Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization Documents

DHS's mission is to safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values with honor and integrity. In service of that mission, DHS protects the United States from threats by terrorists, criminals, smugglers, transnational criminal organizations, failed-state actors, and unpredictable lone offenders that constitute present and future threats to public safety and national security.

USCIS issues EADs to certain classes of aliens. These documents are valid for a specified period. Aliens who intend to continue their employment beyond the date specified on their EAD must generally file an application to renew their employment authorization and/or EAD.

The automatic extension of the validity of an EAD grants the alien the benefit of extending his or her expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal EAD application and without first completing adjudicative review and related vetting, including resolution of any derogatory information identified during the vetting process. That is, the automatic extension allows for the granting of the benefit without USCIS first performing the following actions: an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if applicable.

On October 30, 2025, DHS issued an IFR titled, “Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents,” with a request for comment. See 90 FR 48799 (Oct. 30, 2025). The IFR amended DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the validity of EADs for aliens in certain employment authorization categories who timely filed an application to renew their EAD. After careful consideration of the public comments submitted in connection with the IFR, DHS is reaffirming and finalizing the IFR without changes. The rationale and reasoning provided in the preamble for the IFR remains unchanged with respect to the regulatory amendments, and DHS, therefore, adopts such reasoning also to support this final rule.

In reaffirming and finalizing the changes made in the IFR, the purpose of this rule remains the same as articulated in the IFR: to prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensure continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD by ending the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or EADs for certain employment authorization categories.

Ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of EADs is consistent with Section 16 of President Trump's directive in Executive Order (E.O.) 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take all appropriate action to align any departmental activities with the policies set out by the President and to ensure, among others, “that employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a), and that employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United States.” \1\ It is also consistent with Section 2 of E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, which directs the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence to “identify all resources that may be used to ensure that all aliens seeking admission to the United States, or who are already in the United States, are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.” \2\

\1\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

\2\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025).

This final rule adopts the IFR as final, without any changes, after careful consideration of the comments received. Accordingly, DHS is adopting as final the following changes that the IFR has made:

Revised the heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d) to clearly indicate that the up-to-540-day automatic extension period only applies to renewal EAD applications filed before October 30, 2025.

Added new 8 CFR 274a.13(e). The new provision explains that, unless otherwise provided in 8 CFR 274a.13(d), by law, or through a Federal Register notice for Temporary Protected Status (TPS)-related employment documentation, the validity period of an expired or expiring Employment Authorization Document and/or employment authorization will not be automatically extended by a renewal EAD application filed on or after October 30, 2025.

DHS explained in the IFR that the IFR did not impact the validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to October 30, 2025. It also explained that the IFR did not impact automatic extensions of EADs and/or employment authorization provided by law or Federal Register notices, such as those for TPS applicants pursuant to section 244 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and 8 CFR part 244.\3\ This final rule similarly does not impact these provisions.

\3\ However, on July 4, 2025, Congress passed and the President signed into law sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat.72 (July 4, 2025) (H.R 1), which limit the validity period of any employment authorization for aliens granted TPS under section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, to a period of one year or for the duration of the designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.

This final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” and economically significant as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects on the economy may exceed $100 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This final rule reaffirms and finalizes changes made by the IFR to DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization documents (Forms I-766 or EADs) for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in certain employment authorization categories. The purpose of this change is to prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensure continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD. This final rule does not affect the validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to the IFR. In previous rules providing for the automatic extension of EADs based on the timely filing of a renewal EAD application, DHS attempted to stabilize aliens' earnings and avoid labor turnover costs of employers. However, as explained in the IFR, the Department has shifted focus to prioritizing public safety and national security, and ensuring that aliens continue to be eligible and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, before being granted continued employment authorization. See 90 FR 48799, 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025).

DHS has prepared two types of quantified estimates of the impacts generated by this final rule. For a single 18-month window (starting in May 2027) from about 20,000 to 33,000 EADs are estimated to lapse, based on several assumptions. This rule may result in some EAD holders incurring a loss of earnings (“reduced earnings”) because of USCIS process delays for renewal EAD applications, as under this rule there could be disruption to their earnings due to a lapsed EAD. Such earnings loss to aliens could comprise beneficial transfers to other U.S. workers if the substitution of the latter for the former is relatively frictionless. Additionally, to the extent this rule affects EAD holders' jobs going unfilled, there will be impacts to tax transfers from businesses and employees to the Federal Government.\4\ This rule will also generate labor turnover costs to businesses that employ the affected-lapsed EAD holders, as under this rule there would be a disruption to the EAD holders' employment authorization and/or document validity. In conducting these estimates DHS emphasizes that variation in factors involved in the impact, including impact processing times, filing volumes, the timing of renewal filings, and underlying benefit requests, will cause variation in the impacts.

