CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Trita Parsi via Antiwar.com, reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi's Substack.

The Trump administration believes it has turned the tables on Iran. Washington assesses that the rerouting of maritime traffic through the Omani corridor, combined with a global shift away from Persian Gulf oil, has reduced the effectiveness of Tehran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. blockade has sharply constrained Iran's ability to sell its oil. The result, in Washington's view, is a status quo that imposes greater costs on Iran than on the United States.

That calculation changes the strategic equation. Rather than being forced to accommodate Iranian demands, President Donald Trump now believes he can afford to wait Tehran out. For the first time since the war began, the White House has concluded, time is working in America's favor.

Assuming that assessment is correct, the more important question is what Trump intends to do with this newfound leverage. If Washington interprets Iran's vulnerability as an opportunity to extract capitulation rather than to negotiate a durable settlement, the result is more likely to be another round of war than an end to the conflict. Tehran has already demonstrated that when confronted with a choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Giving Iran the same choice again is therefore unlikely to produce a different outcome.

The only way to turn this unexpected shift in the balance of leverage into a political victory is through diplomacy. If Washington's assessment is correct, it now has an opportunity to use its leverage to secure a compromise that addresses its core interests while giving Tehran sufficient reason to accept an agreement. If, instead, the administration pursues maximalist demands, it risks converting a moment of leverage into another cycle of war.

Historically, however, Washington has tended to make precisely this mistake. Whenever U.S. policymakers have concluded that time and leverage are on their side, they have often treated Iranian weakness not as an opening for compromise, but as an opportunity to seek capitulation. The danger is that Trump will repeat that pattern. He will mistake leverage for victory and turn a potentially favorable negotiating position into the continuation of the tragedy that is US-Iran relations.

Trump failed militarily, but thinks he can win economically

America has run out of military options. The clearest indication is that the Trump administration has stopped striking Iranian targets even as Tehran continues to attack ships transiting the Strait. On Monday, an Iranian attack killed a sailor aboard a vessel using the southern corridor. Yet Washington did not respond militarily - even though the second round of the war began precisely because the administration had declared that it could not accept Iran firing on ships.

According to Reuters, U.S. forces have used virtually all of their global stockpile of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) during the five-month Iran conflict. Moreover, roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors, 38% of THAAD interceptors, and almost half of the Navy's Tomahawk cruise missiles have been expended.

The depletion of these stocks appears to have forced Trump to abandon its pursuit of a military knockout and instead shift the burden of economic pressure onto Tehran. That strategy, in turn, appears to be producing results faster - and to a greater degree - than the administration anticipated.

In the American description of events, this success is mainly due to three factors: New, much larger ships are being used that carry primarily crude oil. These VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carrier) can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil. In comparison, other oil tankers can transport between 350,000 and 1 million barrels.

Before the outbreak of the war, approximately 21 million barrels of petroleum and crude oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis. These were carried by 65 to 80 tankers. Roughly the same amount of oil transition through the strait can now be achieved by only ten VLCCs a day. And given that the vast majority of ships transitioning through the Strait in the Southern Corridor have their transponders off, this traffic has not been noted by outlets tracking the traffic.

Secondly, demand for Persian Gulf oil has significantly dropped as numerous economies have started to transition to other sources of supply. Brazil, for instance, has increased its exports and started to serve markets that previously relied on Persian Gulf oil. Most importantly, Beijing appears to have deliberately reduced its oil consumption to prevent prices from remaining above $100 a barrel and thereby aggravating the risk of a global recession.

Third, the war has created economic incentives strong enough to attract ships and crews willing to assume substantially greater risks. The growing volume of traffic through the Southern Corridor, despite the obvious dangers, is evidence that these incentives are surprisingly powerful.

Unlike its earlier illusions about the blockade as a guaranteed knockout blow against the Iranian theocracy, Washington no longer expects economic pressure to produce a quick surrender. Instead, the administration appears to be betting on a slower process of economic strangulation that will eventually force Tehran to capitulate. Faith in a knockout blow has given way to the more fragile hope of prolonged strangulation.

Tehran isn't worried - for now

Iran's calculation is effectively the opposite of Washington's. Tehran doubts the United States can sustain the flow of VLCC traffic through the Strait and believes Trump will have little choice but to return to the Islamabad MOU within the next two to three weeks. Trump may have made progress on oil exports, but LNG and many petrochemical products, including fertilizers, remain unable to leave the Persian Gulf.

