550,000 Workers Lose Status by End of 2025: Potential Impact by State and Industry

550,000 Workers Lose Status by End of 2025: Potential Impact by State and Industry

Demographics Growth Immigration

550,000 Workers Lose Status by End of 2025: Potential Impact by State and Industry

JesĂșs Villero, Brendan Warshauer and Youran Wu · · 44 min read
550,000 Workers Lose Status by End of 2025: Potential Impact by State and Industry

Over 700,000 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients lose legal status by the end of 2025, including 550,000 who are legally working. We estimate that TPS recipients contribute over $36 billion in annual GDP. Withdrawing their work authorization could add to labor shortages in construction, cleaning, and hospitality, especially in Florida, Texas and New York.


Key Points

  • Scale & Geography: There were 1.3 million TPS holders living in the U.S. as of March 2025, with nearly half in Florida. Five countries (Venezuela, Haiti, El Salvador, Ukraine, Honduras) account for 97% of all recipients.

  • Labor Market Concentration: TPS workers comprise 8 to 10% of hours worked in certain occupations in major metros. Compared to U.S.-born workers, TPS workers are 5.4 times more likely to work in building and grounds cleaning, 3.2 times more likely work in construction, and twice as likely to work in transportation, making them critical to these sectors.

  • Economic Contribution: TPS workers generated $35.9 billion in GDP in 2023, with $10.7 billion from Florida alone, followed by Texas ($4.3B), California ($3.6B), and New York ($2.8B).

Introduction
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a humanitarian designation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide protection to nationals of countries facing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. As of March 31, 2025, about 1.3 million foreign-born individuals hold TPS in the United States. TPS provides protection from deportation and authorization to work but does not lead to permanent immigration status. The Trump administration has moved to terminate TPS designations for several countries, citing that conditions in those countries no longer meet the criteria for protection.1 These terminations would affect the majority of TPS holders. In this brief, we draw on data obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to USCIS and reports from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), combined with our own estimates, to provide a comprehensive picture of the evolution of the TPS population.
The TPS program over time

Since its creation in 1990, about 30 countries have received TPS designations. Figure 1 provides a historical timeline of the TPS program, including the anticipated expiration dates of all ongoing designations active as of March 31, 2025.

Figure 1. History of TPS designations

Source: Federal Register data.
Notes: A continuous bar indicates that a country’s required TPS arrival date has remained unchanged since its initial designation. When DHS redesignates a country with a more recent arrival date, expanding eligibility, the timeline is marked with a diamond along the same bar. Designations active as of March 31, 2025, are highlighted in dark blue.

All TPS applications and approvals are recorded by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Figure 2 shows the historical number of TPS holders by country of origin, presenting both country-level counts and aggregate totals over time. The figure illustrates how the composition of the TPS population has evolved as eligibility changed through granting, extension, termination, or redesignation of TPS for different countries. The total number of TPS holders rose sharply in the 2000s with the designations of Honduras and El Salvador, increasing from about 55,000 in 2000 to roughly 360,000 in 2010. The population then remained relatively stable for the next decade before surging again after Venezuela’s initial designation in 2021. By March 2025, the total number of TPS holders had nearly tripled compared to 2010, reaching almost 1.3 million.

Figure 2. TPS holders by country over time

Source: PWBM calculations based on USCIS and CRS data.
Notes: Bars show quarter-end counts, with only the five countries with the largest TPS populations disaggregated. The numbers exclude TPS holders who transitioned to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Current situation

The 17 countries with active TPS designations as of March 31, 2025, are shown in dark blue in Figure 1. These countries vary considerably in both the length of their designation and the number of recipients. Four—Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, and Sudan—were first designated in the 1990s and have since been continuously extended or redesignated.2 By contrast, six countries received their initial designations only after 2021.

By recipient count, Venezuela, first designated in 2021, has the largest TPS population, with more than 600,000 beneficiaries as of March 31, 2025, representing 47% of the total. Haiti follows with over 300,000 recipients, or 25%. Together, the top five countries—Venezuela, Haiti, El Salvador, Ukraine, and Honduras—account for 97% of all TPS beneficiaries.

