These judges are out of control.
In a major immigration ruling with far-reaching implications, a federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from ending a controversial Biden-era immigration program that allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter the United States under “temporary” legal status.
The program, launched during Joe Biden’s presidency, granted two-year parole to foreign nationals from Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti—bypassing traditional immigration vetting processes. Over 450,000 individuals were allowed to fly directly into the U.S. as long as they had sponsors already living in the country.
But on March 25, the Trump administration moved decisively to revoke that mass parole program as part of its broader efforts to restore border security and uphold the rule of law. The move immediately faced legal challenges from pro-immigration groups seeking to keep the door open to continued mass entry.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, ruled against the Trump administration, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security had misinterpreted the law by ending the program. She claimed that revoking the parole would unfairly target people who “followed the rules,” despite growing concerns about the legality and security risks of the program itself.
Critics say the policy amounted to a loophole in immigration enforcement, allowing unchecked numbers of migrants into the country without proper screening. Conservative immigration experts have called it a backdoor amnesty, designed to overwhelm the system and keep borders wide open.
Justice Department attorney Brian Ward defended the administration’s actions, explaining that parole has always been discretionary and not meant to serve as a long-term immigration workaround. Judge Talwani, however, insisted that the government must provide a “reasoned explanation” before ending the program, saying, “There was a deal, and now that deal has been undercut.”
The program’s original design allowed migrants and their families to skip border crossings altogether, flying directly into the U.S. and receiving temporary protection. This raised alarm bells among many Americans who believe immigration policies should put the safety, security, and economic well-being of U.S. citizens first.
With this latest legal setback, President Trump faces continued resistance from activist judges, even as he works to reinstate strong border protections and reclaim national sovereignty.
As millions of conservative voters know, the stakes are high. Border security, national identity, and economic stability all hang in the balance. For many older Americans who value law, order, and fair immigration processes, this fight is about the future of the country—and who gets to decide who comes in.