Roughly 300,000 Haitians in the United States are losing Temporary Protected Status after the Trump administration moved to terminate the designation and the Supreme Court declined to block that move, NPR reported on July 29, 2026.

The termination took effect July 27, 2026, according to USCIS. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had moved to end Haiti's TPS designation effective February 3, 2026, per a Supreme Court filing from March 6, 2026. On February 2, 2026, a single U.S. District Court judge issued a ruling that delayed that termination. On July 21, 2026, a single District Court judge issued another ruling in the litigation over the termination. Those lower-court actions were ultimately overtaken by the Supreme Court's intervention.

In June 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to end TPS protections for Haitians. The opinion, Mullin v. Doe, docket number 25-1083, was issued June 25, 2026, and is published on the Court's website. A related case, Miot (No. 25-1084), was also before the Court on the Haiti TPS question, with merits briefing filed in April 2026. A separate docket, Trump v. Miot (No. 25A999), included an amicus brief from the Ohio attorney general filed in March 2026.

TPS for Haitians was first granted after Haiti's 2010 earthquake, when conditions were judged too dangerous for nationals to return, NPR reported. The Department of Homeland Security defended the termination by stating that "conditions in Haiti have improved sufficiently to support the return of Haitian nationals." DHS also said that TPS "was never intended to be a de facto asylum program" and that "temporary protections cannot become permanent by default."

There are approximately 158,000 Haitian TPS holders, according to FWD.us data cited by NPR. The gap between that figure and the broader 300,000 total appears to account for additional beneficiaries, including those whose status was tied to later redesignations. Florida, home to roughly 500,000 people of Haitian descent per U.S. Census Bureau data, is the state most directly affected.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may designate a foreign country for TPS due to ongoing armed conflict, an environmental disaster or epidemic, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions, per USCIS. During a designation period, beneficiaries are not removable, can obtain an employment authorization document, and may be granted travel authorization. They also cannot be detained by DHS on the basis of their immigration status. TPS does not, however, lead to lawful permanent resident status or confer any other immigration status.

To be eligible, an individual must be a national of a designated country, file during the open registration period, and meet continuous physical presence and continuous residence requirements. Disqualifying factors include conviction of any felony or two or more misdemeanors committed in the United States, or inadmissibility under INA section 212(a).

USCIS has been issuing implementation guidance across its systems. The agency published a SAVE policy news update on July 10, 2026 and an I-9 Central update on July 24, 2026, addressing employer verification and benefit-status questions tied to the termination.

The broader context here is the collision between TPS's statutory design, which is explicitly temporary and does not create a path to permanent status, and the practical reality that some Haitian beneficiaries have lived and worked in the United States under the designation for over a decade. DHS's framing of TPS as not intended to be "a de facto asylum program" positions the termination as a return to the statute's original design rather than a new policy direction. For immigration practitioners and employers, the key operational consequence is the loss of EAD validity and work authorization for affected individuals, which triggers I-9 reverification obligations and potential removal exposure that did not exist during the designation period. The litigation track, now resolved at the Supreme Court level in Mullin v. Doe, leaves limited remaining avenues for challenge absent new country conditions that could support a future redesignation.