More than one million individuals protected under the United States’ Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program now face impending deportation following a recent Supreme Court ruling that permits the Trump administration to terminate the humanitarian initiative. The decision, announced last month, has prompted concerns across several industries, including construction and healthcare, where many TPS recipients play key roles.

TPS, established by Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, was designed to offer temporary refuge to foreign nationals unable to return safely to their home countries due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions. Initially intended as a short-term measure, the program has extended protection for years to certain populations due to protracted crises overseas.

According to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, approximately 70% of TPS beneficiaries participate in the U.S. workforce, frequently filling positions in sectors with persistent labor shortages such as construction and caregiving. In the first phase of enforcement following the court’s ruling, around 350,000 recipients from Haiti and several other countries lost their work permits last Monday. Approximately 190,000 Salvadorans under TPS face a similar expiration of status in September.

Industry analysts warn that the departure of tens of thousands of workers in critical roles could pose significant operational and economic challenges across affected states. Alexander Amon, director of policy analysis at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, described the potential impact as “a very big hit” for particular industries and communities. However, some economists suggest the departure might be gradual, noting that some individuals might seek other forms of legal protection, including asylum, or continue working without authorization.

The impending expiration of TPS has led to mounting calls from business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and state and local officials urging Congress to act to avert workforce disruptions and humanitarian consequences. Governors and local leaders in states with sizable TPS populations, including Ohio and Florida, have voiced apprehension about the economic ramifications of ending the program. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine labeled the termination, particularly for Haitian nationals, as a “mistake,” while Miami-Dade County officials framed ending TPS as costly rather than fiscally prudent.

Despite such appeals, Senate Republican Eric Schmitt of Missouri blocked a Democratic-led effort to extend TPS protections for Haitians, arguing that the program has deviated from its original emergency purpose and contributed to “permanent mass migration.” Supporters and critics of TPS remain deeply divided on the program’s role in the immigration system.

The Trump administration has framed its move to end TPS as a restoration of legal norms. Zach Kahler, spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the Department of Homeland Security is “upholding the rule of law and getting back to common sense.” Meanwhile, enforcement actions continue with monthly deportation flights to Haiti, including a recent flight that returned more than 100 migrants to Cap Haitien. The number of removals is projected to increase.

Many TPS recipients face difficult choices as they must decide whether to remain in the United States without legal status or return to countries where safety and stability remain uncertain. Advocacy groups emphasize the challenges involved, noting that many beneficiaries have established deep roots, including homes, vehicles, and financial ties, complicating abrupt departures.

The administration has signaled plans to terminate TPS for nationals of several other countries, including Ethiopia, Myanmar, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, while maintaining status for some others, such as those from El Salvador and Ukraine, at least temporarily. The ongoing debate over TPS reflects broader tensions in U.S. immigration policy and the challenges of balancing humanitarian concerns with enforcement priorities.