This week’s federal policy round-up includes major shifts in immigration, civil liberties, voting rights, public health, and immigration—each with serious implications for our communities.
Deportation Over Relief: Policies Strip Protections from Immigrant Communities
The Trump administration announced it will end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 6,000 Syrians, with another 1,000 pending applications also affected. Syrians with TPS have until 11:59pm on November 21 to leave voluntarily before facing arrest and deportation. Homeland Security officials claim conditions in Syria no longer justify protection, calling continued TPS “contrary to national interest.” This decision ends a program first authorized in 2012 due to civil war and extended multiple times under previous administrations. The move is part of a broader effort to terminate deportation protections for nationals of several countries, including Palestine, Sudan, Venezuela, Haiti, and others. Thousands of Syrians who have lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. now face loss of status, family separation, and forced return to a country still facing instability, shortages, and sectarian violence. DHS’s reasoning appears contradictory—labeling Syria both a terrorism “hotbed” and safe for return. This decision reflects a broader strategy to dismantle humanitarian relief programs and escalate deportations. Legal challenges are likely, as seen in similar cases, raising serious questions about executive authority over TPS.
A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s attempt to condition FEMA disaster aid on state cooperation with immigration enforcement. The court ruled that the requirement exceeded executive authority and conflicted with the purpose of disaster relief programs. The decision prevents the administration from using aid as leverage in the 20 states that challenged the policy. States can no longer be penalized for refusing to adopt stricter immigration mandates. The ruling reinforces limits on executive power to impose new conditions on federal spending where Congress has already set rules. Politically, it blocks a tool the administration could have used to pressure states into aligning with its immigration agenda—protecting communities from having disaster relief weaponized against them.
President Trump signed a proclamation adding a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas, used by high-skilled foreign workers. The fee does not apply to renewals or current visa holders. The sudden change caused confusion among employers and workers, especially in tech and healthcare sectors that rely heavily on H-1B talent. The steep cost may discourage hiring, worsen worker shortages, and create legal and operational challenges. It reflects the administration’s broader push to restrict immigration pathways and target companies seen as misusing the program.
Surveillance Over Speech: Executive Order and Memorandum Expand Federal Targeting of Dissent
President Trump signed an executive order claiming to designate ANTIFA—a decentralized anti-fascist ideology—as a “domestic terrorist organization.” The order directs federal agencies to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle activities linked to ANTIFA and target those accused of providing material support. U.S. law provides no legal process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations, raising serious constitutional concerns. Because ANTIFA is not a formal group, enforcement risks and expanding federal surveillance based on ideology. The order attempts to stretch federal authority to criminalize dissent, raising First Amendment and civil liberties concerns. It signals an escalation in the administration’s crackdown on left-leaning protest movements and could face legal challenges over due process, free speech, and association rights.
Additionally, yesterday, the President issued a memorandum directing federal agencies, including the Justice Department, Treasury, and Joint Terrorism Task Forces, to intensify investigations into what it calls “domestic political violence.” The directive authorizes expanded monitoring of communications networks, financial activity, and political organizing, with little oversight. This move further opens the door to the targeting of non-profits, foundations, and political opponents, as well as the mass surveillance of activists and immigrant communities under the guise of counterterrorism.
Legal Win for Research: University of California Grants Reinstated After Political Targeting
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Trump administration to restore $500 million in federal grant funding to University of California researchers. The administration had frozen the funds as part of a broader effort to influence universities’ diversity programs and curriculum, justifying the action by equating pro-Palestine protests with antisemitism and citing civil rights laws. Judge Rita Lin ruled the administration likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to justify the funding freeze, siding with the impacted researchers who brought the lawsuit. This follows an earlier decision restoring $81 million in NSF grants to UCLA. The restored funding supports critical medical research, including studies on Parkinson’s, cancer, and cell regeneration. The ruling reinforces procedural protections for universities and limits the administration’s ability to withhold federal funds without clear, lawful justification.
Families Left Behind: Policies Deepen Hunger, Confuse Health Guidance, and Undermine Trust
The Trump administration is canceling the Household Food Security Reports, calling them “redundant, costly, and politicized.” This move follows major cuts to food stamps, with 2.4 million fewer people expected to receive benefits due to stricter work requirements. Ending the report signals that hunger is no longer a federal priority. This, along with the firing of the commissioner in charge of monthly job reports, leads communities to face deeper food insecurities while trust in official economic data is threatened.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), now with five newly appointed members, voted to weaken COVID-19 vaccine guidance, reject a combined MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella, varicella) shot for children under 4, and indefinitely delay a vote on hepatitis B vaccine recommendations at birth. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s advisors cited unvetted studies and dismissed concerns about the lack of rigorous review. ACIP also approved recommendations beyond its scope, including universal hepatitis B testing for pregnant women.
With ACIP weakening guidance and major medical associations offering different advice, immigrant and low-income families may face confusion, reduced vaccine uptake, and higher medical care costs. If clinics follow more conservative guidance from professional associations, lower-income patients may face inconsistent or more expensive care. This leaves children more vulnerable to preventable diseases and destabilizes decades of public health progress.
Trump Administration announced that the FDA will notify doctors of a “very increased risk of autism” linked to Tylenol use during pregnancy—despite no settled science supporting this claim. This announcement did not go through the FDA’s normal scientific review or regulatory process. Instead, the administration bypassed independent evaluation, undermining the systems designed to protect public trust in health guidance.
Tylenol has long been considered the safest over-the-counter option for pregnant women. A 2024 peer-reviewed Swedish study published in the Journal of American Medical Association, which included over 2 million children, found no association between prenatal acetaminophen (aka Tylenol) use and autism, ADHD, or other neurodevelopmental disorders.
Ignoring peer-reviewed research and medical consensus, this political interference fuels confusion, mistrust, and stigma—especially for communities already skeptical of government health systems. By politicizing medical guidance, the administration risks pushing families toward misinformation and unregulated remedies, while placing unfair blame on pregnant women for their child’s health outcomes.
Voting Rights at Risk: DOJ Lawsuit Backs Aggressive Voter Purges
The Justice Department sued California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, alleging they are not removing enough ineligible voters from the rolls. This marks the administration’s latest and most significant escalation after pressuring other states to adopt stricter purge practices. Such measures often strip eligible voters, especially people of color, immigrants, and low-income communities, from registration lists. Such moves can legitimize voter suppression strategies long advanced by partisan groups. If upheld, these cases could accelerate roll purges nationwide and make it harder for marginalized communities to vote.
Government Shutdown Looms: Negotiations at an Impasse
With the September 30 deadline fast approaching, Congress remains deadlocked over funding negotiations, raising the risk of a government shutdown. Key points of contention include healthcare policy provisions and federal employee protections. As the situation develops, we will continue to monitor the negotiations and provide updates on any significant changes.