Written by Elijah Bennett.
The Trump administration has moved forward with plans to discontinue a long-standing program offering temporary relief to certain migrants, prompting immediate legal challenges from groups with ties to influential philanthropists. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revealed the decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for individuals from Honduras and Nicaragua earlier this week, following a similar action for those from Nepal in the prior month. This development affects tens of thousands who have resided in the United States for decades under protections initially designed as short-term measures.
Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, was established by Congress in 1990 to provide a safe haven for nationals of countries experiencing armed conflicts, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe. For Honduras and Nicaragua, the program began in 1999 after Hurricane Mitch devastated the region, claiming over 10,000 lives and causing widespread infrastructure damage. Nepal’s designation came later, in 2015, following a massive earthquake that killed nearly 9,000 people and displaced millions.
Over time, successive administrations have extended these designations repeatedly, transforming what was intended as a temporary safeguard into a more enduring form of residency for many. This has allowed beneficiaries to work legally, obtain driver’s licenses, and build lives in the U.S., often integrating deeply into communities. However, critics argue that such extensions have strayed from the program’s original purpose, effectively creating a pathway to prolonged stays without formal immigration status adjustments.
According to official estimates, approximately 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans currently hold TPS, with around 21,000 Hondurans and 1,100 Nicaraguans having secured permanent residency through other means. For Nepal, the number stands at about 15,000. These individuals face a 60-day window before their protections expire, a timeframe the administration deems sufficient for orderly departures. The DHS has encouraged voluntary returns through a Customs and Border Protection application, offering complimentary flights and a $1,000 incentive to facilitate the process.
In response, a coalition of TPS holders has initiated legal action to halt the terminations. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, contends that the decisions violate constitutional principles and administrative procedures. Plaintiffs include seven individuals from the affected nations, supported by advocacy organizations such as the National TPS Alliance. They assert that the abrupt end to TPS disrupts established lives and exposes returnees to ongoing risks in their home countries.
To illustrate the human element, consider a typical TPS holder: someone who arrived in the late 1990s, perhaps as a young adult fleeing disaster, and has since raised U.S.-born children, purchased a home, and contributed to the economy through steady employment. Many work in sectors like construction, hospitality, and agriculture, filling roles that support local businesses. Sudden revocation could lead to family separations and economic losses, as these long-term residents are uprooted from communities where they have paid taxes and built social ties.
The Involvement of Nonprofit Advocacy Groups
Several nonprofit organizations are representing the plaintiffs in this case, including the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Haitian Bridge Alliance. These groups have a history of championing immigrant rights, providing legal aid, and lobbying for policy changes. The National Day Laborer Organizing Network focuses on supporting low-wage workers, often undocumented or in precarious statuses, through organizing campaigns and litigation.
Funding for these entities comes from various sources, including grants from foundations committed to social justice initiatives. Between 2016 and 2022, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network received substantial support, with notable contributions of around $460,000 in 2019 and $675,000 in 2022 from the Open Society Foundations, established by George Soros. Similarly, the Haitian Bridge Alliance has benefited from $550,000 in funding from the same foundation in 2020 and 2021.
The Open Society Foundations, now also guided by Alex Soros, promote open societies through investments in education, public health, and human rights. Their involvement in immigration advocacy aligns with broader goals of protecting vulnerable populations and challenging restrictive policies. This financial backing enables NGOs to pursue complex lawsuits that might otherwise lack resources, ensuring voices of affected migrants are heard in court.
Beyond this specific case, networks associated with these foundations have engaged in multiple legal efforts against the current administration’s immigration agenda. For instance, suits have targeted attempts to deport individuals to unstable regions like South Sudan, reforms aimed at curbing child trafficking through the Unaccompanied Alien Children program, and the use of the Alien Enemies Act for expedited removals. These actions reflect a pattern of resistance to enforcement measures perceived as overly harsh.
Professionals in the legal field recognize that such litigation serves a critical function in a democratic system, holding executive actions accountable to legal standards. However, it also highlights tensions between humanitarian considerations and national security priorities. In this context, the TPS lawsuit represents one front in a larger battle over how the U.S. manages its borders and treats long-term residents without full citizenship.
Expanding on the organizations’ roles, the Haitian Bridge Alliance, founded to assist Haitian migrants, has expanded its scope to support broader Black immigrant communities. Their work includes community education, direct services, and policy advocacy, often in collaboration with other groups. This interconnected network amplifies their impact, allowing for coordinated responses to policy changes.
Claims of Discriminatory Intent in the Lawsuit
Central to the plaintiffs’ arguments is the allegation that the TPS terminations are motivated by racial bias. The complaint points to statements from administration officials and campaign rhetoric that describe immigrants from non-white, non-European countries in derogatory terms. It asserts that decisions targeting nations like Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal reflect a pattern of discrimination, violating equal protection guarantees under the Constitution.
