Former President Donald Trump announced that he is ending deportation protections for Somali nationals living in Minnesota, stating that the change would take effect immediately. The protections, known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), were first granted to Somalia in 1991 during the George H. W. Bush administration.
In a late-night post on his social media platform, Trump sharply criticized Minnesota’s leadership and claimed the state has become a center for large-scale financial fraud. He alleged that certain Somali groups are involved in criminal activity and that substantial amounts of money are unaccounted for. According to Trump, these issues justify terminating TPS specifically for Somalis residing in Minnesota.
His announcement followed the release of an investigative report highlighting a series of fraud cases in the state. These scandals include misuse of public funds, irregularities in Medicaid-related programs, and the high-profile “Feeding Our Future” case — one of the largest fraud prosecutions connected to pandemic relief funds in the United States. Prosecutors say that dozens of individuals falsely claimed to provide meals to children during the COVID-19 period, diverting federal reimbursements for personal luxury purchases.
Recent court records show that multiple defendants have pleaded guilty in connection with these schemes. In one instance, a Minnesota businessman admitted to allowing a fraudulent meal distribution site to operate out of his property in exchange for illicit payments.
The controversies have intensified scrutiny of Minnesota’s government programs, with federal officials examining how certain state initiatives grew rapidly in cost and were allegedly exploited for financial gain.
Trump’s declaration has sparked strong reactions, legal questions, and public debate. Immigration experts note that TPS is a federal program and cannot typically be revoked for just one state. They argue that any change would require formal action by the Department of Homeland Security and publication in the Federal Register — steps that were not immediately documented after Trump’s statement.
Civil rights groups, Minnesota officials, and members of the Somali community have also voiced concern, calling the announcement politically charged and potentially harmful to thousands of residents.
Democratic-aligned voting rights organizations are bracing for what they describe as a potential crisis if the U.S. Supreme Court moves to weaken a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, one of the nation’s cornerstone civil rights laws.The concern centers on Louisiana v. Callais, a case the justices heard on October 15. The outcome could determine the future of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits redistricting plans that dilute the voting power of racial minorities.
Two prominent voting rights groups have warned that striking down or narrowing Section 2 would allow Republican-controlled legislatures to redraw as many as 19 congressional districts in their favor, Politico reported.That projection — outlined in a new report from Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund and shared exclusively with POLITICO — suggests that striking down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act could all but ensure continued Republican control of the House of Representatives.
While a ruling before next year’s midterm elections remains uncertain, the organizations behind the report said it is still possible. In total, the groups identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that could be redrawn to favor Republicans if current legal and political conditions hold — with 19 of those shifts directly tied to the potential elimination of Section 2 protections.Doing so would “clear the path for a one-party system where power serves the powerful and silences the people,” Black Voters Matter Fund co-founder LaTosha Brown claimed, without addressing the constitutional impropriety of drawing congressional districts based solely on race – which is the issue before the high court.
The Supreme Court has previously rejected those arguments, but voting rights advocates fear the upcoming Louisiana v. Callais case could mark a turning point.
Democrats, meanwhile, could also seek to capitalize on any changes to the law by redrawing district lines in deeply Democratic states where VRA protections still apply. However, analysts say such opportunities would be limited compared with the broader redistricting advantages that Republican-controlled legislatures could gain, Politico added.
Under current law, the Voting Rights Act is used in redistricting to prevent racial gerrymandering that weakens the influence of minority voters. States typically comply by drawing districts that give racial and ethnic minority communities a fair opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.
However, many election law experts anticipate that the Supreme Court could narrow the scope of the VRA in its upcoming ruling, potentially triggering significant shifts in congressional representation across the South, noted Politico.
According to the report, such a decision could result in Democratic lawmakers being ousted entirely from states such as Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Other states — including Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, and Florida — would likely retain at least one Democratic member of Congress, but their overall Democratic representation would shrink considerably.
The report is being released as Republicans undertake a nationwide redistricting push ahead of the midterm elections — a strategy that has received strong backing from the White House and could help the GOP preserve its slim House majority. The mid-cycle redraws, while uncommon, are not without precedent and have already produced six additional Republican-leaning districts across two states.
Several other GOP-led states are expected to follow suit, a number that could grow substantially if key protections under the Voting Rights Act are rolled back.
In response, Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund are urging Democrats to mount an “aggressive and immediate” counterstrategy to combat Republican redistricting maneuvers already in motion.