Table 1. Number of TPS holders by country of origin as of March 31, 2025

Country Initial Designation Year Current Designation Year Current Designation Continued Through TPS holders (excluding USCs and LPRs) by March 31, 2025 Share (%)
Venezuela* 2021 2021 Nov. 7, 2025 605,015 46.6%
Haiti 2010 2024 Feb. 3, 2026 330,735 25.5%
El Salvador 1990 2001 Sept. 9, 2026 170,125 13.1%
Ukraine 2022 2022 Oct. 19, 2026 101,150 7.8%
Honduras 1999 1999 Sept. 8, 2025 51,225 3.9%
Afghanistan 2022 2023 July 14, 2025 8,105 <1%
Nepal 2015 2015 Aug. 20, 2025 7,160 <1%
Cameroon 2022 2023 Aug. 4, 2025 4,920 <1%
Ethiopia 2022 2024 Dec. 12, 2025 4,540 <1%
Syria 2012 2024 Sept. 30, 2025 3,860 <1%
Burma 2021 2024 Nov. 25, 2025 3,670 <1%
Nicaragua 1999 1999 Sept. 8, 2025 2,910 <1%
Sudan 1997 2023 Oct. 19, 2026 1,790 <1%
Yemen 2015 2024 March 3, 2026 1,380 <1%
Somalia 1991 2024 March 17, 2026 705 <1%
South Sudan 2011 2023 Nov. 3, 2025 210 <1%
Lebanon 1991 2024 May 27, 2026 140 <1%
Total 1,297,640

Sources: PWBM calculations based on USCIS and CRS data.
Notes: (*) Venezuela has both a 2021 designation, set to expire on November 7, 2025, and a 2023 designation that was terminated on April 7, 2025. However, TPS-related documents issued under the 2023 designation on or before February 5, 2025 with October 2, 2026, expiration dates will remain valid until October 2, 2026. See more details here and here.

TPS holders are also heavily concentrated geographically within the United States, with the states of Florida, Texas, New York, California, and Georgia jointly accounting for about 60% of the total TPS population. Florida alone represents 31%, or roughly 400,000 individuals, far surpassing Texas, the state with the second-largest TPS population, at 11%. This concentration is a relatively recent development. Although the top four states (Florida, Texas, New York, and California) have long been the same, their shares were more evenly distributed in 2020, when each accounted for about 15% of all TPS holders.3 Since 2021, all four have seen growth in beneficiaries, but Florida’s increase has been especially sharp, rising from fewer than 60,000 to more than 400,000 by 2025, largely driven by the Venezuelan designations.

Table 2. Number of TPS holders by state of residence as of March 31, 2025

State TPS holders (excluding USCs and LPRs) by March 31, 2025 Share (%)
Florida 403,965 31.1%
Texas 147,080 11.3%
New York 98,250 7.6%
California 79,320 6.1%
Georgia 50,100 3.9%
Other 518,925 40.0%
Total 1,297,640

Sources: PWBM calculations based on USCIS and CRS data.
Notes: Only the five states with the highest numbers of beneficiaries are disaggregated.

TPS is a temporary form of protection and a designation can be terminated once conditions in the designated country are deemed to have improved or DHS considers that it is contrary to the national interest. By the end of 2025, ten designations that were active at the start of the year are scheduled to end: Afghanistan, Cameroon, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Burma, Ethiopia, Syria, and South Sudan. Notably, this includes Venezuela, which has the largest TPS population, and Honduras, another top five country.

If the country-level distribution of TPS holders mirrors that of early 2025, the scheduled terminations would affect more than half of the TPS population—leaving over 700,000 people at risk of deportation and without legal authorization to work in the United States, with another 300,000 projected to lose protection early next year from the Haiti designation expiration.

Characteristics of TPS beneficiaries
Identifying TPS holders in survey data

To examine the characteristics of the TPS population beyond aggregate counts by country of origin and state of residence, we identify likely TPS holders in the American Community Survey (ACS) microdata. Because TPS status is not directly observed in public datasets, we apply a “logical edits” and raking procedure to augment the ACS data.4 The resulting sample includes all foreign-born individuals who meet TPS eligibility criteria and show no clear indications of holding another legal status in the U.S., making them highly likely TPS applicants. Their assigned probabilities of being TPS holders are calibrated to match USCIS counts by both country of origin and state of residence. The analysis that follows draws on this ACS-based TPS sample, with additional details of the assignment procedure provided in the appendix of this brief.

