Can President Donald Trump Unilaterally End TPS for Haiti and Other Countries?

Understanding Presidential Authority and the Future of Temporary Protected Status

Even before the U.S. presidential election, candidate Donald Trump announced his intention to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and nationals of several other countries. Following his election victory, his hardline stance on immigration—particularly his focus on Haitian immigrants and the TPS program—has raised urgent questions among beneficiaries: Can the president unilaterally terminate TPS?

The answer is complex. While the president wields considerable executive power, his ability to eliminate TPS is constrained by constitutional and legal frameworks that require understanding the distinct roles of Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary.

Temporary Protected Status was established by Congress through legislation signed into law on December 5, 1990. The program was designed to provide humanitarian relief to foreign nationals already present in the United States who could not safely return to their home countries due to ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary conditions.

According to the statute, Congress determined that “when civil unrest, violence, or natural disasters occur in countries worldwide, concerns arise about the ability of certain foreign nationals already present in the United States to return safely to their home country.” The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) therefore provides for TPS and other forms of protection against deportation under specific circumstances.

Since its creation, TPS has been extended to nationals from 17 countries, including Haiti, which first received the designation due to political instability following the 1991 military coup.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the president has the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This means the president must implement laws passed by Congress but cannot refuse to enforce them simply because of disagreement. While the president may veto newly passed legislation, Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

The TPS statute grants the executive branch discretionary authority to designate countries for protection based on assessments conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and other federal agencies. However, this discretion operates within the framework established by Congress—the president can designate or terminate individual country designations, but cannot eliminate the TPS program itself without congressional action.

Haiti’s TPS designation has been maintained, terminated, and reinstated multiple times across different administrations, illustrating the program’s political and legal complexity.

President George H.W. Bush granted Haiti its initial TPS designation in 1990 during a period of political turmoil.

Following the devastating 2010 earthquake that killed over 300,000 people and displaced 1.5 million, President Barack Obama designated Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the first time. This designation allowed thousands of Haitian immigrants who were living in the United States without legal status to obtain temporary legal protection and work authorization.

When Donald Trump took office in 2017, his administration moved to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation. However, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the termination, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the decision was motivated by discriminatory animus. The case remained in litigation throughout Trump’s first term and was ultimately resolved when President Joe Biden took office in 2021 and reversed the termination.

In 2024, the Biden administration redesignated Haiti for TPS, extending protection to an estimated 309,000 additional Haitians, including those who had entered under the humanitarian parole program. Combined with existing beneficiaries, approximately 600,000 Haitians currently hold TPS or are eligible to apply for it.

Following his 2024 election victory, President Trump has once again signaled his intention to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation, reducing the extension period granted by the Biden administration.

There are two primary mechanisms for eliminating TPS entirely, both of which face significant obstacles.

The first would require Congress to repeal the 1990 statute that created TPS. In the House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold the majority, a simple majority vote would suffice to pass such legislation. However, the Senate presents a greater challenge. Although Republicans hold 53 seats, standard legislative procedures require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning 14 Democrats would need to support repeal—a scenario considered highly unlikely given the program’s humanitarian purpose and broad support among Democratic lawmakers.

There exists a procedural mechanism called budget reconciliation that allows certain legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the filibuster. However, reconciliation is limited to bills affecting federal spending and revenue, and its use must be approved by the Senate Parliamentarian, a nonpartisan official who interprets Senate rules. Whether TPS termination qualifies under the reconciliation rules remains uncertain.

The second pathway would involve a Supreme Court ruling declaring the TPS statute unconstitutional. The current Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, with justices appointed by Republican presidents holding a significant advantage. While the Court’s decisions are based on constitutional interpretation rather than partisan affiliation, recent rulings have demonstrated a willingness to reconsider long-standing precedents.

However, such a case would require years of litigation through lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court, potentially extending beyond Trump’s current term.

Immigration law experts note that any attempt to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation would likely face immediate legal challenges, similar to what occurred during Trump’s first term. Federal courts could issue preliminary injunctions preventing termination while cases proceed through the judicial system.

Such injunctions would maintain TPS protections for current beneficiaries during the litigation period, which could extend for years. This pattern occurred in 2017, when multiple federal courts blocked TPS terminations for Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Sudan, finding the administration had failed to adequately justify its decisions or had violated administrative procedure requirements.

The uncertainty surrounding TPS creates significant challenges for the approximately 600,000 Haitian beneficiaries, many of whom have lived in the United States for years or even decades, established families, purchased homes, and built careers.

TPS provides work authorization and protection from deportation, but does not create a pathway to permanent residence or citizenship. Beneficiaries must continuously renew their status and remain subject to the program’s temporary nature, despite many living in the United States for extended periods.

Immigration attorneys generally advise TPS holders to maintain their status by timely filing renewal applications and to avoid travel outside the United States without advance parole, which could jeopardize their ability to return.

The debate over TPS reflects larger tensions in U.S. immigration policy between humanitarian protection and immigration enforcement, between executive discretion and congressional authority, and between temporary relief and permanent solutions.

Advocates argue that TPS serves a critical humanitarian function, protecting vulnerable populations from return to dangerous conditions while allowing them to contribute to the U.S. economy. Critics contend that the program’s “temporary” designation has become misleading, with some countries maintaining TPS for decades, and that it circumvents normal immigration channels.

As the Trump administration moves forward with its immigration enforcement agenda, the future of TPS—and the hundreds of thousands of families who depend on it—remains uncertain, subject to political decisions, administrative actions, and ultimately, judicial review.