes Black, a leader with the Trevor Project — the nation’s leading LGBT youth suicide prevention organization — called the decision “painful” and “tragic.” “The Supreme Court’s decision to treat the dangerous practice of conversion therapy as constitutionally protected speech is a tragic step backward for our country that will put young lives at risk,” Black said in a formal statement. “These efforts, no matter what proponents call them, no matter what any court says, are still proven to cause lasting psychological harm.”

Critics of conversion therapy have long documented the devastating public health impacts of the practice: multiple peer-reviewed studies confirm it increases the risk of severe emotional harm, chronic mental health conditions, and suicide among LGBT youth. While many practitioners rely on talk therapy or prayer-based intervention, extreme documented cases have involved physical abuse, forced isolation, and food deprivation as tactics to change a person’s identity. The American Medical Association has formally rejected the core claim of conversion therapy, affirming that same-sex attraction and non-conforming gender identity are not mental disorders, and that no credible medical evidence supports the idea they can or should be changed.

Prior to this ruling, more than 20 U.S. states had already implemented similar bans on conversion therapy for minors. A 2023 Trevor Project report estimates that more than 1,300 active conversion therapy practitioners currently operate across the United States. The Supreme Court’s ruling, which aligns with the justices’ skeptical questioning of the Colorado ban during oral arguments held last October, is expected to trigger legal challenges to conversion therapy bans in other states, opening a new front in national battles over LGBT rights and free speech. Chiles first filed her lawsuit against the Colorado law in 2022, after multiple lower courts rejected her request to pause enforcement of the ban, leading her to appeal to the nation’s highest court last year.

A dramatic shift in U.S. strategy over the closed Strait of Hormuz has put global alliances under unprecedented strain, as the second Trump administration has sharply demanded that U.S. allies take the lead on reopening the world’s critical energy shipping chokepoint rather than relying on American military power. The standoff dates back to February 28, when joint U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran prompted Tehran to effectively close the 21-mile waterway – a route that normally carries 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquefied natural gas supplies. The closure has already sent global fuel prices skyrocketing, disrupting energy markets across every continent. Over the three weeks since Iran took control of the strait, the Trump administration has flipped its position repeatedly: it first requested support from NATO and European allies, then claimed it needed no help, accused partners of disloyalty, framed earlier requests as a loyalty test, and now is issuing increasingly blunt demands that allies seize the mission of reopening the waterway themselves. On Tuesday morning, former president and current U.S. commander-in-chief Donald Trump laid out his uncompromising position in a post on his Truth Social platform, targeting allies that declined to join the February strikes on Iran. “Countries like the United Kingdom that could not get jet fuel because of the restrictions around the Strait should build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump wrote, adding that “the hard part is done” after U.S. strikes decimated Iran’s naval and missile capabilities. He doubled down on this stance during an interview with CBS News, the U.S. partner of the BBC, arguing that “Countries have to come in and take care of it. Iran has been decimated, but they’re going to have to come in and do their own work” and downplaying risks, claiming “there’s no real threat” in the Strait. Recent reporting from The Wall Street Journal has shed additional light on the administration’s shifting endgame for the conflict: the outlet cited anonymous sources familiar with internal discussions saying Trump has told aides he is willing to wrap up the U.S. military campaign against Iran even if the strait remains closed. After severely damaging Iran’s military infrastructure, the plan under consideration would shift to sustained diplomatic pressure to force Tehran to reopen trade routes, rather than continuing active combat operations. The BBC has reached out to the White House for official confirmation of this reporting, which represents a major departure from earlier U.S. war aims that listed reopening the strait as a core non-negotiable demand. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth echoed Trump’s pressure campaign during a Tuesday press conference, doubling down on the call for allies to contribute militarily. “It’s not just the job of the US to secure this critical waterway,” Hegseth told reporters, adding that “There are countries around the world who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well. It’s not just the United States Navy.” In a pointed remark directed at the United Kingdom, which has repeatedly stated it will not be dragged into the ongoing conflict, Hegseth said the nation’s “big, bad Royal Navy” should be prepared to step into the mission. The defense secretary also framed the demand as a test of alliance commitment, warning that “A lot has been laid bare. A lot has been shown to the world about what our allies would be willing to do for the United States of America… the president is pointing out you don’t have much of an alliance if you have countries that are not willing to stand with you when you need them.” Hegseth also adjusted the administration’s public timeline for the conflict, pushing the projected duration from the previously stated four to six weeks out to six to eight weeks. On the Iranian side, Tehran has repeatedly denied holding any peace talks with U.S. negotiators. As recently as Monday, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei reiterated that “Iran had ‘had no negotiations with America in these thirty-one days,’” referencing the full length of the conflict since the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes. While Hegseth omitted reopening the strait from his prepared list of U.S. war aims on Tuesday, he later confirmed it remains the ultimate goal of the ongoing pressure campaign. The new U.S. position carries profound, potentially history-altering implications for the post-WW2 global alliance system, as the administration openly threatens to abandon long-standing security partnerships if allies refuse to comply with its demands in the Persian Gulf.

Buckingham Palace has formally announced King Charles III and Queen Camilla’s state visit to the United States in late April, marking the first British monarch’s official trip to America since Queen Elizabeth II’s 2007 visit. The highly anticipated diplomatic mission will include Washington D.C. as a primary destination, featuring a White House state dinner and an address to Congress.

The timing coincides with America’s 250th independence anniversary celebrations, with palace officials emphasizing the visit will “celebrate historic connections and modern bilateral relations” between the two nations. Following the U.S. engagements, the royal couple will visit Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory in the North Atlantic.

This diplomatic undertaking occurs against a complex backdrop of transatlantic tensions. Just prior to the announcement, President Trump escalated rhetoric regarding the Iran conflict, urging allied nations to “go get your own oil” from the Strait of Hormuz while declaring reduced American military support. These comments followed previous diplomatic spats, including Trump’s criticism of UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership compared to Winston Churchill and controversies surrounding the UK’s military contributions in Afghanistan.

Despite these challenges, both leaders have publicly emphasized their positive personal relationship. President Trump recalled his Windsor Castle reception last September as “honorable” and described their time together as “amazing,” expressing particular enthusiasm for hosting the King at the state banquet. Polling data from YouGov indicates British public opinion remains divided, with 49% opposing the visit and only 33% supporting it.

Additional complexities include calls from U.S. Congressman Ro Khanna for the King to meet with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein during the visit, referencing the ongoing controversies surrounding Prince Andrew, who has consistently denied wrongdoing regarding his Epstein associations.

The UK government has maintained that the state visit proceeds as a diplomatic necessity, with the monarch traveling on behalf of the Foreign Office. Observers note the administration appears to be leveraging Trump’s well-documented fascination with the monarchy to ease diplomatic tensions and strengthen bilateral relations.