Profile of TPS holders

Pooling the 2022 and 2023 ACS civilian, non-institutional population records for individuals aged 16 and older, we find that identified TPS beneficiaries are, on average, younger, disproportionately male, more likely to be Hispanic, and have lower levels of educational attainment than both U.S.-born individuals and other foreign-born groups identified as non-TPS holders.5 While an estimated 38.9% of TPS holders have less than a high school education, the share is only 10.7% among U.S.-born individuals and 24.8% among non-TPS foreign-born groups. Table 3 summarizes these characteristics.6

TPS holders also tend to have spent fewer years in the United States than other foreign-born groups and display less variation in both age and duration of residence, suggesting a more homogeneous population along these dimensions. In addition, they are more likely to report limited English proficiency compared to other foreign-born groups.

Table 3. Demographic characteristics of TPS beneficiaries

TPS U.S. born Foreign-born, non-TPS
Age 44.0 47.0 48.8
Age (standard deviation) 12.6 19.4 16.8
Female (%) 47.2 51.1 51.3
Hispanic (%) 77.8 12.5 44.1
Education: Less than high school (%) 38.9 10.7 24.8
Education: High school (%) 24.3 26.8 22.4
Education: Some college (%) 16.1 29.7 18.9
Education: College (%) 14.0 20.7 18.8
Education: Advanced degree (%) 6.7 12.1 15.0
Years of residence in the U.S. 17.7 N/A 25.1
Years of residence (standard deviation) 12.6 N/A 16.1
Does not speak English or does not do it well (%) 44.3 0.5 25.5

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.

TPS holders and the labor market

In this section, we show both unadjusted differences and differences adjusted for socioeconomic characteristics in labor market outcomes between TPS holders, U.S.-born individuals, and other foreign-born non-TPS groups.

Labor force participation

On average, we estimate that TPS beneficiaries have a labor force participation rate nearly 15 percentage points higher than U.S.-born individuals and 11.8 points higher than the non-TPS foreign-born population. Among men, TPS holders participate in the labor market at a rate almost 21 points above U.S.-born men (89.4% vs. 68.7%). For women, participation is 68.2% among TPS holders compared to 60.4% among U.S.-born women, a 7.8-point gap. This pattern contrasts with the non-TPS foreign-born population, where men’s participation also substantially exceeds that of U.S.-born men, but women’s participation falls below that of their U.S.-born counterparts.

Table 4. Labor force participation rate (%) by group

Gender TPS U.S. born Foreign-born, non-TPS
Men 89.4 68.7 77.4
Women 68.2 60.4 58.4
Overall 79.4 64.5 67.6

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.

After adjusting for age, gender, Hispanic origin, education level, years of residence in the United States, English language proficiency, and state of residence, the overall participation gap between TPS workers and U.S.-born individuals turns negative, at -7.2 percentage points.7 This sharp contrast with the unadjusted results in Table 4 reflects the fact that TPS holders are disproportionately younger and male—characteristics typically associated with higher labor market participation. The difference with the broader foreign-born population, however, remains positive: on average, TPS holders are 5.9 percentage points more likely to participate in the labor force than their non-TPS foreign-born counterparts with similar observable characteristics. By gender, TPS men participate at rates 3.4 points lower than U.S.-born men but 4.4 points higher than non-TPS foreign-born men. TPS women, however, participate at substantially lower rates than U.S.-born women after adjusting for demographic characteristics (12.1 points less), though they remain 6.8 points more likely to participate than other foreign-born women not eligible for TPS.

We estimate that TPS holders make up about 0.2% of the total U.S. labor force and 1.4% of the foreign-born labor force. Their presence, however, is more concentrated in certain subgroups. For instance, they represent nearly 1% of all workers without a high school diploma and 2.4% of the foreign-born labor force at that education level. In some state economies—particularly Florida, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.—TPS holders account for between 3% and 4% of the total foreign-born population. Figure 3 presents the estimated share of TPS workers within the foreign-born labor force by state.

Table 5. Labor force share of TPS holders, by education level

Education Share of overall labor force (%) Share of foreign-born labor force (%)
Less than high school 1.0 2.4
High school 0.2 1.5
Some college 0.1 1.2
College 0.2 1.0
Advanced degree 0.1 0.5
Overall 0.2 1.4

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.

Figure 3. Share of TPS workers in foreign-born labor force by state

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.
Notes: Only states with over 100 unweighted potential TPS observations are plotted.

Employment

Full-time employment is more common among TPS workers than among either U.S.-born individuals or other foreign-born, non-TPS workers. We estimate that 75.9% of TPS workers are employed full time, compared with 73.9% of other foreign-born workers and 69.7% of U.S.-born workers.8 In other words, TPS workers are about six percentage points more likely than U.S.-born workers and two points more likely than other foreign-born workers to hold full-time jobs.

Relative to both U.S.-born and other foreign-born workers, TPS holders are also heavily concentrated in construction, cleaning and maintenance, and transportation occupations. They are 5.4 times more likely than U.S.-born workers to work in building and grounds cleaning and maintenance (14.5% vs. 2.7%), 3.2 times more likely to be employed in construction (14.6% vs. 4.5%), and twice as likely to work in transportation and material moving (14.4% vs. 7.0%). Figure 4 shows the distribution of workers across occupational groups for TPS, U.S.-born, and other foreign-born individuals.

Figure 4. Distribution of workers across occupational groups

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.

TPS workers contribute a substantial share of total hours worked in these three occupational groups, particularly within certain local economies. For example, in the Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV metropolitan area, we estimate that TPS holders account for 8.3% of all hours worked in construction and 9.3% in building and grounds cleaning and maintenance. In Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL, they contribute around 4% of hours worked in transportation and material moving. Figure 5 presents the top ten metropolitan areas where we estimate TPS workers contribute the most to total hours worked in these occupational groups.

Figure 5. TPS contribution to total hours worked by occupation group and metropolitan area

(A) Transportation and Material Moving

(B) Construction

(C) Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.
Notes: Only the top five metropolitan statistical areas for each occupation are shown. The analysis was restricted to metros with more than 50 unweighted TPS potential workers in each occupation group. Within each occupation, we compute total hours as the sum of each eligible worker’s annual hours multiplied by their survey weight, where eligibility requires a positive number of weeks worked in the prior year and positive labor earnings; survey weights are adjusted using TPS raking weights to represent TPS workers.

To further characterize the types of jobs held by TPS workers, we construct two occupation-specific skill indices using O*NET data, following an approach developed by Peri and Sparber (2009). The first index captures manual skills, measuring the extent to which an occupation relies on physical abilities such as strength, coordination, and dexterity. The second index captures communication skills, reflecting the importance of oral and written comprehension and expression. Higher scores indicate greater reliance on each skill dimension. These measures allow us to assess whether TPS workers are concentrated in jobs that emphasize physical versus language-related skills, consistent with prior findings that foreign-born workers tend to specialize in more manual-intensive occupations while U.S.-born workers concentrate in more communication-intensive ones.

Our analysis shows that TPS workers are disproportionately employed in occupations requiring higher levels of manual skills and lower levels of communication skills relative to the overall labor force. These raw differences are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Average occupation skills among full-time, year-round workers by group

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS and O*NET data.
Notes: Skill indices are constructed following Peri and Sparber (2009).

Adjusted analysis shows that TPS workers, on average, are employed in occupations ranked 5.0 percentile points higher in manual-skill intensity and 10.6 points lower in communication-skill intensity than U.S.-born workers. Compared with other foreign-born non-TPS individuals, TPS workers operate in roles that are 3.9 points more manual-intensive and 5.0 points less communication-intensive. These differences indicate that TPS workers are disproportionately concentrated in physically demanding jobs relative to both U.S.-born and other foreign-born counterparts with otherwise similar characteristics.

Contribution to GDP

In 2023, TPS workers added an estimated $35.9 billion to U.S. GDP, with a particularly strong contributions in labor-intensive industries.9 We present our GDP contribution results in Figure 7.

In terms of industries, the largest individual contributions came from manufacturing ($5.5 billion), construction ($5.0 billion), retail trade ($3.9 billion), transportation and warehousing ($3.4 billion), and accommodation and food services ($3.2 billion). Significant contributions also emerged from administrative and waste management services ($2.4 billion), wholesale trade ($1.8 billion), and professional, scientific, and technical services ($1.8 billion). Smaller contributions were observed in finance and insurance, health care, other service sectors, and information services.

These findings show that TPS-authorized workers participate in and support economic activity across multiple sectors of the U.S. economy.

Figure 7. Estimated contribution of TPS workers to GDP by industry (2023)

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2023 ACS, BLS, and BEA data.
Notes: Numbers are in 2024 dollars.

