Human rights organizations on Tuesday condemned the Trump administration’s decision to end temporary deportation protections for Myanmar citizens, despite ongoing civil war and alleged war crimes by the country’s military leadership.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Monday that Myanmar’s “notable progress in governance and stability,” including planned elections in December and reported ceasefire agreements, justified ending the protections. “The situation in Burma has improved enough that it is safe for Burmese citizens to return home,” she said.

Critics dismissed the decision as dangerously misguided. Phil Robertson of Asia Human Rights and Labor Advocates said the move risks sending people back into “prisons, brutal torture, and death.” The shadow National Unity Government (NUG) also rejected Noem’s reasoning, citing ongoing military attacks, forced conscription, and the exclusion of genuine opposition in the upcoming elections.

Myanmar’s military, led by Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, welcomed the U.S. decision. Government spokesperson Maj. Gen. Zaw Min Tun said returning citizens would face prosecution only for serious crimes, while others would receive “special leniency.”

Since the military seized power in 2021, widespread uprisings have occurred, with opposition forces controlling large areas. The junta has been accused of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, using landmines, targeting schools, hospitals, and places of worship, and forcing civilians into combat situations. Min Aung Hlaing also faces an ICC arrest warrant for crimes against humanity related to persecution of the Rohingya minority.

Human rights reports indicate more than 30,000 political arrests and over 7,400 deaths since the coup. The U.S. State Department continues to advise against travel to Myanmar due to armed conflict, civil unrest, landmines, and arbitrary detentions.

Despite these warnings, Homeland Security stated that country conditions have improved sufficiently for safe return and that continued temporary stay in the U.S. was “contrary to the national interest.” Human Rights Watch called the decision “egregious” and questioned its credibility, noting it could affect up to 4,000 people.