The Biden administration has significantly expanded the use of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a program that shields eligible foreign nationals from deportation due to unsafe conditions in their home countries. Since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, the number of migrants under TPS has grown from fewer than 320,000 to over one million.
TPS, established under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990, offers deportation relief to individuals from countries affected by war, natural disasters, or other crises. The current TPS list includes 17 nations: Afghanistan, Burma, Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen.
According to the Congressional Research Service, TPS has become a critical tool for addressing ongoing humanitarian concerns while also influencing the flow of migrants into the United States. The Biden administration has defended the program as a necessary measure to protect vulnerable populations facing severe risks in their home countries, particularly individuals from Venezuela and Haiti, who comprise a significant portion of TPS recipients.
However, critics argue that the program has created new challenges. Todd Bensman, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, contends that the use of TPS has indirectly masked the true scale of migration into U.S. cities.
Bensman suggests that while illegal border crossings may appear to have declined, TPS has provided alternative pathways for migrants to enter the U.S. “They rechanneled people over land bridges and by air so they couldn’t be counted as illegal crossings,” Bensman explained. “The interior impact remains the same. It’s just being reported differently, which is politically advantageous.”
Bensman further claims that some migrants granted TPS were not fleeing directly from their designated crisis countries but instead arriving from other nations where they had lived for extended periods. “There’s massive fraud going on with the program,” he said, pointing to alleged discrepancies between stated origins and actual migration patterns.
Despite these criticisms, some Democratic leaders have advocated for expanding TPS to additional migrant groups. They argue that ongoing crises around the world—ranging from economic collapse to violence—justify broader protections.
Bensman believes the number of migrants under TPS could already exceed 1.5 million, higher than the reported figure. He predicts further expansion in the near future, stating, “It wouldn’t be surprising if more groups receive TPS designation before the end of Biden’s term.”
Supporters of TPS emphasize its humanitarian role, noting that conditions in many designated countries remain dire. Venezuela, for instance, has experienced years of economic turmoil and political instability, while Haiti continues to face security and natural disaster challenges. Proponents argue that TPS aligns with American values of providing refuge to those in need.
However, opponents, like Bensman, argue that more transparency and accountability are needed to ensure the program functions as intended. They call for a review of eligibility criteria and enforcement against potential misuse or fraud.
As TPS continues to grow under the Biden administration, debates around its use will remain central to U.S. immigration policy. Questions persist about the balance between humanitarian protection and migration management, particularly as the program’s long-term impact on communities and resources becomes clearer.
With the next presidential term on the horizon, the expansion of TPS may become a key issue in the broader discussion of immigration reform.