Tehran also appears to believe that it retains the ability to halt the VLCC traffic, but is deliberately refraining from doing so for now. The calculation is to avoid escalation while waiting to see whether the United States' depleted military options ultimately compel Trump to return to the MOU.

In short, Tehran does not appear overly concerned - for now. But that could change. If Trump refuses to return to the MOU, or succeeds in turning the balance of economic pain against Iran, Tehran will face a far harsher reality. Just as Washington underestimated Iran's resilience, Tehran may have underestimated the both resilience of the global economy and Trump - the former's ability to shift away from oil and the latter's craftiness in finding non-military ways to effectively reopen parts of the Strait.

Between surrender or escalation, Iran will almost certainly choose escalation. Even if Trump has gained the economic upper hand, Tehran still believes it holds a military advantage. Its options range from more aggressive attacks on VLCCs to strikes on Emirati pipelines that bypass the Strait, and potentially to renewed escalation in the Red Sea.

Indeed, it was precisely Trump's erroneous assumption that Iran would choose surrender over war that helped drive the United States toward escalation in the first place. Washington's recurring search for Iran's breaking point has repeatedly produced escalation rather than capitulation. There is little reason to expect the pattern to be different this time.

The US-Iran tragedy

Herein lies the tragedy of the lethal dance between Washington and Tehran. America's winner-take-all approach makes agreement unacceptable when Iran has the momentum. When the momentum shifts to Washington, the United States comes to believe that nothing short of Tehran's full capitulation is palpable.

Because Iran fears surrender more than war, the cycle oscillates between economic pressure and military escalation, interrupted only by brief and often fragile periods of diplomacy. Put simply, the structure of the situation favors war.

This is particularly visible today as neither side is investing in any real diplomacy with the other. Tehran's "diplomacy" is to simply wait for Trump to return to the MOU, while Trump has barred U.S. officials from engaging with Iran and committed himself instead to economic warfare.

When you don't negotiate when you're weak, because you are weak, and you don't negotiate when you are strong, because you are strong, then war becomes the baseline.

Trita Parsi is the Executive VP of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an award-winning author. Washingtonian Magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy. Noam Chomsky calls him "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran"

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

We have seen protesters on the left around the country mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk, even reenacting his murder. Hate traffickers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. It is all shocking and depressing, but none reached the level of Hasan Piker leading a huge crowd in mocking Kirk and his faith. Before he was murdered, Kirk debated Piker and called him a "socialist hypocrite." What is shocking is not the utter depravity and cruelty of Piker, but the ecstasy of the crowd in relishing the death of someone with opposing views. It is part of the conditioning in what I have previously called an "age of rage."

In the video, Piker leads the crowd in the meme song "We Are Charlie Kirk" at a stop of his "Fear& LIVE" tour, including such lines as "We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We'll fight for the Gospel, we'll honor his name." His co-hosts and the crowd seem to be laughing with joy.

Joining him at this hatefest at the Golden Gate Theatre in San Francisco on August 21 were reportedly Will Neff, QTCinderella, and AustinShow.

Hasan is wearing his now-signature Mao jacket as the young crowd and his co-hosts laugh hysterically. It is the very essence of this movement to desensitize people, particularly young people, to violence and hate.

In Rage and the Republic, I wrote about this national ragefest. It allows people to hate completely and without thought to the humanity of those being hurt. What people will not admit is that they like it. Rage is addictive, and it is contagious. Just look at the crowd in San Francisco, and you will see the addictive quality of uncut, undiluted hate:

Piker, Will Neff, QTCinderella, AustinShow, and these fans have every right to spread hate. It is protected speech just as KKK and neo-Nazi groups are allowed to promulgate their own hateful values.

What is exasperating is how hatemongers on the left want to enjoy hate speech while accusing others of hate and intolerance. They do so by excusing their actions or views by demonizing those who disagree. Democratic leaders continue the false claim that democracy is dying in America and that this may be our last free election. While made over multiple elections, the claim of the imminent death of democracy (unless they are elected) does not appear to register with their supporters.

