On Monday, a U.S. district judge lifted an earlier injunction that had blocked the administration from ending TPS protections for nationals of Cameroon and Afghanistan, effectively clearing the path for the implementation of Trump’s April directive to revoke their protected status.
According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, about 7,900 Cameroonians currently benefit from TPS. The court’s decision could compel them to return to a country still plagued by political unrest and violence, especially in the conflict-ridden Anglophone regions.
The ruling also affects approximately 14,600 Afghans, many of whom face similar risks amid ongoing insecurity in their home country.
Trump’s immigration crackdown targets TPS
In April, the Trump administration announced plans to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Afghans and Cameroonians living in the United States, intensifying its sweeping immigration crackdown.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed the decision, which marks a significant shift in America’s humanitarian immigration policy.
TPS offers temporary legal status and protection from deportation to nationals of countries facing armed conflict or natural disasters. Cameroonians were granted this protection due to ongoing violence and a deepening humanitarian crisis in their country.
Following the announcement, more than 100 Democratic lawmakers urged top U.S. administration officials to reconsider, warning that ending TPS would force vulnerable immigrants back to “devastating humanitarian and economic conditions.”
Despite widespread opposition, the Trump administration maintains that conditions in both Cameroon and Afghanistan have improved enough to justify ending the protections, an assessment strongly contested by human rights groups and immigration advocates.
Critics argue the move not only endangers thousands of lives but also reflects a broader, hardline approach to immigration under President Trump’s renewed tenure.
Multiple advocacy groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court, raising concerns about safety, due process, and the erosion of the United States’ longstanding humanitarian commitments.