The contribution of TPS workers to U.S. GDP was highly concentrated in the states that host the largest TPS populations. Florida accounted for the largest share, with TPS workers in the state contributing an estimated $10.7 billion, reflecting both the scale and recent growth of its TPS population, particularly among Venezuelan beneficiaries. Texas ($4.3 billion), California ($3.6 billion), and New York ($2.8 billion) followed, together representing a majority of total TPS-related output nationwide. Other states with substantial contributions included Virginia ($1.9 billion), Maryland ($1.9 billion), and New Jersey ($1.2 billion), while Georgia ($0.9 billion), Massachusetts ($0.8 billion), and North Carolina ($0.8 billion) registered smaller but notable impacts.

Annual Earnings

TPS workers earn less than both U.S.-born individuals and other foreign-born individuals identified as non-TPS holders. Among full-time, year-round workers, the median annual income for TPS holders is $42,833—about two-thirds of the $62,169 earned by U.S.-born workers and also below the $55,567 earned by non-TPS foreign-born workers.

Figure 8. Median earnings of full-time, year-round workers by group

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.
Notes: Numbers are in 2024 dollars.

Unconditionally, TPS workers earn on average 32.2% less than U.S.-born workers and 26.8% less than non-TPS foreign-born workers. After adjusting for age, gender, Hispanic origin, education, years since migration, English proficiency, and state of residence, these earnings gaps narrow to 20.5% and 7.2%, respectively. This indicates that observable characteristics account for about 36% of the disparity with U.S.-born workers and 73% of the disparity with other foreign-born workers. Still, they do not explain the full gap, particularly in comparisons with U.S.-born workers.

Adding occupation fixed effects to the set of controls further reduces the earnings gap with U.S.-born workers to 14.9%, suggesting that about one-quarter of the adjusted difference stems from the types of occupations TPS workers hold. On average, TPS holders are employed in occupations that pay 11.9% less than those held by observationally similar U.S.-born workers.10 Yet even within the same occupations, TPS workers continue to earn less, pointing to disparities beyond occupational sorting—such as barriers to accessing higher-paying roles or employers within occupations.

By contrast, when compared with other foreign-born non-TPS workers, the occupation-adjusted earnings gap is just 2.4%, indicating that most of the raw difference between these two groups (about 91%) can be explained by demographics and occupational sorting. Figure 9 below shows a summary of this analysis.11

Figure 9. Annual earnings of TPS workers relative to comparison groups

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.
Notes: Includes full-time, year-round workers. Controls include age, gender, Hispanic origin, education, years since migration, English proficiency, and state of residence.

Comparing TPS workers with other workers from the same country of origin

Since TPS holders come from a specific set of designated countries, it is reasonable to ask whether the differences observed between them and other foreign-born groups reflect their temporary status or simply country-of-origin effects.

To address this, we restrict the analysis to individuals from TPS-designated countries and compare identified TPS workers, whose status is temporary, with individuals holding more permanent legal statuses. Unconditionally, TPS workers earn 20.5% less than legal workers from the same countries. After adjusting for age, education, gender, years since migration, English proficiency, and state of residence, the earnings gap narrows to 7.7%. Including occupation fixed effects further reduces the difference to 3.4%, suggesting that most of the observed gap can be explained by demographics and occupational sorting. Supporting this, we find that TPS workers are more likely to be employed in occupations requiring greater manual skills (3.5 percentile points higher) and fewer communication skills (6.2 points lower) than their legally resident counterparts from the same countries.

Taken together, these results indicate that the residual earnings gap documented in Figure 9 is unlikely to be driven by country-of-origin effects.

Table 6. Demographic characteristics of TPS workers and other immigrants from TPS-designated countries

TPS Non-TPS:
Definitely Legal 		Non-TPS:
Noneligible Due to Late Arrival
Age 44.0 47.4 35.4
Age (standard deviation) 12.6 16.5 12.1
Female (%) 47.2 52.1 47.9
Education: Less than high school (%) 38.9 22.1 51.4
Education: High school (%) 24.3 24.4 28.1
Education: Some college (%) 16.1 24.4 11.7
Education: College (%) 14.0 17.8 6.7
Education: Advanced degree (%) 6.7 11.3 2.1
Years of residence in the U.S. 17.7 24.5 9.3
Years of residence (standard deviation) 12.6 14.2 6.8
Does not speak English or does not do it well (%) 44.3 21.8 63.7
Labor Force Participation Rate (%) 79.4 70.3 73.4
Full Time Share among Workers (%) 75.9 72.7 67.5
Median Earnings of Full Time Workers 42,833 52,094 34,730

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.