Recently the rhetoric has reached hysterical levels. Florida Democratic Senate candidate Angie Nixon has compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to "modern-day slave catchers" and the government is "literally trying to kill us."

It is a narrative that allows you to speak like a Nazi while claiming to be fighting Nazis.

Piker thrilled the crowd by mocking a murdered man over his faith and his death. It is more than being simply classless. It is commodifying rage. Piker is reportedly raking in a fortune as are other hatemongers like Jennifer Welch. They traffic in rage to a nation of rage addicts.

It is a scene that only reaffirms the work of Kirk who sought to expose the hate and intolerance of the left, particularly on our campuses. Kirk infuriated many by challenging them to debate. There is no room for reason in an age of rage. Those who try to introduce opposing views on campuses are cancelled or attacked.

Recently, a group of pro-life teenagers were kicked out of the Wydaho Roasters coffee shop in Idaho by an owner who found their presence intolerable. At universities, faculty members have attacked displays and even students in righteous rage. One professor who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life students was not only attained on the faculty but even honored by another school.

Civility, and even humanity, become signs of weakness in these times. They gravitate to figures like Abdul El-Sayed who has campaigned with Piker and promises to "choke out" Republicans and refers to moderates like Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman (D) as ogres to have their heads cut off and put on pikes.

The American left has found their berserkers, the old Norse warriors who were known to fight in a virtual violent trance. The new berserkers offer the chance to hate completely and without remorse or reflection. Over time, supporters are conditioned to disregard even the murder of those with opposing views. As shown in San Francisco, assassination becomes nothing more than a sing-a-long in an age of rage.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Summary:

• Nearly 200 Ships Navigated Strait Last Week, Up From 150 the Previous Week
• Trump Views Hormuz As "an American Territory" 
• Axios: 40 Tankers Transited Hormuz Friday Night, But Real Crisis Is Diesel

Hormuz Commercial Traffic Surges 

Shortly after President Trump declared the Strait of Hormuz "an American territory" on Friday evening, the New York Post published a new report citing UK Maritime Trade Operations data showing that commercial traffic through the critical waterway has rebounded sharply as more vessels use a US-backed route along Oman's coast. This suggests that the US military presence and offensive operations in the region have degraded Tehran's ability to fully control the waterway.

Nearly 200 ships navigated the strait last week, up from about 150 the previous week and just 40 two weeks earlier, according to UKMTO data. Traffic has recovered to roughly 20% of prewar levels, when the waterway carried about one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil.

"It increasingly looks like Iran has at least partially lost control of the strait," Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analysis at Kpler, told CNN.

"The Oman route absolutely makes the most sense," added Dan Pickering, founder of Pickering Energy Partners, noting that it allows vessels to avoid the possibility of paying a toll to Tehran.

President Trump told a crowd in South Carolina late Friday, "We don't even know if we won, because I view the Strait of Hormuz as an American territory right now."

BREAKING: Trump says he view Strait of Hormuz as an American territory pic.twitter.com/NBKGGBgvWu

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) August 21, 2026

Let's revisit a mid-March note from Ex Uno Plures' Zoltan Pozsar, who explained at the time that Trump was "methodically building a portfolio of assets" to pressure China, centered on strategic energy-supply nodes and maritime chokepoints that have historically supported Beijing's access to cheap crude imports. His note highlighted the Panama Canal, Venezuelan oil flows, and the broader significance of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

Axios: 40 Tankers Transited Hormuz Friday Night, But Real Crisis Is Diesel

Axios political reporter and Middle East correspondent Barak Ravid reported early Saturday that 40 tankers transited the Strait of Hormuz on Friday night, citing three unnamed US officials.

"Around 16 million barrels of oil moved out of the strait through the southern channel on Friday night," Ravid wrote on X.

???????Around 40 tankers transited in and out of the Strait of Hormuz through the southern deep channel on Friday night. Around 16 million barrels of oil moved out of the strait through the southern channel on Friday night, three U.S. officials told me

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) August 22, 2026

The latest Bloomberg vessel-tracking data show that 13 ships transited the critical waterway on Saturday, with seven traveling east to west and six moving west to east. Traffic remains well below the levels recorded during the brief memorandum-of-understanding period from June 15 through mid-July.

On Friday, President Trump called the Hormuz chokepoint "an American territory"...

