I. Introduction
Since the military coup in February 2021, Burma has experienced ongoing armed conflict and political instability. In November 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determined that Burma no longer met the statutory conditions for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), setting a termination date of January 26, 2026. The decision affected approximately 3,670 Burmese nationals currently protected under TPS, many of whom now face uncertainty regarding their legal status and the prospect of return.
When mechanisms like TPS are terminated, public debate often centers on whether the decision was justified. Less attention is paid to a quieter question: what executive tools remain once statutory protection ends? Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), a presidential authority distinct from TPS, offers one potential mechanism for relief. Rather than revisiting the merits of TPS, this article considers whether DED has a role within the broader architecture of temporary protection.
II. What is TPS?
TPS was created by Congress in the Immigration Act of 1990, under President George H. W. Bush. The first designation was granted to nationals of El Salvador later that year. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate countries whose nationals cannot safely return home due to armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions.
Individuals granted TPS are protected from removal and may receive work authorization and travel permission. However, TPS does not provide a pathway to permanent residency, cannot be used to sponsor family members abroad, and does not confer access to most federal public benefits.
III. Current Context of TPS for Burma
In November 2025, the administration announced the termination of TPS for Burma, citing planned elections organized by the military junta as evidence of improved country conditions. More than 150 organizations had urged the administration since June of 2025 to extend and redesignate TPS, arguing that ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, and widespread ethnic and religious persecution continue to make safe return impossible.
The policy shift is further complicated by a June 2025 presidential proclamation imposing a full travel ban on Burma among 12 countries, later expanding to 39 countries. As a result, many Burmese nationals on TPS face limited alternative immigration pathways, even if otherwise eligible.
Six Burmese TPS holders subsequently filed a class action lawsuit, titled Aung Doe v. Noem, seeking to block or delay the termination. TPS protections therefore remain in place pending litigation, though the government has appealed and a decision is expected in the coming months, leaving thousands in continued uncertainty.
IV. What is DED?
DED is a presidential authority to defer the removal of designated foreign nationals first granted in 1990. Unlike TPS, DED derives from the President’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs and is implemented entirely at executive discretion.
Like TPS, individuals covered under a DED designation may apply for employment authorization and the protection does not create a pathway to permanent residence. Unlike TPS, DED does not require individuals to submit formal applications. The executive order defines the scope, duration, and any conditions attached to the designation. Travel under DED is generally more restricted than under TPS.
DED has been used sparingly and typically in response to significant political or humanitarian developments abroad. This raises a central policy question: under what conditions does the executive branch determine that DED is warranted?
As of March 2026, only two populations have existing DED designations:
- Liberia: Initially designated in 2007 by President George W. Bush and remains in effect through June 30, 2026, due to armed conflict from 1999 to 2003 and continued civil strife.
- Hong Kong: Designated in 2021 by President Joseph Biden and remains in effect through February 5, 2027, due to the People’s Republic of China’s undermining of Hong Kong’s autonomy and democratic processes.
The rationale for these countries suggests that similar criteria could be applied to Burma.
V. Implications for Countries like Burma and Beyond
Burma’s TPS population is relatively small compared to other designated countries. As of March 2025, Venezuela held the largest TPS population at 352,190 individuals, while Lebanon had the fewest at 140. Burma’s roughly 3,670 TPS beneficiaries were similar in number to Cameroon, Ethiopia, Nicaragua and Syria. At the time of recent terminations or expirations, many of these countries continue to experience political instability, armed conflict, or complex humanitarian conditions. These conditions raise policy questions about how temporary protection is phased out and what mechanisms may exist to manage transitions for affected individuals.
Some policymakers and observers argue that TPS terminations should not be surprising, given that the program is by design temporary. From this perspective, individuals on TPS are expected to seek other durable immigration pathways if they intend to remain long-term in the U.S. However, many beneficiaries have chosen not to seek other immigration options, such as asylum. Asylum requires meeting a higher evidentiary standard and often signals a more permanent separation from one’s country of origin; a step some TPS holders may have hoped to avoid.
From a conservative stance, it is notable that DED, like TPS, could theoretically serve as a temporary mechanism to manage protection gaps without expanding long-term immigration quotas or adding to systemic backlogs in the U.S. One possible approach would be for a presidential directive to explicitly allow past TPS holders to be eligible for DED, recognizing that they have already undergone screening and are in the U.S. immigration system, and could benefit from the protection.
VI. Conclusion: Policy Implications
When TPS designations end despite ongoing instability, the executive branch should consider whether DED is meant to remain an exceptional measure or to be systematically evaluated when statutory protections lapse. As future crises emerge, the question is not only whether relief exists, but how coherently the U.S. deploys it and how humanitarian protection tools can align with broader U.S. foreign policy objectives. For Burmese nationals facing uncertain return amid conflict and political repression, the designation of DED would not alter the temporary nature of protection, but rather serve as a mechanism to bridge law and life-saving executive action.