\4\ This rule could also result in a reduction in State and local tax revenue, but this impact is not quantified in this analysis due to variations in state and local tax laws and individual's tax scenarios.

Due to variation in future populations and process times, there is likely to be substantial variation in the impact estimates. For this reason, DHS develops wide ranges capturing a high and low bound for the estimates, in terms of the means (expected value). This rule is estimated to result in $138.1 million in lost productivity costs to employers that are not able to easily replace aliens with lapsed EADs, costs of $312.1 million to U.S. employers from potential labor turnover, transfers due to earnings changes worth $138.1 million from employment-authorized aliens to replacement workers and is expected to generate tax reduction impacts of $14.5 million over an 18-month period. Approximately 1,700 and 2,800 employers are estimated to be impacted.

Section V.B. provides an A-4 accounting statement supporting the analysis and the accompanying economic analysis details the data and methodology supporting the impact estimates.

The Secretary of Homeland Security's (Secretary) authority for the regulatory amendments made in this final rule are found in various sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the HSA, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codified in part at 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).

General authority for issuing this rule is found in section 103(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws and establish such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for carrying out such authority, as well as section 102 of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 112, which vests all of the functions of DHS in the Secretary and authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations.\5\ Further authority for this rule is found in:

\5\ Although several provisions of the INA discussed in this final rule refer exclusively to the “Attorney General,” such provisions are now to be read as referring to the Secretary of Homeland Security by operation of the HSA. See 6 U.S.C. 202(3), 251, 271(b), 542 note, 557; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) and (g), 1551 note; Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397 n.2 (2019).

Section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), which provides the Secretary with authority to grant employment authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for asylum if 180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum;

Section 214 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184, including section 214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), which authorizes the Secretary to prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of the admission of nonimmigrants;

Section 244(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B), which states that the Secretary shall authorize employment and provide evidence of employment authorization for aliens who have been granted Temporary Protected Status;

Section 274A(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), which provides for the employment verification system and outlines employment eligibility verification requirements;

Section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), which recognizes the Secretary's authority to extend employment authorization to aliens in the United States; \6\ and

\6\ Courts have acknowledged that Congress delegated authority to DHS to grant or extend employment authorization to certain classes of aliens. See, e.g., Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS, 50 F.4th 164, 191-192 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (“What matters is that section 1324a(h)(3) expressly acknowledges that employment authorization need not be specifically conferred by statute; it can also be granted by regulation.”). DHS is exercising this discretionary authority consistent with all applicable authorities, including the referenced authorities in the HSA, and sections 103, 208, 214, 244, and 274A(h)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1184, 1254a, and 1324a(h)(3), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2263 (2024) (“In a case involving an agency, of course, the statute's meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a degree of discretion. Congress has often enacted such statutes. For example, some statutes `expressly delegate' to an agency the authority to give meaning to a particular statutory term. Others empower an agency to prescribe rules to `fill up the details' of a statutory scheme, or to regulate subject to the limits imposed by a term or phrase that leaves agencies with flexibility, such as `appropriate' or `reasonable.' ”) (internal citations omitted).

Sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), which limit the validity period of any employment authorization for aliens granted TPS under section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, to either a period of one year or for the duration of the designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.

Since the promulgation of the final rule authorizing up to 180-day automatic extension period for certain renewal EAD applicants, USCIS' ability to process both initial and renewal EAD applications within USCIS' targeted processing times was adversely impacted by a variety of temporary circumstances.\9\ In May 2022 \10\ and April 2024,\11\ DHS temporarily increased the automatic extension from up to 180 days to up to 540 days. The May 2022 and April 2024 temporary final rules were intended to reduce the number of renewal EAD applicants eligible for an automatic extension of their EAD validity under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) experiencing lapses in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity because of USCIS processing delays.

\9\ See 87 FR 26614, 26617-26 (May 4, 2022) (identifying USCIS' precarious fiscal status, the COVID-19 public health emergency, and dramatic increases in Form I-765 filings); see also 89 FR 24628, 24634-40 (Apr. 8, 2024) (identifying an increase in referrals to USCIS for Credible Fear Assessment and an increase in affirmative and defensive asylum filings as contributing factors to increased EAD processing times).

\10\ 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022) (temporarily increased the automatic extension period to up to 540 days).

\11\ 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) (temporarily increased the automatic extension period to up to 540 days).

DHS also issued a final rule in December 2024 \12\ that indefinitely increased the up to 540-day automatic extension for certain applications pending on May 4, 2022, or properly filed on or after May 4, 2022. That rule was intended to reduce the effects of unknown future circumstances that could significantly impact EAD renewal processing times.\13\

\12\ See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024) (permanently increased the automatic extension period to up to 540 days).

\13\ See 89 FR 101210 (“When unforeseen future circumstances cause processing times to extend beyond 180 days and result in large scale lapses in renewal EADs, this permanent adjustment of the automatic extension period to 540 days will result in benefits and cost savings, such as stabilized earnings and avoided labor turnover costs.”).

The IFR amended DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the validity of certain EADs. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e). The IFR did not impact the automatic extensions already granted to renewal EAD applicants under 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1), if the renewal EAD application was filed before October 30, 2025. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d). The IFR also did not impact automatic extensions otherwise provided by law or in an applicable Federal Register notice regarding procedures for renewing TPS-related employment documentation pursuant to section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and 8 CFR part 244.\14\ See 8 CFR 274a.13(e).

\14\ DHS notes, however, that sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) of H.R. 1, Public Law 119-21 (2025), 139 Stat. 221 (2025) (codified at 8 U.S.C. 1802-1815), limits the validity period of any employment authorization for aliens granted TPS under section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.

The IFR made two changes to the regulations governing EAD, as discussed below. 1. Added New 8 CFR 274a.13(e)

The IFR added a new paragraph (e) that went into effect immediately with the publication of the IFR on October 30, 2025. With 8 CFR 274a.13(e), DHS eliminated the practice of providing automatic extension periods for employment authorization and/or EAD validity for up to 540 days for renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025. Therefore, renewal EAD applicants no longer receive an up to 540- day automatic extension of their employment authorization and/or EAD validity if they file their application on or after October 30, 2025. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e).

Except as otherwise provided by law, in 8 CFR 274a.13(d), or in accordance with an applicable Federal Register notice regarding procedures for renewing TPS-related employment documentation, an alien's employment authorization and/or EAD validity will expire as explained in the following paragraphs:

For those aliens who are employment authorized incident to status under 8 CFR 274a.12(a), unless otherwise provided by law, their EAD will expire on the day after the end validity date stated on the face of the EAD. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e)(1). Because the alien's employment authorization is tied to the alien's status in the United States, the alien's employment authorization will not expire on the date indicated on the EAD. Instead, the alien's employment authorization will expire or terminate on the same date the alien's status in the United States expires or terminates.

For example, an alien in L-2 nonimmigrant status as the spouse of an L-1 nonimmigrant is employment authorized incident to status. See INA sec. 214(c)(2)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(E). If the L-2 nonimmigrant chooses to apply for an EAD to evidence his or her employment authorization, the EAD will expire as of the date indicated on the face of the EAD. In some cases that may be the same date as the expiration of the L-2's nonimmigrant status. But in other cases, the L-2 status expiration date may be after the EAD expiration date, particularly if the L-2 nonimmigrant travelled outside of the United States after obtaining an EAD and, upon return to the United States, was provided a new status expiration date that will expire after the EAD expires.\15\ In that scenario, the L-2 nonimmigrant would remain employment authorized while in L-2 nonimmigrant status, even after the EAD expires, but the expired EAD would no longer be a valid document to evidence the L-2 nonimmigrant's employment authorization.\16\ Once the alien is no longer in L-2 status (for example, the L-2 nonimmigrant status expires), the alien would no longer be employment authorized as an L-2 nonimmigrant because such employment authorization is dependent on being in L-2 nonimmigrant status.

\15\ In this case, the new status expiration date is the date stated on the alien's Form I-94, Arrival Departure document.

\16\ An L-2 can still have other evidence of documentation of employment authorization, such as a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, designated with the L-2S classification.

For aliens who are not employment authorized incident to their immigration status and who instead must obtain employment authorization from USCIS, pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) before accepting employment in the United States, such as adjustment of status applicants or aliens with a pending asylum application, USCIS determines the length of the period of employment authorization in the exercise of its discretion and thereafter issues an EAD reflecting the validity period.\17\ Therefore, the EAD will expire and the employment authorization will terminate the day after the end validity

date stated on the face of the EAD based upon the situations outlined in 8 CFR 274a.14, or for aliens with employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(19) based on a pending TPS application, pursuant to section 244 of the Act and 8 CFR part 244 \18\ See 8 CFR 274a.13(e)(2).

\17\ Employment authorization granted pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) is generally granted in the discretion of the Secretary. See 8 CFR 274a.13(a)(1) (“The approval of applications filed under 8 CFR 274a.12(c), except for 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8), are within the discretion of USCIS.”).

\18\ For example, employment authorization may also end prior to the expiration date displayed on the EAD, in accordance with 8 CFR 274a.14, if exclusion or deportation proceedings are instituted against the alien; if a condition upon which the EAD was granted has not been met or no longer exists; or upon a showing that the information contained in the request for an EAD was not true and correct.

For example, an alien with a pending adjustment of status application (Form I-485) has an EAD that expires on May 30, 2026. The alien's adjustment of status application has not been adjudicated and continues to be pending. The alien is eligible to apply for a renewal EAD based on the pending adjustment of status application. The alien applies for a renewal of the EAD on February 4, 2026, which is after the October 30, 2025, effective date of the IFR. The alien will maintain continuous employment authorization if his or her renewal application is granted before his or her current employment authorization expires on May 30, 2026. If the renewal EAD application remains unadjudicated on May 31, 2026, the alien cannot continue to work for his or her employer on or after May 31, 2026, unless the alien is employment authorized on a separate basis. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e). If the renewal EAD application is subsequently approved, the alien would again be employment authorized and may resume employment during the validity period stated on the new EAD. The longer an alien waits to file a renewal EAD application, the more likely it is that he or she may experience a temporary lapse in his or her employment authorization and/or EAD validity. 2. Modified the Heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d)

On December 13, 2024, DHS published a final rule amending 8 CFR 274a.13(d) to permanently increase the automatic extension period for certain employment authorization and/or EAD validity. The rule became effective on January 13, 2025.\19\ DHS is retaining the provision granting an automatic extension for those aliens who had timely filed a renewal EAD request before October 30, 2025, and who otherwise meet the requirements of 8 CFR 274a.13(d). The IFR amended 8 CFR 274a.13(d) by revising the paragraph's heading to reflect that the paragraph applies to renewal requests properly filed before October 30, 2025, to avoid confusion between the automatic extension period granted under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) for those renewal EAD requests filed prior to October 30, 2025, and those filed on the day of or after the publication of the IFR. With this final rule, DHS is adopting and finalizing the changes made by the IFR and not making any additional changes to the regulations.

\19\ See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024).

This change to the heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d) ensures that the IFR and this rule do not retroactively affect those aliens who have already timely and properly filed a renewal EAD application before October 30, 2025. For these aliens, an EAD that appears on its face to be expired (“facially expired”) is considered unexpired under this rule for up to 540 days from the expiration date on the front of the EAD when combined with a Notice of Action (Form I-797C) indicating timely filing (that is, the receipt notice for the Form I-765 issued by USCIS has a receipt date that is before the expiration date on the EAD and before October 30, 2025) of the renewal application based on the same employment eligibility category as stated on the facially expired EAD (or in the case of an EAD and I-797C notice) that contains either an A12 or C19 category code, the category codes need not match). In those cases, the alien's facially expired EAD is considered unexpired for up to 540 days from the expiration date on the face of the EAD.\20\

\20\ If an adjustment of status applicant's (C09) EAD card is combined with the advance parole authorization, i.e., the applicant is issued a combo card (in this case, the EAD itself has an annotation “SERVES AS I-512 ADVANCE PAROLE”), the up-to-540-day automatic extension under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) does not apply to the advance parole part of the applicant's combo card.

USCIS updated the web page on the USCIS website with the appropriate information.\21\ USCIS also updated I-9 Central on the USCIS website and the Handbook for Employers, M-274, to provide employers and employees with additional guidance.\22\

\21\ The website entitled “Automatic Employment Authorization Document (EAD) Extension” has been archived in light of the IFR but the web page is still available for viewing at https://www.uscis.gov/archive/automatic-employment-authorization-document-ead-extension (last updated Oct. 29, 2025).

\22\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.0 Automatic Extensions of Employment Authorization and/or Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) in Certain Circumstances (last updated Oct. 30, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9- resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automatic-extensions-of- employment-authorization-andor-employment-authorization-documents- eads-in.

Comment: Several commenters supported the rule based on national security concerns, citing the need for proper vetting of nonimmigrant workers. Specifically, they stated that the rule would allow for thorough vetting of nonimmigrants before DHS extends their authorization to work in the United States. Commenters called the rule a “critical” measure to support the safety and security of the public. One commenter emphasized that working in the United States is a privilege, not a right, while another said that safety and national security should be government's highest priority.

Several commenters supported the rule based on concerns about fraud and abuse in the visa system, stating, for example, that it would help deter potential fraud and abuse by preventing aliens from remaining in the workforce for extended periods without final adjudication of their eligibility.

Multiple commenters supported the rule based on concerns about protecting job opportunities for American citizens. A commenter stated that automatic extensions keep nonimmigrant workers employed without timely reevaluation, allowing them to compete with American workers for positions while requiring renewed authorization before continuing employment ensures that only eligible aliens remain in the workforce.

Response: DHS agrees that this rule safeguards the process to fully evaluate the applicants in order to determine continued eligibility, identify national security and public safety concerns, and enhance fraud prevention through robust vetting and screening processes. This administration prioritizes the safety of the American people. Ensuring that employment authorization and/or EADs are provided only after USCIS conducts adequate vetting and determines that the alien continues to be eligible and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable, better protects national security, public safety, and the integrity of the immigration system. This rule is part of a larger DHS effort to reduce frivolous, fraudulent, and otherwise non-meritorious EAD filings and focus adjudicatory and other resources on ensuring national security and program integrity.

1. DHS Legal Authority i. DHS Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent

Comment: Multiple commenters requested that the rule be withdrawn stating that the rule contradicts DHS's statutory mandate, including the mandate to ensure that “the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts . . . aimed at securing the homeland” under 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F). Many of these commenters stated that, consistent with this statutory mandate, DHS recently concluded that a 540-day automatic EAD extension was necessary to protect employers and workers from lapses in work authorization due to USCIS delays, and DHS previously found that even the 180-day extension established under the 2016 Final Rule was not enough time to avoid harmful gaps in work authorization.

Response: DHS disagrees that this rule is inconsistent with DHS's statutory mandate, including the mandate under 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F). According to 6 U.S.C. 111(b), DHS's primary mission includes preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, minimizing the damage, and assisting in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that occur within the United States, and ensuring that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland. See 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), and (F). While the provision does not specifically define “economic security,” another provision within 6 U.S.C. Chapter 1 (Homeland Security Organization), defines “economic security” as the “condition of having secure and resilient domestic production capacity, combined with reliable access to the global resources necessary to maintain an acceptable standard of living and to protect core national values.” See 6 U.S.C. 474(c)(2).\24\ In addition, DHS is charged with the implementation of section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, preventing unlawful employment of aliens. This rule, which is part of an effort to secure the homeland, supports DHS's mission as provided by Congress in 6 U.S.C. 111(b) and section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, ensures lawful employment, and supports the overall national and economic security of the United States.

\24\ See Sorenson v. Sec'y of Treasury of U.S., 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986) (“The normal rule of statutory construction assumes that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.”).

Ending the practice of providing automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs enhances the benefit integrity in adjudications of employment authorization requests and better protects public safety and national security by ensuring that aliens are properly vetted and determined to be eligible (and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable), for employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the alien. The automatic extension of an EAD grants the benefit of extending an alien's expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal EAD application and without first completing adjudicative review and related vetting, including resolution of any derogatory information identified during the vetting process. That is, the benefit is granted without USCIS first performing the following actions: an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment authorization should be renewed in the exercise of discretion, if applicable. Without the IFR and this final rule, aliens could still obtain an automatic extension despite derogatory information that could flag them as national security or public safety risks. Automatic extensions, therefore, pose a security risk.

DHS is charged with combating unauthorized employment in accordance with section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, which Congress implemented, among other reasons, because of the detrimental negative effect that unauthorized employment and illegal immigration has on the United States and the national economy.\25\ Sections 103 and 274A of

the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, among other provisions, provide DHS and USCIS with considerable flexibility to administer and enforce the INA, including granting employment authorization and the issuance of an EAD. There is no generally applicable statutory mandate that requires DHS to provide an automatic extension. As explained in the IFR, the automatic extension carries the risk that employers unwittingly continue to employ a worker whose employment authorization is in fact no longer valid. See 90 FR at 48810. This includes that aliens may no longer be entitled to employment authorization because they no longer have an underlying status which entitles them to work. Additionally, vetting every alien before granting an immigration benefit, including employment authorization, has been one of the key considerations of Congress.\26\

\25\ Section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a was codified as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99-603, for the purpose of controlling illegal immigration to the United States by, among other things, establishing penalties for employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens and prohibiting the employment of aliens who are unauthorized to work in the United States either because they entered the country illegally or are in an immigration status which does not permit employment. See H. Rep. No. 99-682, 46, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5650. The legislative history reflects that Congress considered, among other things, evidence of prior studies demonstrating the adverse impact of illegal immigration that warranted legislation to protect U.S. labor and the economy. See, e.g., H. Rep. 99-682, 46--52, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5656 [“The need for control is underscored by international demographics. Undocumented aliens tend to come from countries with high population growth and few employment opportunities. The United States is not in a position to redress this imbalance by absorbing these workers into our economy and our population. U.S. unemployment currently stands at 7%, and is much higher among the minority groups with whom undocumented workers compete for jobs most directly . . . Extensive investigative and legislative hearings on the problem of undocumented aliens were held during the 92d Congress beginning in 1971, by the House Judiciary Subcommittee with special jurisdiction over immigration matters, then under the chairmanship of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr. Quoting from a 1975 House Judiciary Committee report, `The basic conclusion reached by the majority of the members of the subcommittee as a result of the hearings was that the adverse impact of illegal aliens was substantial, and warranted legislation both to protect U.S. labor and the economy, and to assure the orderly entry of immigrants into this country.' (H. Rept. 94-506, p. 3)”].

\26\ For example, the Congressional recommendation to establish an organization “responsible for developing, implementing, directing, and overseeing the joint USCIS-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) anti-fraud initiative and conducting law enforcement/background checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to granting immigration benefits.” See Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report 108-774], “Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,” p. 74, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf [emphasis added]. In response to this recommendation, the Fraud and National Security Division (FDNS) was established at USCIS. See USCIS, DHS, “Fraud Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate,” https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/organization/directorates-and-program-offices/fraud-detection-and-national-security-directorate (last updated Apr. 16, 2026); USCIS, “Fraud Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate (FDNS),” May 2022, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/brochures/FDNS_Brochure_Web_V2_508.pdf.

The rule does not eliminate employment authorizations or prevent eligible aliens from obtaining EADs for employment purposes or proof of identity; or from seeking and maintaining authorized employment. The rule does not reduce economic security. To the contrary, the rule supports the condition of having secure and resilient domestic production capacity, and protects core national values, as directed by Congress, with U.S. workers who are legally authorized to work. Therefore, the IFR is consistent with DHS's statutory mandate, including the mandate at 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), because it appropriately balances the need for security and vetting while maintaining overall EAD eligibility practices.

DHS is cognizant that prior rulemakings stated that DHS believed, at the time, that taking immediate action and providing automatic extensions of employment authorization supported USCIS' (as a component of DHS) statutory mission to administer employment authorization effectively, and as a measure to ensure that the overall economic security was not diminished by potentially harmful gaps in employment authorizations. See, e.g., 89 FR 101208, 101209 (Dec. 13, 2024); 89 FR 24628, 24629 and 24651(Apr. 8, 2024). As explained in this response, and throughout this rule, DHS believes that the factual situation underlying prior rules, in particular the Dec. 13, 2024 rule, have significantly changed, including that DHS has taken significant steps to reduce the flood of filings of EADs that overwhelmed USCIS' adjudicative resources.\27\ Furthermore, the 2024 final rule made the automatic extension period permanent based on the presumption that harmful gaps would occur given the operational realities at the time.\28\ Even if the 2024 final rule had taken into account the security posture of the United States, it was unclear how the rule furthered the economic security given that the rule was based on potential harm to individual applicants and their employers, rather than the broader national economy. It is thus unclear how removing the automatic extension period, which improves the security posture of the United States and is consistent with immigration laws, would undermine the overall economic security of the United States.

\27\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\28\ See 89 FR 101208, 101245 (noting “the purpose of this final rule is to provide a long-term solution to mitigate the potential for unpredictable circumstances to significantly increase renewal EAD application processing times that would require future urgent action).

Comment: A commenter asserted that removing the automatic extension of employment authorization without ensuring timely adjudication would strip lawfully authorized noncitizens \29\ of their ability to work due to USCIS processing delays, which, according to the commenter, contradicts the intent of the INA and the “right” to work in the United States. Another commenter stated that the IFR incorrectly states that the rule is consistent with section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. Another commenter stated that it seems illegal to deny someone a renewal when they have followed the law and have filed the renewal application in a timely manner.

\29\ USCIS generally refers to “aliens” when discussing foreign nationals present in the United States. The term “alien” is a legal term defined in the INA that is used to describe any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. See INA sec. 101(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1). Some commenters used “aliens”, but others may have used different terminology (such as person or individual). In general, when describing comments in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language used in those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity. Otherwise, DHS has used alien, or applicant, beneficiary, or requestor.

Response: DHS disagrees with these commenters' assertions. This final rule and the IFR are consistent with section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, which, among other things, recognizes the Secretary's authority to grant employment authorization in his or her discretion. DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that aliens have a broadly applicable “right” to work in the United States. Rather, the INA makes clear that aliens, to lawfully work in the United States, must be so authorized by law or a grant of employment authorization by the Secretary. See INA 274A(h)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3). Contrary to the commenters' assertions, this rule does not impact whether DHS will renew an alien's employment authorization; it only removes an intermediate automatic extension of the EAD period. If DHS determines that the alien is eligible for continued employment authorization and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, DHS may grant the renewal of employment authorization. This final rule merely ends the practice of automatically granting the benefit of continued employment authorization without USCIS first performing the following actions: eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if applicable.

Comment: A commenter stated that, when providing the ability for asylum

seekers to obtain work authorization, Congress could not have intended the arbitrary and capricious impact, on both the alien authorized to work and the employer who has relied on that alien, of being without authorization for an indeterminate amount of time until USCIS adjudicates either the asylum application or a new EAD. A commenter stated, without pointing to specific provisions, that the IFR should be discontinued because its policy changes do not reflect the law or the intent of the law or even the will of the people who voted for candidates who would make immigration changes.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion. Section 208(d)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), expressly states that “[a]n applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization,” though it also provides the Secretary with authority to grant employment authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for asylum if 180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum. The IFR, and this final rule, clearly outline the legal authority for this change, and are consistent with the Secretary's discretionary authority regarding the grant of employment authorization for asylum applicants and the duration of such authorization. ii. Constitutional Concerns

Comment: Multiple commenters expressed that the IFR raises First Amendment concerns, because the IFR suggests that USCIS must evaluate whether renewal applicants “bear hostile attitudes” toward U.S. citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles. The commenters reasoned that employment authorization may not be conditioned on ideological conformity and that agency action on unconstitutional factors may not be sustained as it is constitutionally questionable and impermissible. Another commenter stated that an ideological screening regime for work authorization renewals would further entrench USCIS in DHS's “troubling pattern” of suppressing First Amendment rights in the name of national security and opens the door for USCIS to profile individuals.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters. Citizens and aliens may object to various statutes, regulations, and policies and express those objections publicly. This rule neither penalizes individuals for protected political beliefs or associations nor subjects them to activities such as ideological screenings or profiling. This rule does not abridge the freedom of speech, of the press, or of association or peaceful assembly. Rather, it ends the practice of automatically granting the benefit of continued employment authorization without USCIS concurrently performing the following actions: eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien, or a determination that the employment authorization should be renewed in the exercise of discretion, if applicable.

DHS notes that freedom of speech for aliens is not absolute. See, e.g., INA sec. 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) (stating that any alien who endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization, is inadmissible), and INA sec. 212(a)(6)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (stating that any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under Federal or State law is inadmissible). DHS has a compelling interest in vetting and screening aliens before granting a benefit request, particularly when such request is granted in USCIS' discretion, as applicable.

DHS also notes that a challenge to the First Amendment cannot lie unless an individual establishes that he or she faces a “credible threat of prosecution” specifically for his or her speech, “under a statute [or rule] that appears to render the [individual]'s arguably protected speech illegal.” See, e.g., Am. Library Ass'n v. Barr, 956 F.2d 1178, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As indicated above, that is not the case in this scenario as neither section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, nor the associated regulations, renders any form of speech illegal or attempts to directly or indirectly regulate or penalize speech. Rather, the IFR and this final rule subject all EAD renewal applicants to the same vetting and screening procedures used for initial applications or those applicants who were not previously eligible for an automatic extension of their renewal employment authorization and/or EAD.

Comment: Several commenters raised concerns related to due process. Referencing the Fifth Amendment, a commenter stated that the IFR undermines the right to due process and the right to seek asylum by eliminating automatic extensions, which will cause large numbers of asylum seekers and other immigrants to lose employment authorization through no fault of their own. Another commenter said the rule replaces due process with guilt by association and abandons any pretense of a fair and rational immigration system. Other commenters expressed concerns about due process related to the immediate effective date of the IFR, stating that implementation of the IFR appears to be designed to reflect and further the current administration's policies and efforts toward “creating and enhancing chaos and dysfunction.”

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the IFR, and this final rule by virtue of reaffirming and finalizing the IFR, undermine due process or the ability of aliens to request asylum, or that it will cause large numbers of asylum seekers or other aliens to lose employment authorization.

