Caracas Chronicles

The recent decision by the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela has sparked widespread debate over its rationale and potential consequences. Although the new government has justified the move on the grounds of “national interest,” a critical review of its arguments reveals a troubling lack of empirical support and a policy approach that appears more political than humanitarian.

One of the key pillars of this decision is the alleged link between migration and security—an argument that has been a rhetorical staple of President Trump since his campaign but lacks conclusive studies to support it.

The criminalization of migrants, without evidence proving they pose a threat, fuels xenophobia and misinforms public opinion. In reality, studies from the Migration Policy Institute show that migrants in the U.S. commit crimes at lower rates than native-born citizens. Data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons also indicates that 84.7% of the prison population is U.S. citizens, and Venezuelan migrants don’t even rank among the top four foreign nationalities in U.S. correctional facilities.

Moreover, obtaining TPS requires meeting strict security criteria. For instance, individuals convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in the U.S. are ineligible, making it highly unlikely that criminals would benefit from the program.

The false narrative of “notable improvements”

The justification for revoking TPS claims there has been a “notable improvement” in key areas such as healthcare, the economy, and security in Venezuela. However, this assertion contradicts independent reports and the testimonies of migrants who continue to flee due to the country’s deteriorating living conditions. The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela persists, and while there may be isolated improvements, there are no solid indicators to suggest that the structural causes of migration have disappeared—nor that Venezuela is safe for the deportation of its citizens.

Moreover, according to the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela, the Venezuelan government, security forces, and pro-government armed groups have committed numerous and increasingly severe human rights violations and crimes before, during, and after the fraudulent July 2024 presidential elections. The mission has noted that these actions follow the same pattern it previously classified as crimes against humanity. While some political prisoners have been released, more than 1,600 people remain jailed for opposing the Venezuelan dictatorship, in what has been described as state terrorism.

In this context, the decision to end TPS appears to be driven more by political considerations than an objective assessment of the situation. Prioritizing an abstract concept of “national interest” without evidence that migration poses a threat, and without acknowledging the ongoing Venezuelan crisis, is not just a failure in immigration policy—it is also a setback for the humanitarian principles that should guide such decisions.

The myth of economic burden and “temporariness”

Another argument used to justify ending TPS is the alleged economic burden of allowing its beneficiaries to remain in the United States. However, the administration has provided no rigorous financial assessment proving that migrants under temporary protection create an unsustainable strain. In fact, multiple studies have shown that the migrant population significantly contributes to the economy through workforce participation and tax payments.

The new announcements raise an implicit question: If the U.S. refuses to protect Venezuelan migrants, why should we? This could discourage other countries from offering asylum, easing legal residency requirements, or implementing regularization programs.

Revoking TPS not only disregards these contributions but also overlooks the negative impact of expelling thousands of workers from key sectors of the U.S. economy, such as construction, agriculture, and services.

Another common argument from Trump’s supporters is that TPS is, by definition, “temporary,” and beneficiaries should seek more permanent alternatives. While this is true, one of the main criticisms of TPS in the U.S. is that, while registering for the program does not prevent beneficiaries from applying for other legal statuses, TPS itself does not lead to permanent residency or confer any additional immigration status. In this sense, the program’s “temporariness” should be maintained as long as the conditions that forced people to flee persist—especially given the challenges TPS beneficiaries face in accessing more permanent solutions, as seen with other protected nationalities like Salvadorans.

Denying human rights in the name of “national security”

The tension between “national interests,” the rights of migrants enshrined in international treaties and domestic laws, and the positive economic impact of migration is not new. In social sciences, this dynamic has been described as the “liberal paradox” by James Hollifield—the idea that states want the economic benefits of migration, particularly labor, without granting migrants full rights.

While receiving states have grappled with this dilemma for decades, Western democracies have at least rhetorically upheld human rights as a foundational principle. However, in the case of the current administration, the rights of forcibly displaced Venezuelan migrants—who may now be sent back to a country where the state does not guarantee even basic rights—have been completely disregarded. The Trump administration has shown no hesitation in asserting that U.S. interests outweigh human rights and the protection of people fleeing persecution or deep crises like Venezuela’s.

