- Two organizations funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations successfully halted President Trump’s plan to deport over 500,000 migrants granted parole under Biden-era policies, arguing that revoking parole without case-by-case reviews violated immigration law.
- A federal judge issued a stay, preventing the mass deportation of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, ruling that the administration must conduct individualized assessments before revoking their parole.
- Critics, including the White House and conservative lawmakers, accused Soros-funded groups of using litigation to undermine immigration enforcement, while supporters claim the lawsuit protects vulnerable migrants from arbitrary government actions.
- The legal battle stems from Biden’s 2021 humanitarian parole program, which allowed entry for migrants from crisis-stricken nations. Trump reversed it, calling it an «illegal amnesty,» but advocates argue it provided refuge for those fleeing persecution.
- The case highlights tensions between executive authority, judicial intervention and foreign-funded advocacy, potentially shaping future immigration enforcement and the role of wealthy donors in influencing policy debates.
In a case emblematic of escalating battles over immigration enforcement, two organizations funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations have succeeded in blocking President Donald Trump’s plan to deport over half a million migrants granted humanitarian parole under Biden-era policies. The Justice Action Center and Human Rights First sued the administration in March 2025 to challenge the revocation of parole permissions for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a stay halting mass deportations, ruling that the Trump administration must conduct individualized reviews before terminating cases under the program. The temporary victory for Soros-backed groups has intensified debates over presidential authority, humanitarian migration and the role of foreign-funded advocacy in shaping U.S. border policies.
Soros groups at forefront of legal challenge
The lobbying efforts of the Soros-linked organizations are central to the ongoing legal clash. The Justice Action Center received 450,000 in unrestricted funding from the Open Society Foundations in 2023, while Human Rights First drew nearly 6.2 million from the network between 2016 and 2021. Together, they argued that Trump’s policy violated immigration law by failing to assess each case individually before revocation, even though Biden’s administration didn’t vet them individually before letting them in. The plaintiffs contended that the Biden-era parole framework, though contentious, provided critical work permissions and residency periods under U.S. statutory guidelines.
The case follows similar lawsuits funded or supported by Soros-funded entities, including a recent challenge to Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport MS-13 gang members. Critics argue such litigation reflects a coordinated strategy to subvert immigration enforcement through the judicial system. “This isn’t about due process — it’s about rich elites like Soros weaponizing courts to undermine lawful border control,” remarked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in a March statement.
Court stay halts deportation of over 500,000, amid national security concerns
On April 16, Judge Talwani’s ruling imposed an immediate stay, freezing Trump’s March 25 directive to deport or require self-removal for 532,000 parolees. The order emphasized that the administration could not terminate parole en masse without case-by-case analysis, a requirement the plaintiffs argued is entrenched in federal regulations.
The government has since vowed to appeal. The Biden administration had cast the program as a response to crises in the migrants’ home countries, but critics, including former border patrol officials, warn such policies strain resources and endanger national security by undermining statutory immigration limits.
Historical context: The parole pipeline’s origin and reversal
The policy clash traces back to Biden’s 2021 “CHNV parole” program, which allowed entry for citizens of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela without visas under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The provision permits temporary entry for humanitarian reasons but was widely expanded by Biden to address migration surges, particularly from Venezuela’s economic collapse and Haiti’s political unrest.
Trump’s reversal in March 2025 sought to halt what he termed an “illegal” amnesty program. “The Biden administration’s open-border experiment allowed hundreds of thousands to enter without proper screening, while law-abiding immigrants wait decades,” Trump declared during a February 2025 border security rally. Yet Amnesty International and migrant advocates argue the program rescued individuals fleeing dire conditions, with nearly 20% screened for trauma, domestic violence, or persecution under the policy’s eligibility criteria.
Political and policy implications of the case
The legal battle underscores the overlapping tensions between executive authority, judicial intervention and ideological divides over migration. While the administration insists reinstating vetting norms is a national priority, critics question whether the 90-day parole system, lacked sufficient infrastructure to process entries, leading to backlogs and public safety risks.
For conservative lawmakers, the Soros-funded legal challenge represents further evidence of external actors seeking to influence immigration outcomes. “The Open Society Foundations aren’t just funding nonprofits — they’re funding a political agenda,” said Sen. Josh Hawley during a March hearing. Conversely, the plaintiffs argue the case protects vulnerable populations from arbitrary government overreach, citing instances where parolees were denied access to healthcare or licenses despite employment authorization.
A legal crossroads for executive power and humanitarian policy
As the case proceeds, it tests the balance between immediate humanitarian needs and long-term immigration enforcement priorities. With over 500,000 lives hanging in judicial balance, the administration faces pressure to defend its authority to uphold security protocols, while Soros-funded groups advocate for systemic due process. The outcome could reverberate widely, shaping how presidents and courts handle immigration crises — and the role wealthy donors play in dictating the terms of the debate.
Judge Talwani’s stay remains in effect as both sides prepare appeals; however, with the White House already vowing to “vigorously” contest the ruling, this legal showdown promises to dominate the national conversation — and courts — through the remainder of Trump’s term.
Sources include: