If the DNS TLD is using the default DNSRegistrar (which allows 2LD registrations via DNSSEC signed TXT records), then the owner of the DNS 2LD can always reclaim that 2LD in the ENS registry. This is because neither the DNS TLD nor the 2LD is locked/emancipated. So even if the 2LD is wrapped and the NFT is sent to someone else, the owner on the DNS side can still forcefully unwrap and take back that name on the ENS side at any time.
The DNSRegistrar could also possibly be updated in the future to enable fuses by locking the TLD, and making any 2LDs locked and non-transferrable. There are no current plans for this, it’s just a future possibility that has been floated in the past.
If the owner of the DNS TLD has control over that TLD on the ENS side (like .art), then it’s completely up to the DNS TLD owner how to handle that. They could decide to use ENS as the “source of truth” for ownership and automatically transfer ownership on the DNS side for example. They could decide to issue their own custom NFTs for 2LDs (like .kred did in the past). Or, they could also decide to Lock that TLD in the Name Wrapper and emancipate 2LDs, thereby enabling the fuse/permission system for all domain owners in that namespace, just like .eth names.
Of course the TLD owner still has ultimate ownership on the DNS side of things, so there is still a layer of human trust there for DNS domains. Even if the 2LDs are wrapped and emancipated on the ENS side, the TLD owner could technically still takeover / overwrite records for the 2LD on the DNS side. Or if the TLD were to ever change ownership on the DNS side, then the new owner could request ownership of that TLD on the ENS side per the ENS DAO constitution. Those cases would probably be rare (like if a government agency coerced the DNS TLD owner to do something), but you’ll need to evaluate the risks or lack thereof for yourself.