The lawsuit references the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming the terminations are arbitrary and capricious. It argues that the administration deviated from established practices by providing only a 60-day transition period, rather than the customary six months or more for long-standing designations. This shortened timeline, plaintiffs contend, exacerbates harms by limiting time for appeals or status adjustments.
Supporting this, the suit highlights ongoing challenges in the home countries. For Honduras, despite improvements in basic services—such as 95.7% access to water, 83.8% to sanitation, and 93.2% to electricity—issues like gang violence, poverty, and political instability persist. Nicaragua faces criticisms for human rights abuses under its current government, including arbitrary detentions and suppression of dissent. Nepal continues to grapple with earthquake aftershocks, economic fragility, and potential for political unrest.
U.S. State Department travel advisories recommend reconsidering trips to these nations due to crime, health limitations, and enforcement inconsistencies. This contrasts with the DHS assessment that conditions have sufficiently improved to warrant safe returns. The discrepancy underscores debates over what constitutes “extraordinary and temporary” circumstances under TPS statutes.
An incisive point here: While the program explicitly avoids considering permanent factors like poverty or general violence, advocates argue that cumulative effects from initial disasters and subsequent developments merit continued protection. This legal contention could influence future interpretations of TPS criteria.
Relatable examples abound. A Honduran TPS holder might have fled hurricane devastation only to build a career in the U.S. as a nurse or teacher, now facing deportation to a homeland where opportunities are scarce. Their U.S. citizen children, accustomed to American schools and culture, would confront difficult choices about family unity. Such stories humanize the statistics, revealing the profound personal stakes involved.
Furthermore, economic analyses indicate TPS holders contribute significantly to the U.S. workforce. Studies estimate they add billions in GDP annually through labor in essential industries. Revoking their status could lead to labor shortages in states with large TPS populations, like Florida, Texas, and California, affecting businesses reliant on their skills.
Context Within Trump’s Immigration Agenda
This TPS termination fits into a comprehensive strategy by the Trump administration to overhaul immigration enforcement. Since taking office, efforts have included expanding deportation operations, restricting asylum claims, and ending other humanitarian programs. The goal, as stated, is to restore integrity to the system by prioritizing legal pathways and deterring unauthorized entries.
Previous attempts during Trump’s first term to end TPS for several countries, including Honduras and Nicaragua, were blocked by courts, leading to extensions under the Biden administration. Now, with renewed authority, the DHS has moved swiftly, also targeting protections for Afghans, Cameroonians, Haitians, and Venezuelans. Some of these have encountered judicial hurdles, such as a New York judge blocking the Haiti termination and a paused Venezuelan revocation.
The administration’s approach emphasizes voluntary compliance, as seen in incentives for self-deportation. This includes partnerships with home countries to facilitate returns, like Honduras’s program for repatriates. Such measures aim to reduce enforcement costs and minimize disruptions, though critics view them as coercive.
Broadening the view, immigration policy intersects with foreign relations. The U.S. has collaborated with Honduras on migration management, including agreements to curb northward flows. Ending TPS could strain these ties if perceived as disregarding ongoing vulnerabilities. Similarly, Nicaragua’s political climate complicates returns, potentially leading to asylum claims upon deportation attempts.
For Nepal, the termination affects a smaller but significant community, many of whom arrived post-2015 earthquake. Their integration into sectors like technology and healthcare demonstrates the program’s role in attracting skilled workers during crises. Legal challenges may argue that seismic risks and reconstruction delays justify extensions.
Overall, these actions signal a shift toward stricter interpretations of temporary statuses. Professionals monitoring policy note that while TPS has benefited over 400,000 individuals from various nations at peak times, its repeated renewals have blurred lines between temporary relief and quasi-permanent residency. Reforms might involve congressional action to clarify durations or pathways to permanency.
Incorporating economic perspectives, TPS holders remit billions to home countries, supporting development. For Honduras, remittances exceed 20% of GDP, funding education and housing. Disruptions could exacerbate poverty cycles, indirectly fueling future migration pressures.
Public opinion on these changes varies. Polls show support for deporting recent arrivals but sympathy for long-term residents with clean records. This nuance challenges policymakers to balance enforcement with compassion, especially for those who have contributed for generations.
Our Take
The decision to end TPS for these groups, while legally grounded in the program’s temporary nature, overlooks the deep roots many have established in the U.S. over decades. Legal challenges highlighting potential biases and procedural flaws deserve thorough examination to ensure fairness. In the end, a more nuanced approach that considers humanitarian impacts alongside enforcement goals would better serve national interests and values.
