Abandoned in Plain Sight
Coming Soon…
“We will not leave them behind,” promises Simon Billenness, director of the Campaign for a New Myanmar and a Burma policy advocate with more than three decades of experience lobbying the United States Congress about U.S. sanctions policy, congressional appropriations, and accountability efforts related to Myanmar’s military. Over the years, he has worked closely with bipartisan coalitions in Congress, civil society organizations, and Burmese diaspora communities, building pressure campaigns that link American values to concrete policy tools.
This is Billenness’s second time on Insight Myanmar; in his first appearance, he examined the issue of sanctions. In this discussion, he addresses the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s November decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burmese nationals, a development that he sees as both a humanitarian crisis and a profound rupture in U.S. policy. Speaking from long familiarity with the mechanics of Congress, executive power, and international advocacy, he situates the decision not as an isolated immigration action but as a single moment in a broader realignment of American foreign policy toward Myanmar as well as toward refugees more generally.
TPS had allowed nearly 4,000 Burmese nationals to remain legally in the United States because conditions in their home country made safe return impossible. They were given sixty days before protections expire, which will come due in late January. Billenness describes the immediate consequences for those affected as stark and unforgiving. For individuals whose only lawful status derives from TPS, there are few viable alternatives. Immigration attorneys, he notes, have already told some refugees that no realistic legal pathways remain for them to stay in the country. The prospect of a forced return to Myanmar is, for many, terrifying!
Billenness emphasizes that TPS recipients are real people. Many arrived in the United States as students or professionals before or immediately after the 2021 coup. They remained in the country because returning home would expose them to grave danger. Some openly support the Civil Disobedience Movement from abroad; others belong to ethnic or religious minorities targeted by the military. Several are Christians, including at least one Catholic priest. Regardless of their individual stories, all face a Myanmar that remains engulfed in violent conflict, indiscriminate military violence, and severe political repression. Young men risk forced conscription under the junta’s draft law. Even those who never protested face danger simply because of age, identity, or association.
From Billenness’s perspective, the decision to end TPS represents a profound misrepresentation of both American interests and American values. He explains that the Burmese nationals protected under TPS are among the United States’ strongest allies within Myanmar society, and many were initially drawn to the country because of its historical support for democracy, human rights, and religious freedom. Many pursue advanced education and professional training. Their presence strengthens U.S. institutions and communities, rather than burdening them. Ending TPS, he argues, amounts to rejecting precisely the people most aligned with American principles.
The Department of Homeland Security justifies its decision by citing purported improvements in Myanmar, including ceasefires, preparations for elections, and increased stability. Billenness rejects those claims outright. He describes this as false and misleading narrative, crafted not to reflect reality but to create a legal rationale for ending protections. In his assessment, the elections referenced by DHS are sham exercises conducted under military rule, and condemned by Congress and international observers alike. The ceasefires cited are coercive arrangements imposed on ethnic armed organizations under pressure from the junta and China, while airstrikes continue unabated. Stability, he insists, does not exist.
The characterization of Myanmar as a safe country, Billenness warns, departs sharply even from present U.S. policy. The State Department continues to advise American citizens not to travel to Myanmar because of insecurity. By presenting a rosier picture, DHS not only undermines protections for refugees but risks lending credibility to the junta’s propaganda. He notes that the military already touts the TPS decision as proof that Washington recognizes its authority and electoral plans.
National security considerations form another pillar of Billenness’s critique. He explains that the Myanmar military poses direct threats to U.S. interests through its tolerance and facilitation of scam centers that defraud Americans of thousands of dollars daily. Areas under junta control also remain central to narcotics production that feeds the U.S. opioid crisis. From this perspective, protecting Burmese refugees is not merely charitable, it aligns with American security priorities by opposing a regime that actively harms U.S. citizens.
Religious freedom is yet another consideration in Billenness’s critique. He points to the U.S. government’s longstanding commitment to protecting freedom of belief worldwide, reflected in offices within the State Department and White House. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom documents ongoing persecution of Christians and Muslims. Returning Burmese Christians and Muslims to a country where churches, mosques, and temples are intentionally bombed is a direct affront to that commitment. For conservative lawmakers who champion religious liberty, he frames the question bluntly: “Why would you send your brothers and sisters in Christ back to Burma?!”
In response to the termination, legal and political efforts move forward simultaneously. Billenness expects a lawsuit to be filed challenging DHS’s action as unlawful and potentially unconstitutional. While cautious about its prospects, he views litigation as a necessary attempt to secure a stay. At the same time, he works with allies in Congress to draft legislation restoring TPS for Burma. He explains the realities of the legislative process without illusion, however. Even under the best circumstances, passing a bill takes time, often years. A standalone measure would likely face the near certainty of a presidential veto.
Yet Billenness has hope, and draws on his many years of experience to explain his strategy. He recounts how major Burma-related laws, including the Burma Act, ultimately get included as amendments to must-pass legislation such as defense authorization or appropriations bills as opposed to stand-alone legislation. By embedding provisions restoring TPS within broader packages the president cannot easily reject, Congress can force concessions. The timeline is long and the outcome uncertain, but a realistic path exists.
Throughout the conversation, Billenness returns to the central role of Congress. Despite the recent executive actions, he describes bipartisan support for the Burmese people as remarkably strong. Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike denounce sham elections, back sanctions, and press the administration through hearings and public statements. He cites recent House and Senate actions, unanimous committee votes, and oversight hearings as evidence that the junta’s influence in Washington remains limited. Billenness stresses that it’s not the fact that this is a Republican President that accounts for this new executive policy, noting that some of the strongest U.S. actions against Myanmar’s military have occurred under Republican administrations. For example, George W. Bush signed sweeping sanctions in the early 2000s. And after the Rohingya genocide in 2017, the first Trump administration reversed an earlier policy of accommodation and reimposed pressure. Congressional outrage over atrocities removed provisions for military-to-military cooperation. These precedents demonstrate that principled Burma policy transcends party lines.
What concerns Billenness most now is not congressional retreat but the erosion of U.S. soft power. He describes the dismantling of institutions such as USAID, Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Institute of Peace as catastrophic. Congress appropriates funds for Burma-related programs, but this administration refuses to spend them, a practice known as impoundment. Courts are now considering whether such actions violate statutory and constitutional limits on executive authority; meanwhile, continuing resolutions replace regular appropriations, freezing policy and delaying accountability.
The junta claims that its lobbying efforts in Washington are effective, but Billenness dismantles that argument. Firms hired to represent the military operate quietly, often raising Myanmar only as an afterthought in meetings. Congressional staff, he observes, recognize the reputational toxicity of representing a regime accused of genocide. Public evidence supports his view, as he points out that hearings, votes, and bipartisan statements consistently side with the Burmese people, not the junta.
Ultimately, Billenness frames the struggle as a battle of narratives. One portrays refugees as burdens and proposes that working with the military will yield economic gain. The other, grounded in fact, presents Burmese refugees as contributors to American society and the junta as an obstacle to stability. He points to communities like Fort Wayne, Indiana, where Chin immigrants have revitalized local economies and civic life. He notes that even economic arguments fail to favor the military, since it does not control key resources such as rare earth minerals and cannot deliver peace or reliable partnerships.
The path forward, he insists, lies in sustained pressure and grassroots engagement. Constituent advocacy—contacting their representatives, organizing meetings, and demanding accountability—remains the most effective tool. And not surprisingly regarding US policies that affect Myanmar, Burmese American communities are leveraging their growing political power in this way, influencing lawmakers who depend on their votes. Advocacy organizations provide mechanisms for individuals to act, transforming moral concern into political leverage.
Even as he characterizes this moment as unpredictable and dangerous, not only for Myanmar but for U.S. foreign policy as a whole, Simon Billenness remains active. The Burmese people and their allies will remain, he affirms. Through organizing, legislation, and persistent advocacy, he believes a narrative grounded in truth and justice will prevail. “We will endure,” he insists. “We will fight back. We will not abandon the Burmese people.”