On a chilly November morning in Minneapolis, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar stood before reporters and community members, seething with frustration and disbelief. The reason: former President Donald Trump had just used social media to declare that he was immediately revoking TPS protections for Somalis residing in Minnesota. For many Somali-Americans, especially those who have built lives, communities, and families in Minnesota over decades, the announcement felt like a sudden blow to their sense of security.
As Omar put it bluntly: “It is unfortunate that we are led by a president who does not understand the laws of this land.” She added that “even little kids in eighth grade know” that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally terminate TPS for a specific group. FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul+2Garowe Online+2
But why was Omar — and many immigration experts — so incensed? The controversy traces directly to what many legal analysts view as a fundamental misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of how TPS works.
What Is TPS — And Who Actually Has Authority to End It
TPS is a humanitarian program first enacted by Congress under the immigration law in 1990. Under the statute (8 U.S. Code § 1254a), countries may be given TPS designation if conditions in the country — such as armed conflict, environmental disaster, epidemic, or other extraordinary hardship — make return unsafe. Nationals from those countries who are already in the United States may receive temporary protections: they cannot be removed, may get work authorization, and may be granted travel permits. law.cornell.edu+2American Immigration Council+2
Crucially, the law specifies that only the Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the power to designate, extend, or terminate a country’s TPS status — not the President acting alone. American Immigration Council+2Star Tribune+2
Further, TPS is intended to be temporary. Designations are granted for specific periods (often 6, 12, or 18 months), and before expiry, the Secretary must assess whether conditions in the home country have improved sufficiently to justify termination. If conditions remain dangerous or unstable, TPS should be extended. American Immigration Council+2Front page – US+2
That means in practice, ending TPS for a given country — or group of nationals — requires a formal DHS determination, supported by evidence about conditions in the home country. It cannot simply be done by a presidential tweet. Indeed, many legal experts maintain that acting otherwise would violate both the statute and principles of administrative law. Star Tribune+2KSTP.com 5 Eyewitness News+2
The Trump Move — and the Backlash
On November 22, 2025, Trump posted on his social media platform that he was ending TPS for Somali immigrants residing in Minnesota. FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul+2Garowe Online+2 The announcement accused members of the Somali community of involvement in fraud and money-laundering schemes — a claim widely denounced by community leaders and civil rights advocates. FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul+2Sahan Journal+2
Almost immediately, Minneapolis, state and community leaders, and immigration lawyers fired back. They pointed out that the president lacks the legal authority to unilaterally cancel TPS protections, and that the law entrusts that decision solely to DHS. Star Tribune+2KSTP.com 5 Eyewitness News+2
Moreover, many questioned the timing and motivation for targeting Somalis — the largest Somali-American community in the U.S. lives in Minnesota, and those with TPS represent only a small fraction of the total population. Critics argue this appears not as a lawful immigration review but as a politically motivated gesture. FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul+2Sahan Journal+2
According to news reports, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem had not yet committed to following through on Trump’s call, saying the agency was still “reviewing” the status — underscoring that there is a process, not a snap executive order. Star Tribune+2Saint Paul Minnesota+2
Why Omar’s Rebuke Matters — and Why It Resonates
For Omar, the stakes transcend legal technicalities. As someone whose own family background is rooted in Somalia, she sees the move as deeply personal — a potential threat to the stability and dignity of countless immigrants who have built lives in the U.S.
Her public rebuke struck a chord precisely because it exposed what many perceive as a broader pattern: efforts to weaponize immigration policy for political gain, rather than to uphold consistent, law-based administration. In saying “even little kids in eighth grade know” the president lacks unilateral authority, Omar framed the issue as a simple question of constitutional and statutory bounds — but also as a moral one.
Her comments amplify fears among immigrant communities that the protections long assumed to be stable and lawful could instead become negotiable in the name of political expediency.
Broader Implications: TPS Under Threat
This isn’t the first time TPS has become politically contested. Under the current administration, TPS protections for multiple countries have been reassessed, modified, or terminated — including for nations such as Venezuela, Myanmar, Haiti, Afghanistan, among others. theguardian.com+3Axios+3Al Jazeera+3
Critics argue that narrowing TPS undermines the very purpose of the program: offering safe harbor to people from countries still dealing with war, humanitarian crisis, or systemic instability. Once protections are terminated, many face deportation or a return to undocumented status — losing their jobs, homes, and communities. FWD.us+2American Immigration Council+2
Supporters of revoking TPS, by contrast, frame it as restoring the temporary (not permanent) nature of the program and regaining control over U.S. immigration. Yet, the selective targeting of some communities — as in the case of Somalis — raises concerns over fairness, national origin discrimination, and politicization of policy.
Legal Experts and Community Leaders Push Back
Legal scholars and immigration attorneys have cautioned that any attempt to cancel TPS absent a formal DHS process is likely to face immediate legal challenge. Indeed, previous attempts to end TPS protections for other groups were blocked by courts when DHS failed to follow required procedures. law.ucdavis.edu+2American Immigration Council+2
In Minnesota, community leaders, faith organizations, and immigrant-rights groups have mobilized rapidly. They argue that beyond legal risks, an abrupt revocation would destabilize hundreds of lives — families, jobs, dreams.
For many, the reaction from Omar and others is less about partisan politics and more about protecting vulnerable people from what they see as a capricious, ill-considered decision that could unravel long-standing community bonds.
What Happens Next: Legal, Political, Human Stakes
As of now, the key question is whether DHS will act on Trump’s directive — or instead follow established law and procedures. Given that major TPS changes formally require agency review, documentation, and assessments of country conditions, it seems unlikely that a unilateral end via presidential social-media post would stand on its own.
But beyond procedure lies broader uncertainty: Even if DHS declines to implement the change now, the threat to TPS hangs over many immigrant communities. The message sent — that TPS can be abruptly rescinded — sows fear, distrust, and insecurity.
On the political front, Omar’s public condemnation signals that immigrant communities and their advocates may become a potent force in pushing back on future rollbacks. If courts are drawn into the fray — as they have been before — the outcome could shape the future of TPS, not just for Somalis, but for many vulnerable populations across the U.S.
On a moral and human level, the debate speaks to the heart of what America’s immigration system aspires to be — a balance between sovereignty and compassion, law and humanity.
Conclusion: More Than a Legal Dispute — A Question of Values
The controversy stirred by Trump’s TPS announcement and Omar’s rebuke reveals a deeper fracture in America’s approach to immigration. This is not merely a technical debate about whether one branch of government followed the letter of the law. It is a clash over values — whether temporary protections for vulnerable immigrants are to be treated as human lifelines or bargaining chips in political theater.
Ilhan Omar’s forceful framing — that “even little kids” know that presidential authority has limits — captures a broader sentiment of alarm and defiance among immigrant communities: that their lives, their contributions, and their dignity should not be subject to the whims of social-media announcements.
As the legal and political battle unfolds, one thing is clear: the future of TPS — and the lives of thousands of immigrants — will depend not only on courtrooms and bureaucrats, but on the willingness of the American public to insist on fairness, due process, and humanity.