"We don't even know if we won, because I view the Strait of Hormuz as an American territory right now," Trump said, addressing a crowd in South Carolina.

Trump joked about bombing Iran during the speech, saying, "It's a Friday night. We have plenty of time... and what the hell do I have to do? Go back and bomb Iran a little bit more?"

Axios reported Wednesday that the US military had established a shipping corridor in the critical waterway, which carries millions of barrels of oil each day. There was no word from Ravid on whether the 40 tankers sailed through the new shipping corridor.

Even with these transits, the emerging energy crisis is not centered on crude availability, as SPRs around the world are being tapped to offset lost production in the Gulf region. Instead, the real crisis is materializing in the refined-products market.

The focus emerged at the start of the week when Bloomberg's front-month US diesel crack spread (HOCL1 Index) topped $100 a barrel, as we warned: "Industrial economy either grinds to a halt or consumers about to be hit with the biggest energy pass-through in history."

Diesel crack hits record $102. This is absolutely unprecedented.

Industrial economy either grinds to a halt or consumers about to be hit with the biggest energy pass through in history pic.twitter.com/OtAdgrCvb3

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 17, 2026

Then, by Wednesday, Jeff Currie, the former Goldman Sachs commodities chief and now co-chair of Abaxx Markets, appeared on CNBC to explain that the real crisis is not in crude but in diesel markets.

"Nobody on the planet Earth consumes crude oil," Currie told CNBC. "Refineries do. Everyone else consumes gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and those markets look considerably uglier."

By Thursday, Currie explained that the convergence of tight physical markets, currency debasement and policy intervention represents the hallmark of a structural commodity bull cycle.

"Stop looking at crude. Nobody consumes it but refineries. The economy runs on gasoline and diesel, and that consumption-weighted basket costs $165 against $85 WTI," Currie wrote on X. Read the report.

Related:

• Diesel Crack Spread Madness Deepens As Jefferies Finds No Easy Exit From Russia's Refining Crisis

The US diesel crack spread closed below $100 on Friday, but the Hormuz disruption, compounded by Ukraine's decimation of Russia's refining capabilities, is creating a perfect storm for global diesel markets ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter.

Authored by Rainer Zitelmann via RealClearMarkets,

What personality traits distinguish successful entrepreneurs? This question has occupied academic research on entrepreneurship for decades, with scholars examining the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial success.

When we want to understand or recognize something, we often do so by making comparisons. About 200 years after the birth of Christ, the Greco-Roman historian and philosopher Plutarch wrote a collection of parallel biographies of famous figures from Greek and Roman history. By comparing their characters, decisions, and lives, he sought to reveal similarities and differences and thereby arrive at a deeper understanding of each individual.

The American economist and entrepreneur Greg Autry has followed this model. In his book "Barons and Bros", he presents four pairs, each consisting of a living entrepreneur and an entrepreneur from the 19th century.

Many readers will be familiar with five of the names: SpaceX founder Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Virgin founder Richard Branson, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, and railroad and shipping entrepreneur Cornelius Vanderbilt. In addition, Autry has chosen Monty Ward, the pioneer of mail-order retailing; Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun; and Palmer Luckey, the founder of the virtual-reality company Oculus.

Formal education played hardly any role. Only two of these eight successful entrepreneurs completed a university degree, and only one of them - Musk - studied economics, among other subjects. The inventor Hiram Maxim, who received 122 U.S. patents and 149 British patents and developed, among other things, the first automatic fire sprinkler, attended a one-room schoolhouse for only five years. Richard Branson is dyslexic and left school at the age of 16.

In my dissertation The Wealth Elite, for which I conducted in-depth interviews with 45 wealthy self-made entrepreneurs, I reached a similar conclusion: there was no correlation between performance at school or university and the level of wealth these individuals later attained. Those who had excelled at school or university were generally not among the very wealthiest later in life.

For these entrepreneurs, implicit learning - "learning by doing" - and the implicit knowledge acquired through this process played a much more important role. Six of Autry's eight heroes were already engaged in entrepreneurial activities as teenagers, learning skills that would later contribute to their success. This, too, corresponds to the findings of my dissertation: What was striking was the way the future wealthy entrepreneurs earned money while still at school or university.