As multiple studies have shown, restricting legal options only strengthens criminal networks that exploit migrants, offering them dangerous alternatives to flee their home countries. As long as the root causes of migration persist, people will continue to leave by any means available.

This marks a historic regression from the world’s first liberal democracy. It calls into question the very foundation of the liberal project based on human rights, regardless of their origin. At the same time, it sets a troubling precedent for other liberal democracies. This new “anything goes” approach to state interests could signal the unraveling of the post-World War II diplomatic order that provided a degree of stability. What may emerge instead is a competition between states reminiscent of the dynamics that led to World War I.

Implications for the region, the U.S. economy & beyond

The termination of TPS for Venezuelans affects not only those directly impacted but also has broader consequences for the region and international cooperation on migration. Latin America is already grappling with an unprecedented migration crisis, with over 6.7 million Venezuelans seeking refuge in neighboring countries such as Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador. The U.S. decision to revoke TPS risks exacerbating this situation, increasing pressure on host nations and complicating the humanitarian management of migration flows.

The situation becomes even more complex with the potential shutdown of USAID by the new U.S. administration. This agency, crucial in providing financial and human resources for humanitarian assistance, access to basic services, regularization, and the socio-economic integration of migrants in various countries across the region, would leave a significant gap in support for these populations.

Beyond TPS, other protection mechanisms—such as humanitarian parole—have also been suspended, significantly reducing legal pathways for Venezuelan migrants in need of international protection. As multiple studies have shown, restricting legal options only strengthens criminal networks that exploit migrants, offering them dangerous alternatives to flee their home countries. As long as the root causes of migration persist, people will continue to leave by any means available.

This measure also undermines trust in international commitments to refugee and migrant protection. If a country with the resources and infrastructure of the United States withdraws these protections, it sends a troubling message to Latin American nations, many of which have already adopted more restrictive immigration policies. The new announcements raise an implicit question: If the U.S. refuses to protect Venezuelan migrants, why should we? This could discourage countries from offering asylum, easing legal residency requirements, or implementing regularization programs.

From an economic perspective, deporting TPS holders could negatively impact U.S. industries that rely on their labor. Studies have consistently shown that Venezuelan migrants contribute significantly to the economies of the countries that have welcomed them. However, much of this potential remains untapped due to rigid immigration policies that prevent thousands from accessing formal employment and fully integrating into society. Forcibly returning them to a nation in crisis not only violates their rights but also represents a loss for the economies that have benefited from their participation in the workforce.

Civil society in the United States is already mobilizing to challenge this decision in court. However, beyond legal battles, it is crucial that public debate demands greater transparency and evidence-based policymaking when decisions affect the lives of thousands. A migration policy rooted in facts—not unfounded perceptions—is essential to ensuring justice and coherence in addressing forced migration. If you are affected by this measure, stay informed through organizations advocating for migrant rights, such as the Venezuelan American Caucus.

Defending our rights, not “playing the victim”

Some social media debates claim that Venezuelans should “stop playing the victim,” arguing that each state has “priorities toward its own citizens” and defending U.S. sovereignty in immigration decisions.

While it is true that each country sets its own rules for granting international protection, there are also binding international commitments that have been incorporated into national legislation. Defending the respect for rights and state responsibilities is not “victimhood.” On the contrary, it is a fight for international frameworks that resolve conflicts and protect people fleeing war, persecution, and humanitarian crises—rather than a world of wolves attacking each other, as Hobbes described.

Maintaining solidarity is the only path to a more peaceful world. Ignoring previously signed agreements under the justification of “national security” lays the foundation for a future riddled with conflict. Today, the targets are migrants, but tomorrow, anyone could fall victim to an oppressive and lawless state. History has shown that when “every man for himself” becomes the prevailing mentality, humanity witnesses its darkest atrocities.