Another question is whether the main benefit of TPS—work authorization—makes a measurable difference. To explore this, we examine individuals from TPS-designated countries who are not eligible for the program because they arrived in the United States after the required entry date (and do no hold any other legal status).

As expected, these non-eligible late arrivals are younger on average than identified TPS workers and have shorter durations of residence in the United States. Without controls, their labor force participation rate is six percentage points lower than that of the TPS group (73.4% vs. 79.4%). Unconditionally, they also earn 19% less than TPS workers. However, among full-time workers, their average earnings are estimated to be similar once demographics and occupation fixed effects are taken into account.

Appendix
More on the TPS program

Eligibility for TPS depends on two factors: nationality and date of arrival in the United States. Once a country receives a designation, individuals from that country who were already in the U.S. and have continuously resided here since the specified date may apply. A TPS designation typically lasts 6 to 18 months but is often extended if the conditions that triggered it persist. In some cases, DHS may “redesignate” a country by updating the required arrival date, thereby expanding eligibility to more recent arrivals. Importantly, TPS does not allow individuals to enter the U.S. after the fact and retroactively claim protection—the arrival cutoff is fixed at the point of designation. This requirement distinguishes TPS from the refugee and asylum programs, which are designed for individuals unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Refugee applicants must begin the process outside the U.S., while individuals who meet the definition but are already present in the U.S. or at a port of entry may apply for asylum. Both the refugee and asylum applications are evaluated on an individual basis; in contrast, TPS is a form of blanket humanitarian relief granted to nationals of a designated country due to generalized conditions. TPS also does not lead to Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status or any other immigration status, although some beneficiaries adjust through other immigration pathways and eventually obtain LPR status or citizenship.

More on constructing a consistent TPS series over time

For each country of origin, we used the following information: total TPS beneficiary counts through 2017; TPS counts excluding U.S. citizens (USCs) for 2018 and 2019, and TPS counts excluding both USCs and LPRs beginning in 2021.

Because USCs and LPRs already have the protections that TPS provides on a permanent basis, our analysis focused on TPS holders without either status. When detailed breakdowns were unavailable, we modeled transitions into LPR or USC status to estimate the “net” TPS population over time. In addition to the country-of-origin time series, we also constructed a state-level time series of TPS holders from USCIS data using the same method. Taken together, these data provide a comprehensive picture of the evolution of the TPS population.

More on identifying TPS beneficiaries in the ACS data

Here we describe the “logical edits” and raking procedure used in the brief to identify TPS beneficiaries.

For each year of the 2018–2023 American Community Surveys (with 2023 being the most recent, although TPS counts extend through March 2025), we first remove individuals who are native-born or naturalized U.S. citizens. We then exclude those likely to have legal immigration status—for example, individuals working for the government, employed in occupations requiring special licenses, serving in the armed forces, or receiving public benefits such as Social Security or SNAP. Individuals with a parent or spouse in one of these categories are also excluded.

We apply the two TPS eligibility criteria to the remaining ACS sample: nationality and arrival date. Individuals from a designated country who arrived in the U.S. before the required cutoff are included in the potential TPS pool and assigned a non-zero probability of being TPS holders. Using a raking procedure, we then iteratively adjust these probabilities to align with USCIS counts by both country of origin and state of residence. This process continues until the probability-weighted sample converges to the targets on both dimensions.

The process also accounts for additional factors that may influence the likelihood of applying for TPS. Individuals who arrived in the United States long before their country’s designation are less likely to apply, as many may have already obtained another legal status or found alternative ways to remain in the country. Similarly, those who were very young or very old at the time of designation are less likely to apply, since the primary benefit of TPS—work authorization—mainly matters for prime-age adults. In addition, misunderstandings about the application process may lower take-up, such as the belief that only the head of household needs to apply.

It is important to note that individuals identified in the ACS through the described procedure are not guaranteed to be actual TPS beneficiaries. However, they meet the eligibility criteria and show no clear signs of holding another legal status, making them highly likely applicants. To validate our approach, we compared our identified sample with TPS counts by gender and age group for each designated country (available only for 2018 and, importantly, not used in the raking process) and found the distributions to be similar. Assuming that the ACS is representative of the residential population, this provides reasonable justification that our ACS-identified TPS sample offers a meaningful approximation of the actual TPS population.