Typical student jobs in which they simply worked for an hourly wage were the exception. There is little doubt that these experiences shaped the young people who later became entrepreneurs. They learned how to organize, sell, and think entrepreneurially. Without even being aware of it, they acquired the implicit knowledge that is so important for successful entrepreneurs and investors. Their early entrepreneurial experiences were the best possible preparation for becoming self-employed later in life.

Most of the entrepreneurs featured in Autry's comparisons would probably never have made careers in large corporations because they were often difficult personalities, unwilling or unable to conform and subordinate themselves to others. All of them were undoubtedly outstanding salesmen and networkers. Again and again, Autry describes his heroes making "cold calls" - contacting strangers they did not know but who were important to their plans.

How often have you tried to write to or call an important person you did not know?

All the heroes in this book suffered major setbacks. Musk's companies Tesla and SpaceX repeatedly came close to bankruptcy, and many of Branson's companies failed.

Palmer Luckey was forced out of Facebook after the company acquired his business because he was considered politically "too right-wing." Vanderbilt suffered a major defeat in the so-called Erie War and, in his unsuccessful attempt to gain control of the Erie Railroad, at one point lost around $7 million - the equivalent of perhaps $170 million today.

Andrew Carnegie experienced one of the greatest crises of his life during the bloody Homestead conflict of 1892; the confrontation permanently damaged his reputation as an employer sympathetic to workers.

Perseverance alone does not explain their success. What matters is the combination of perseverance, a willingness to experiment, and the ability to learn from mistakes. The crucial skill shared by Autry's heroes was their ability to recognize opportunities where other people saw none. This corresponds to the insights of the great economist Israel Kirzner, whose theory of entrepreneurship places the entrepreneur's "alertness" to new opportunities at its center.

In his definition, the "pure entrepreneur" is a decision-maker whose entire role consists of discovering previously unnoticed opportunities.

When it comes to the personalities of Autry's heroes, one thing stands out: they were all nonconformists - in the sense described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter. According to Schumpeter, the entrepreneurial type does not regard the fact that something has never been done before as an argument against doing it. Inhibitions that constitute firm boundaries for the behavior of others do not constrain him in the same way.

He draws different conclusions from the circumstances around him than the mass of static economic actors. He does not care much how others judge his enterprise - and often even takes pleasure in swimming against the current. All of this applies without qualification to the people portrayed in this book.

And there is something else that stands out: Autry's entrepreneurs think very, very long term. Not in months, and not even in years, but in decades. This sets them apart from the overwhelming majority of people.

There is almost no theory in Autry's book, and that is a good thing. His accounts are vivid, entertaining, and full of anecdotes. "The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right." This statement would drive most academics to despair, but it comes from Jeff Bezos, one of the richest people in the world. The entrepreneur's knowledge is different from the academic's knowledge - something intellectuals will never understand.

This book could only have been written by an author who is both a scholar and an entrepreneur himself, and who therefore possesses a kind of knowledge superior to that of the pure academic.

Autry has met all of the entrepreneurs featured in the book who are still alive - some only briefly, others more closely. I have read many biographies of Musk, Bezos, and Branson, and of course I was already familiar with Vanderbilt and Carnegie. Nevertheless, I learned a great deal from this book and read it in one sitting. As a reader, I am already looking forward to Autry's next parallel biographies, since he announces that he intends to write more.

Anyone interested in entrepreneurship will learn more from this book than from many years spent studying business administration.

In June, Skyhorse Publishing will release Rainer Zitelmann's book "New Space Capitalism."

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump is asking a federal judge to reject the BBC's attempt to subpoena three members of his family as part of discovery in his defamation lawsuit against the British broadcaster.

Trump's attorneys filed a memorandum Aug. 21 opposing the BBC's request for permission to use alternative methods to serve subpoenas on Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner.

Trump's lawyers accused the BBC of attempting to transform what they described as a narrow defamation case into a broad investigation of the events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021.

The lawsuit concerns a BBC documentary in which the BBC spliced together portions of the president's Jan. 6 speech, delivered nearly 55 minutes apart, while omitting his statement that supporters should march "peacefully and patriotically" to the U.S. Capitol.

The BBC apologized for the editing but said it was an unintentional error and does not meet the legal threshold for defamation.

Trump's filing says the BBC chairman acknowledged that the editing created a "mistaken impression."

