Federal Judge Who Blocked Trump Immigration Order Once Honored by Group Linked to Communist China

A federal judge whose recent ruling temporarily halted a key immigration measure by President Donald Trump is now facing mounting scrutiny—not only for her decision, but for her long-standing ties to Democratic political activism and a group accused of having deep links to the Chinese Communist Party.

Judge Indira Talwani, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued a controversial decision blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to end the CHNV immigration parole program.

The Biden-era policy, which allows nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to stay in the United States temporarily, has already provided legal status to more than half a million migrants.

Her ruling—handed down on Monday in a 41-page opinion—was quickly appealed. And in a significant legal victory for Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration, allowing it to proceed with ending the CHNV program and revoke the temporary legal status of approximately 500,000 individuals. But the political aftershocks of Talwani’s decision have not subsided.

Now, new revelations about her political background and past affiliations are raising serious concerns among Trump supporters and judicial watchdogs, many of whom argue that Talwani’s legal judgments are rooted in partisan ideology rather than impartial justice.

Records reveal that before taking the bench, Talwani was deeply embedded in Democratic politics. She actively volunteered in at least four major Democratic campaigns, including those of former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, President Barack Obama, former state Attorney General Martha Coakley, and Senator Elizabeth Warren. Her political involvement included grassroots campaigning activities such as sign-holding, canvassing, and phone banking.

Particularly notable was her support for Obama’s 2008 campaign and Warren’s 2012 Senate bid—two races that symbolized the progressive resurgence in American politics during the early 2010s.

Talwani’s visible activism came just a few years before she was nominated to the federal bench by President Obama in 2013, a move now seen by some critics as a political reward for loyalty.

But it’s not just her political affiliations that are drawing fire. A lesser-known but increasingly scrutinized part of her biography is her 2012 acceptance of an award from the Chinese Progressive Association (CPA), a group that, according to multiple investigations, has long-standing ideological ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Founded by Maoist activists in San Francisco in the 1970s, the CPA has been flagged by conservative watchdogs and investigative journalists, including Natalie Winters of the National Pulse, for what they describe as “sympathies” with the Chinese regime. One of its founders, Fay Wong, even publicly praised the Chinese Communist revolution, calling it “very inspiring.”

Talwani received the CPA’s “Workers Justice Award” just one year before she was appointed to the federal judiciary. Though the honor remains listed in her official credentials, it has now become a focal point of controversy—particularly given the growing concern over Chinese influence in American institutions.

According to the National Pulse and other sources affiliated with Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, the CPA’s historical connections to the CCP are not only ideological but also operational. The group has been accused of pushing narratives aligned with Chinese state interests and cultivating relationships with U.S.-based progressive politicians.

For conservatives, these details are adding up to what they see as a clear example of judicial overreach influenced by partisan politics and foreign sympathies. The fact that Talwani’s ruling aligned with preserving a Biden-era immigration policy only reinforces this perception.

In her opinion, Talwani argued that revoking the CHNV program would impose undue hardship on migrants who have followed the legal procedures to gain temporary status.

“If their parole status is allowed to lapse, Plaintiffs will be faced with two unfavorable options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings,” she wrote. “For some Plaintiffs, leaving will also cause family separation.”

Critics have labeled the opinion as politically charged and emotionally manipulative, suggesting that it undermines the executive authority of the sitting president to control immigration policy.

“She’s not ruling from the law—she’s ruling from a progressive ideology,” said a senior GOP strategist in Washington, speaking anonymously. “This is judicial activism, plain and simple. And her connections to radical political groups only make this more alarming.”

The ruling came as part of a broader legal battle over immigration that has intensified under Trump’s second term. Since returning to the White House, Trump has vowed to dismantle what he calls the “open borders chaos” of the Biden era.

The CHNV program has been a primary target, as it enabled over 500,000 nationals from four Latin American nations to remain in the U.S. under humanitarian parole.

Trump administration officials have argued that the program was abused, lacked proper congressional oversight, and served as a backdoor for mass migration.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has already begun dismantling other Biden-era immigration policies, including protections for migrants from Afghanistan and Cameroon.

The administration’s position received validation from the Supreme Court, which in a swift decision sided with Trump and allowed the revocation of the CHNV parole program to proceed. The ruling was seen as a blow to progressive immigration advocates and a reaffirmation of the executive branch’s authority over such programs.

Yet for many Trump supporters, the controversy around Talwani underscores a deeper problem. “It’s not just about this one ruling,” said conservative commentator Mark Levin on his syndicated radio show.

“It’s about a judiciary that’s been infiltrated by the far-left, and in some cases, by people with questionable foreign ties. If we’re serious about restoring rule of law, we need to look at who’s sitting on the bench.”

The situation has revived the long-running debate over the impartiality of federal judges and whether lifetime appointments have created an unaccountable judicial class.

With Trump now reshaping the judiciary through aggressive nominations of originalist judges, the contrast between ideologies on the bench has become starker than ever.

As attention turns to the CPA, more questions are emerging about how a group with such controversial roots managed to gain access to prominent political and legal circles.

The organization, which has hosted events with Democratic politicians and received public funding in cities like San Francisco and Boston, has often portrayed itself as a defender of workers’ rights and immigrant justice.

But critics argue that this façade conceals a more radical agenda. “When you scratch beneath the surface, what you see is a group that glorifies a communist regime, supports anti-American narratives, and embeds itself in progressive movements,” said a former intelligence analyst familiar with Chinese influence operations.

While Talwani has not commented on the recent scrutiny, legal analysts are watching closely to see if future appeals or investigations may revisit her eligibility to preside over immigration-related cases. Calls for recusals or even impeachment—while still limited to fringe discussions—are beginning to surface in online forums and conservative media.

Meanwhile, President Trump remains on the offensive. On Tuesday, he praised Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele during a joint appearance in Washington, D.C., highlighting the Central American leader’s efforts to crack down on violent crime through the construction of ultra-modern, high-security prisons.

Trump, in an interview with Fox News’ Rachel Campos-Duffy, suggested his administration is exploring the use of El Salvadoran facilities to house some of America’s most dangerous criminals. “We are using [President Bukele’s] system because we’re getting rid of our criminals out of the United States,” he said.

Campos-Duffy asked whether such prisons could be used for domestic offenders as well. Trump replied, “I call them homegrown criminals… We are looking into it, and we want to do it.”

The comment sparked widespread reaction on social media, with some cheering the idea of outsourcing criminal detention and others warning of potential human rights concerns.

As Trump prepares for another round of policy battles ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, the judicial arena is likely to remain a key front. And with judges like Indira Talwani drawing more fire for their political and ideological histories, the debate over judicial impartiality, foreign influence, and rule of law will only grow louder.