“A Political Earthquake”: Trump Just Moved to End a Key Protection for Somalis in Minnesota. Supporters Say It’s About Security. Critics Call It a Direct Attack on a Community. The Fallout Could Redefine U.S. Immigration Rules. Here’s the Inside Story of the Decision Shaking America Tonight.

On a chilly November weekend, a short message posted online by President Donald Trump sent a shockwave through Minnesota’s Somali community and the broader immigration world. In a few lines, he declared that he was “terminating, effective immediately” a longstanding protection that has allowed some Somali nationals to live and work in the United States without fear of sudden removal. Reuters+1

The program on the chopping block is Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a legal shield created for people from countries torn apart by war or disaster. For more than three decades, Somalia has been on that list. Now, Trump says he is ending those protections for Somalis in Minnesota — the state with the largest Somali diaspora in the country. Reuters+2The Washington Post+2

To his supporters, the move is a long-overdue correction, framed as a response to alleged crime and financial abuse. To his critics, it’s something else entirely: a political thunderclap aimed at a visible, already anxious community, wrapped in language they say paints tens of thousands of neighbors with the same brush.

What Exactly Did Trump Announce?

In his online statement, Trump said he was ending deportation protections for Somali immigrants in Minnesota by terminating their Temporary Protected Status. He described Minnesota as a “hub” of serious financial wrongdoing and blamed Somali-linked groups for alleged misconduct, although he did not provide evidence or formal law-enforcement findings to back those claims. New York Post+2Reuters+2

Here’s the key nuance:

TPS is a federal program, not a state-by-state benefit. It is normally granted — or ended — for all nationals of a given country who meet the criteria, no matter which state they live in. Congress.gov+1

Legal scholars immediately pointed out that there is no clear mechanism in law to end TPS only for people living in a single state. Several experts have already suggested that the announcement is on shaky legal ground and will likely be challenged in court. The Washington Post+1

In other words, the president has made a sweeping declaration — but whether it can be implemented the way he describes is very much an open question.

Who Is Actually Affected?

One of the most striking facts in this story is the small size of the TPS group compared with the size of the broader community.

Nationwide, around 705 Somali-born people currently hold TPS, according to government figures. Reuters+2The Washington Post+2

By contrast, more than 75,000 Somali Americans live in Minnesota, many of them citizens or permanent residents who are not on TPS at all. The Washington Post+1

So why does this decision feel so enormous?

Because TPS holders are often among the most vulnerable:

Many arrived during especially violent periods of Somalia’s long civil conflict.

They have built lives around the assumption that, as long as their home country remains unstable, the U.S. would not suddenly send them back.

TPS allows them to legally work, pay taxes, start families, and put down roots — but it does not provide a direct pathway to permanent residency.

For those 705 people and their families, the announcement isn’t symbolic. It’s potentially life-altering.

A Program Born of War — and Renewed Dozens of Times

To understand the shock in Minnesota, you have to understand the history of TPS for Somalia.

The U.S. first designated Somalia for TPS in 1991, as the country spiraled into civil war and central authority collapsed. Cơ Quan Di Trú Hoa Kỳ+1

Since then, both Republican and Democratic administrations have repeatedly extended the designation, citing ongoing instability, violence, and fragile governance. TPS for Somalis has now been renewed more than two dozen times. AP News+1

Even during Trump’s first term, when his administration was aggressively shrinking refugee admissions and tightening visa rules for several countries — including Somalia — TPS for Somalis was ultimately extended in 2018 (though advocates criticized the failure to re-designate for newer arrivals). HIAS+1

In May 2025, the Biden administration again extended TPS for Somalia through March 2026, signaling that conditions in the country were still deemed too dangerous for safe return. Cơ Quan Di Trú Hoa Kỳ+1

Trump’s new declaration flies directly into the face of that prior judgment and throws the future of those extensions into doubt.

Why Minnesota, and Why Now?