Additional tables and figures

Table A1. Demographic characteristics of TPS workers - Men

TPS U.S. born Foreign-born, non-TPS
Age 43.8 46.2 48.0
Age (standard deviation) 12.0 19.1 16.4
Hispanic (%) 79.3 12.7 45.9
Education: Less than high school (%) 41.4 11.6 25.8
Education: High school (%) 24.8 28.7 22.5
Education: Some college (%) 15.4 28.5 18.0
Education: College (%) 12.6 20.1 17.5
Education: Advanced degree (%) 5.8 11.1 16.2
Years of residence in the U.S. 18.5 N/A 24.8
Years of residence (standard deviation) 12.5 N/A 15.9
Does not speak English or does not do it well (%) 40.2 0.5 24.1

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.

Table A2. Demographic characteristics of TPS workers - Women

TPS U.S. born Foreign-born, non-TPS
Age 44.1 47.7 49.5
Age (standard deviation) 13.3 19.6 17.1
Hispanic (%) 76.1 12.3 42.3
Education: Less than high school (%) 36.2 9.8 23.9
Education: High school (%) 23.8 25.0 22.2
Education: Some college (%) 16.9 30.8 19.8
Education: College (%) 15.6 21.3 20.1
Education: Advanced degree (%) 7.6 13.1 13.9
Years of residence in the U.S. 16.9 N/A 25.4
Years of residence (standard deviation) 12.7 N/A 16.3
Does not speak English or does not do it well (%) 48.8 0.5 26.8

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.

Figure A1. Annual earnings of TPS workers relative to comparison groups - Men

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.
Notes: Includes full-time, year-round workers. Controls include age, Hispanic origin, education, years since migration, English proficiency, and state of residence.

Figure A2. Annual earnings of TPS workers relative to comparison groups - Women

Source: PWBM calculations based on 2022-2023 ACS data.
Notes: Includes full-time, year-round workers. Controls include age, Hispanic origin, education, years since migration, English proficiency, and state of residence.



This analysis was produced by JesĂșs Villero, Brendan Warshauer, and Youran Wu under the direction of Alex Arnon. Aidan O'Connell provided research assistance. Mariko Paulson prepared the brief for the website.

Media (only): For the fastest response, email us at inquiries-pwbm@wharton.upenn.edu.
All other responses: Please use our Contact Us.
Sign up for PWBM Breaking News, Alerts and Newsletter. Unsubscribe anytime.

  1. These include Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Syria, and South Sudan.  ↩

  2. El Salvador was also first designated in the 1990s, but that designation was short-lived. The country did not receive a new designation until the early 2000s, setting it apart from the four countries listed here, whose 1990s designations have been continuous.  ↩

  3. In 2020, the fifth-largest state was Virginia, which accounted for roughly 7% of TPS holders. Georgia, the current fifth-largest, represented less than 3% at the time and ranked tenth—behind the unchanged top four (Florida, Texas, New York, and California) as well as Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.  ↩

  4. This approach is an adaptation of the residual method and the probabilistic assignment method developed by Warren and Warren (2014) and Passel and Cohn (2018) for research on unauthorized immigrants. These methods are commonly used in both policy and academic studies. See, for example, here and here.  ↩

  5. Our analysis is restricted to individuals aged 16 years and older in the civilian non-institutional population. The demographic and labor force participation (LFP) analysis uses all the information. The earnings analysis uses information from individuals with positive weeks worked in the previous year and positive earnings working in the private sector. Any other sample restriction is described when first introduced.  ↩

  6. Tables A1 and A2 present these results disaggregated by gender.  ↩

  7. All controls are included as fixed effects, except years of residence in the U.S., which is modeled as a third-degree polynomial (for native-born individuals, this variable is coded as zero). English skills are captured by an indicator equal to one for individuals who do not speak English or speak it ‘not well.’  ↩

  8. We code an individual as full-time worker if they report at least 40 weeks worked in the prior year and at least 35 usual weekly hours.  ↩

  9. Our estimation approach measures the contribution of TPS workers to GDP by combining individual-level income with industry-specific labor shares, which we estimate using industry-level labor costs and GDP. For each major industry and year, we multiply each individual’s weighted wage by the inverse of the industry’s labor share. Summing these values across individuals yields an estimate of the total GDP contribution of TPS workers. We discuss the 2023 estimates in the text. Our estimated overall contribution for 2022 is $25.9 billion.  ↩

  10. Average earnings by occupation are calculated using only native workers.  ↩

  11. The corresponding figures by gender are shown in Figures A1 and A2.  ↩