According to Trump's attorneys, the BBC sought 126 document requests and approximately 150 requests for admission from Trump, and issued subpoenas to 47 family members, former officials, political associates, and federal agencies.

The court ruled Aug. 6 that the lawsuit did not permit the BBC to "relitigate and discover every aspect" of Jan. 6 or seek discovery from "any and all individuals" with knowledge of the events. The judge directed the parties to conduct a meaningful conference to resolve remaining discovery disputes.

Trump's attorneys argue the BBC filed its latest motion eight days later, without following that process.

They also contend the BBC is seeking authorization to serve subpoenas that have not been presented to the court. The filing says the BBC has not submitted revised document subpoenas or proposed deposition subpoenas detailing what the three family members would be required to provide or testify about.

Trump's attorneys also argued that additional depositions would be redundant because all three were previously interviewed by the House committee investigating Jan. 6. Those interviews totaled 585 pages and addressed subjects the BBC says it wants to explore, according to the filing.

The filing particularly challenges the effort to depose Kushner, saying that he was outside the country during Trump's speech and the subsequent riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump's attorneys asked the court to deny the BBC's motion, arguing the broadcaster has failed to justify its proposed ways to deliver the subpoenas and failed to comply with the court's Aug. 6 discovery order.

The BBC declined to comment in response to an email from The Epoch Times seeking comment.

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

A court on Aug. 18 effectively ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the last of 13 nationalities that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targeted during President Donald Trump's second term.

In total, more than a million foreign nationals living in the United States with such deportation protections are now up for removal.

The 13 countries included Haiti, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, South Sudan, Burma, Somalia, and Ethiopia.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to end the status for Syrians and Haitians and did so with reasoning that applied to cases involving other nationalities as well. Some lower courts initially resisted Trump's revocations, but by Aug. 18, each of those judicial blocks had fallen.

Here's what we know about what this means and what's next.

Are Mass Deportations Coming?

DHS and legal experts say the more than one million foreign nationals previously covered by TPS are now, technically, illegal aliens.

The first deportation flight to Haiti since the Supreme Court ruling departed on Aug. 20, carrying more than 160 individuals. Among those removed were former TPS holders and Haitians who served prison sentences in the United States, according to Haitian officials.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who worked on immigration issues, told The Epoch Times that few options remained for the foreign nationals to challenge their deportations.

"That designation is gone. That protection disappears," Rahmani said. "Now, that doesn't mean a million people get deported. ... They still have to go through the normal removal proceeding."

He said that some could self-deport or be removed under orders that were in place before they received protected status.

DHS did not respond to requests for more information on enforcement of the TPS revocations for more than a million foreign nationals.

After the Aug. 18 decision, DHS urged foreign nationals to self-deport - take a free flight home and a $2,600 check - or be removed.

"For decades, TEMPORARY Protected Status was used as a [de facto] amnesty program. Those days are OVER. Those with terminated TPS are now in our nation ILLEGALLY. They must leave now or be swiftly DEPORTED," said the DHS on X.

Court Battles

The DHS secretary has authority to decide when a country merits a TPS designation.

The secretary is also required to periodically review and extend or revoke the status, which is meant to be granted for countries affected by armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary dangerous conditions. If the DHS secretary finds that conditions in a designated country no longer warrant protected status, they can terminate it.

Lawsuits seeking to block the terminations, which were done under then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, alleged the administration failed to follow proper procedures, including reviewing conditions in these countries, before terminating the protections.

Some judges agreed, before the Supreme Court issued a decision over protections for Syrians and Haitians in which a majority of justices agreed with the administration's argument that federal judges lacked authority to review the department's TPS determinations. They noted a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bars judicial review and clarified that it applied even to procedural challenges, like those brought under the Administrative Procedure Act.

While some countries' terminations were already in effect, others were still blocked when the Supreme Court ruled.

Some of the lower court judges overseeing those remaining cases were accused by DHS of dragging their feet in issuing orders that comply with the high court's ruling.

DHS special counsel James Percival began posting on X a daily reminder of each judge who had not followed the Supreme Court precedent. He singled out District Judge Brian Murphy, who oversaw Ethiopia's case, for waiting more than 50 days to lift his administrative stay on the country's TPS termination.

Although the final judicial block fell on Aug. 18, appearing to be the last breath of the legal challenges against TPS terminations, there remains a small chance that at least one case could be revived.

