The Trump Administration Ends TPS Protections for Refugees
- intnllawsociety
- Aug 4
- 5 min read
Updated: 10 hours ago
By Cady Wu
Providing safe haven, work permits, and deportation protections for asylum seekers or refugees, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) has long been a primary target for the Trump administration’s policies. In June, the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision permitted Trump to end humanitarian protections for Haitian and Syrians that have since lived in the United States for over a decade. Although how quickly the government can remove former TPS holders from the country will depend on whether they have existing or pending deportation orders, the Trump administration has ended TPS protections for a majority of previously covered groups, placing hundreds of thousands at risk from being expelled from the country. Yet many asylum seekers have stayed in the U.S. for decades, raising concerns for how sudden removal procedures could affect the immigrant landscape as a whole.
First created under the Immigration Act of 1990, TPS was created as a temporary immigration status for nationals of specific countries designated by the U.S. government as in dangerous living conditions, usually when it is in ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other conditions that prevent nationals from returning in safety. The Secretary of Homeland Security is given the discretion to decide when a country becomes a TPS designation for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time; 60 days prior to the expiration of TPS for that specific country, they must decide to extend or terminate TPS designations based on whether the conditions have significantly improved in that country.
First offered to Salvadorans fleeing civil war in 1990, citizens of TPS-designated countries are eligible to apply for the program as long as they meet requirements set by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); disqualifying factors for the program include criminal convictions and participation in terrorist activities. Under TPS, holders are protected from deportations, given work and travel authorization, and can be eligible to apply for other legal statuses (i.e. asylum or family-sponsored visas), as long as they qualify. However, TPS itself does not provide a direct pathway to a Green Card, lawful permanent residence or U.S. citizenship, although applications are possible if qualified. TPS holders similarly cannot access most federal public assistance programs besides Emergency Medicaid or use their status to petition for immigration benefits for family members. They must also continuously re-register during specific windows of re-registration for that specific country, and also know that TPS is temporary and can be not renewed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if conditions change.
Although it initially received bipartisan support, TPS in recent years has become more controversial. While proponents say it provides humanitarian support for people unable to return to their home countries, critics often argue that TPS has been improperly extended in the past, and should continue to remain as a program for temporary safe haven, rather than create paths to permanent residency. Yet migrant rights supporters have advocated for reforming TPS to make obtaining permanent residency easier, as wars continue to rage across the world, especially in Latin America and the Middle East.
Recent decisions to terminate TPS programs for countries such as Ethiopia, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen, however, have sparked lawsuits from groups challenging DHS decisions to terminate protections and whether the DHS has the authority to terminate these designations. On June 25, a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling Mullin v. Doe found that the federal law creating TPS bars courts from reviewing DHS decisions to terminate TPS designations, referencing Section 1254a(b)(5)(A), which states that “There is no judicial review of any determination … with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation.” In a separate ruling on July 21, Federal Judge Nathaniel Gorton temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stripping work authorization from TPS holders, as the USCIS unlawfully implemented policies without required public notice under the Administrative Procedure Act. Still, as the ruling was only temporary, the DHS has been granted the overall power to decide not to renew TPS status, putting responsibility on affected immigrants to monitor renewal dates.
The administration has since announced that TPS will be ending for a majority of countries currently covered, including Ethiopia, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen. As court cases attempting to block the Homeland Security Secretary’s decisions to end TPS designations continue to be argued across the U.S., the future of specific statuses for affected countries remains uncertain. Requests for overturning decisions have already been filed by the Trump administration, such as a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the DHS could end TPS for Haitian and Syrian immigrants on July 14. Most recently on July 30, the DHS formally announced that it terminated TPS for people from Haiti, Syria, and Yemen, while moving to phase out TPS designations for Somalia, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Burma, and South Sudan. Officials have argued that original conditions have improved, and that extending TPS for extended periods of time can create unintentional pathways to legal long-term residency inside the U.S., despite the program initially being intended to be temporary.
Since the revocation of TPS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has also been instructed to ramp up operations for arresting migrants with TPS statuses about to end, such as Haitians, of which over 300,000 will lose deportation protections and work permits. Internal plans are already underway to target Haitian communities in Ohio for deportation flights. Since TPS lapses remove migrants’ abilities to work in the country legally, they become eligible to be processed for deportation by ICE; however, those with removal orders can still appear before an immigration judge before deportations can take place. In light of overarching goals from the Trump administration to crack down on immigration, it is likely that these patterns continue with other migrant groups that face TPS removal as courts continue to argue over DHS authority.
Government officials and migrant rights groups have similarly criticized the deportation orders, citing that any quick removal of migrant communities would be disruptive for migrants’ U.S.-born children and local economies. Economists in particular have expressed concerns that local businesses and economies may similarly have sustainability problems, as most TPS holders are employed and even own small businesses. As TPS holders contribute around $29 billion each year to the U.S. economy and $8 billion in taxes, removing TPS holders from the U.S. could damage weak economies in both the U.S. and their home countries, as remittances also make up significant portions of those economies—16% of GDP in Haiti.
Ultimately, the recent termination of TPS marks one of the most significant shifts in humanitarian immigration policy in recent years. While the government argues that preserving the temporary nature is necessary to maintain the integrity of the system, many holders have built communities in the U.S. Beyond its immediate effects, the Supreme Court ruling has set precedent for the DHS to be able to revoke TPS designations at their discretion, setting TPS holders up for a period of significant uncertainty. As court battles over individual terminations drag on, the U.S. must balance enforcement priorities with humanitarian and economic considerations; how TPS is framed now will inevitably shape future asylum policies in America.
References
Comments