The president’s announcement is not occurring in a vacuum. Several threads have been building toward this moment:

Minnesota’s large Somali community
Minnesota is home to the biggest Somali diaspora in the United States, concentrated in the Twin Cities. Over decades, Somali-owned businesses have revitalized neighborhoods, opened restaurants, and taken part in local politics — including electing the first Somali-American woman to Congress. The Washington Post+1

Conservative media focus on alleged fraud
In recent months, a handful of conservative reports have alleged that some welfare and benefits fraud in Minnesota has, in certain cases, sent money that may have ended up in the hands of armed groups in Somalia — often indirectly and without the knowledge of U.S. authorities. These claims are contested and not fully confirmed by federal investigations, but they have become a talking point for critics of the state’s leadership. New York Post+1

A broader crackdown on humanitarian protections
Trump’s move against Somali TPS is part of a bigger pattern. His administration has also moved to end protections for nationals from other countries, including Myanmar, and has signaled an intent to tighten or roll back TPS designations for several nations at once. The Guardian+1

Taken together, the announcement targeting Somali TPS in Minnesota appears both symbolic and strategic: it puts a specific community in the spotlight while illustrating a wider shift away from humanitarian relief as a key pillar of U.S. immigration policy.

How Supporters Are Framing the Decision

Trump’s backers argue that the move is about law, order, and fairness.

Their core talking points include:

TPS was meant to be temporary. Some countries have stayed on the list for decades, turning a short-term fix into something that looks permanent.

If there are allegations of fraud or organized wrongdoing in a community, they say, the federal government has a duty to respond firmly.

They argue that the United States must prioritize security and the integrity of its systems, even if the actual number of people affected is relatively small. New York Post+1

In this telling, ending TPS for Somalis in Minnesota is not an attack on immigrants, but a necessary step to restore trust in the immigration system and send a clear signal that “temporary” really means temporary.

Why Critics Call It a “Political Earthquake”

Opponents see a very different story — one that feels like it’s about people, not programs.

Top Minnesota officials, including the governor and both U.S. senators, quickly condemned the move as discriminatory and politically motivated. They note that TPS recipients, by definition, are in the country legally and have undergone background checks. Reuters+2The Washington Post+2

Community leaders and civil-rights advocates warn of several dangers:

Chilling effect on an entire community
Even though only a few hundred Somalis are TPS holders, the rhetoric around the policy can make tens of thousands of Somali Americans feel targeted. Many worry about being blamed collectively for alleged wrongdoing they had nothing to do with. AP News+1

Family separation and uncertainty
Mixed-status families are common. One parent may be a TPS holder, another a citizen, and children may be citizens as well. Removing TPS protection can split families or push them into a legal gray zone. Reuters+1

Legal red flags
Minnesota’s attorney general and other legal experts are already signaling that they may challenge the move in court, arguing that immigration programs cannot be turned on and off for specific states based purely on political pressure. The Washington Post+1

For these critics, the phrase “political earthquake” is not just about the law. It’s about trust — or the feeling that a promise made by the U.S. government over decades can suddenly be reversed with a single announcement.

The Legal Fight Ahead

So what actually happens next?

Expect lawsuits — fast
Legal challenges are almost certain. Attorneys are likely to argue that:

Federal law does not permit singling out one state’s TPS recipients.

Abruptly terminating protections without proper process violates both statute and basic fairness norms. The Washington Post+2AP News+2

Confusion on the ground
Until the courts weigh in or agencies issue formal guidance, TPS holders may be left in limbo — unsure whether to renew work permits, travel, or make long-term decisions.

Pressure on Congress
Every time TPS is in the headlines, it highlights a deeper issue: the program was designed as a band-aid, not a permanent solution. Lawmakers across the spectrum have talked for years about creating a path to longer-term status for long-time TPS holders, but legislation has repeatedly stalled. This latest clash could revive that debate.

A Turning Point for U.S. Immigration — or Another Chapter in a Long Fight?

Whether Trump’s move ultimately stands or is blocked in the courts, the message it sends is loud and clear: the future of humanitarian protections like TPS is back on the front burner.

For Somali TPS holders in Minnesota, that means uncertainty, legal consultations, and tough conversations around kitchen tables about what to do if paperwork that once felt secure suddenly looks fragile.

For the broader Somali community — and for other groups who rely on TPS — it’s a reminder that status in the United States can be deeply tied to politics in Washington, not just conditions abroad.

And for the country as a whole, this moment asks a serious question:

When the U.S. offers sanctuary to people from a country in crisis, how long should that promise last — and who gets to decide when it ends?

The answer, for now, is caught between a presidential announcement, a stack of legal statutes, and the lived reality of families who have spent years building a life in a state they call home.