Lawyers jointly representing Nepalese, Honduran, and Nicaraguan former TPS holders are attempting to amend their initial lawsuit with a new bare animus claim alleging that the Trump administration's efforts to end protected status were unconstitutional "because they were motivated by explicit animosity and a desire to harm TPS holders," an Aug. 20 court filing said.

Lawyers for the federal government argued in their own court filing that the plaintiffs "do not have any prospect of victory."

They pointed to an Aug. 7 decision in Burma's TPS lawsuit that rejected a similar attempt to amend the challenge with a bare animus claim.

"There is a distinction between bare desire to harm TPS holders and animus against TPS policy," wrote District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. "The Supreme Court's reasoning in [the Syria and Haiti case] points to the latter, not the former."

District Judge Trina Thompson for the Northern District of California, overseeing the Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua case, had not ruled on the matter at the time of this publication.

Judge Murphy, overseeing Ethiopia's case, denied the plaintiff's motion to postpone termination of TPS but granted their motion to amend their complaint with a new ultra vires claim, arguing then-Secretary Noem acted beyond her authority in ending protected status.

Regardless, Rahmani said he believed any further challenges or appeals would likely have very little success considering the Supreme Court's decision.

"They can sue, but they're probably gonna lose," he said. "It's been pretty clear the executive branch can remove these protections."

How TPS Was Granted

Protected status can be designated for six, 12, or 18 months at a time and must be periodically reviewed by the DHS secretary to ensure a country is still experiencing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary conditions.

Some of the 13 countries were initially granted TPS due to armed conflict, like a bloody civil war in Syria that prompted the United States to grant its citizens protected status in March 2012.

Other countries were designated under TPS after devastating natural disasters, including a 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Haiti in 2010, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in Nepal in 2015, and Hurricane Mitch that ravaged Honduras and Nicaragua in 1998.

Somalia remained under protected status the longest out of these 13 countries - since September 1991. Three decades of armed conflict and instability warranted extensions of TPS across multiple U.S. administrations.

About 170,000 Salvadorans living in the United States are set to become the 14th nationality to lose their deportation protections on Sept. 9. The country has remained under TPS since March 2001 after catastrophic earthquakes.

The Debate

Advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have criticized the Trump administration's efforts, arguing that some of the 13 countries remain war-torn and unsafe for their nationals to return to. Some judges who oversaw TPS cases wrote words critical of the policy changes in new orders to overturn their previous blocks.

District Judge Allison Burroughs, overseeing Somalia's case, noted in her order lifting her previous block that Somalis once under TPS face a humanitarian crisis in their home country. She described the foreign nationals as "productive members of our communities who have lived here for years, built a life here, worked here and raised their families here."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, urging him to reinstate protected status. She said the deportation of foreign nationals from the state's workforce will have a "heavy impact" on a myriad of industries.

"By knowingly and cruelly forcing thousands of families to leave our country and return to their home countries, regardless of any ongoing or worsening humanitarian crises, the White House is committing a reckless and inhumane act," Hochul wrote.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) demanded that the Senate return to session to pass a bill that would extend TPS specifically for Haiti, where she said, in an Aug. 21 post on X, has an "ongoing humanitarian crisis."

The lower chamber already passed the legislation earlier this year in a 224-204 vote.

Meanwhile, federal officials have said TPS is meant to be temporary and has never been designed as a pathway to obtaining permanent U.S. citizenship.

Foreign nationals could attempt to claim asylum, Rahmani noted, which is very difficult to do now in the United States.

Asylum claims are designated for foreign nationals with a well-founded fear of persecution or torture in their home countries.

Rahmani said some foreign nationals could fight their deportation on the grounds that they are married to an American citizen - as long as it's a "bona fide marriage" and not fraudulent.

Marriage is the quickest and easiest way for a foreign national to gain status, he said.

Some may self-deport, taking DHS's offer of a free flight and a $2,600 check, Rahmani said, but others may continue living in the United States "under the radar," as enforcing the end of TPS for more than a million foreign nationals will take time.

"I expect that a lot of people who don't have legal status to be here, they'll continue to remain here, live in the United States unlawfully," Rahmani said. "It'll be up to DHS to find them, apprehend them, and remove them."