In general, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects due process rights to a government benefit if the alien has an entitlement to it, but a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion. See Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756 (2005). There is no generally applicable statutory mandate to grant automatic extensions of employment authorizations. DHS and USCIS have been provided with considerable flexibility and discretion under section 103 and 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, among other provisions, to administer and enforce the INA, including granting employment authorization. Therefore, there is generally no cognizable due process interest in matters related to automatic extensions of employment authorizations and/or EADs. Additionally, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the rule does not suggest guilt by association or that the immigration system is unfair or irrational. A fair and rational immigration system ensures that aliens are sufficiently vetted, and any background hits are resolved before a determination is made that the alien is eligible for an extension of his or her employment authorization and/or an EAD and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable. The examples provided in the IFR do not suggest guilt by association. Rather, those examples highlight the importance and urgency of ensuring that aliens are not granted employment authorization until appropriate adjudicative review has been completed, and the risks to the national security and public safety if such benefits are granted automatically.

DHS also disagrees with the assertion that immediate implementation of the IFR was designed or intended to create chaos or dysfunction. DHS explained in the IFR why it was implementing the

rule with immediate effect. DHS concluded that the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) apply to the IFR and that delaying the implementation of the IFR until the conclusion of notice and comment procedures and the delayed effective date would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. See 90 FR 48814 (Oct. 30, 2025). DHS also explained that the IFR was issued with an immediate effective date because the rule clearly implicates the foreign affairs policy of the United States, and that notice and comment procedure as well as a 30-day delayed effective date would result in undesirable international consequences. See 90 FR 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025). iii. International Law and Refugee Protections

Comment: Several commenters stated that the IFR violates refugee protections, including the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Refugee Act of 1980.\30\ One of these commenters said the Refugee Act of 1980 specifically enshrines the right of refugees to work, obtain documentation, and access education, and UNHCR Guidance makes clear that asylum seekers awaiting adjudication of their cases are to be afforded the right to work. The commenter said asylum seekers must obtain EADs to work while their cases are pending, and gaps in EADs restrict the enjoyment of these rights either by directly impacting the right to safe work, or because many services require documentation for which an EAD may be the only form of proof available.

\30\ In 1968, the U.S. acceded to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Protocol”), which adopted articles of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Convention”).

Another commenter stated that eliminating the automatic extension was contrary to Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, because the resulting loss of employment and the bar of legal employment impede assimilation and naturalization of refugees. The commenter also said the IFR was contrary to Article 33's nonrefoulement, and the Refugee Convention's and Protocol's mandate to facilitate access to fair and efficient refugee status determination procedures that function as a safeguard against refoulement. The commenter reasoned that by undermining asylum seekers' ability to meet their basic needs through legal employment while their claims are pending, the rule obstructs access to a fair asylum procedure and risks forcing aliens to abandon their claims, potentially resulting in their return to the country of persecution.

A commenter stated that cutting off work authorization from people fleeing persecution contradicts our legal obligations and longstanding values.

Response: DHS disagrees that ending the practice of granting automatic extensions for EAD renewals is inconsistent with the United States' international obligations related to refugee protections, including the Refugee Convention and its Protocol and the Refugee Act of 1980. Although the United States is party to the 1967 Protocol, which incorporates, among others, Articles 17, 33, and 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the treaty is not self-executing and is not directly enforceable in U.S. law. It is the domestic implementing law that governs. The Supreme Court and other case law makes clear that the Protocol serves only as a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, because the Act sought to bring U.S. law into conformity with the Protocol. See, e.g., INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 428 n.22 (1984); Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). The United States Congress implemented U.S. obligations with respect to certain provisions of the Refugee Convention in the Refugee Act of 1980, including in sections 208, 235, and 241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, 1225 and 1231, and DHS regulations, including 8 CFR part 208 and 1208. Section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), provides the Secretary with authority to grant employment authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for asylum if 180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum.

The IFR is limited in scope, merely ending the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or EADs for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in certain employment categories. There is no mandate under international or United States law that DHS provide an automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EAD validity for aliens filing renewal EAD applications, and certainly not without adequately being vetted for continued eligibility. Aliens with a pending asylum application are permitted to still apply for employment authorization as nothing in this rule restricts the ability to apply for an EAD.\31\ Rather, the IFR, and this final rule, are consistent with the Secretary's discretionary authority regarding the grant of employment authorization for asylum applicants and the duration of such authorization, and with international obligations, including the favorable treatment of those seeking refuge from persecution in their countries. DHS finally notes that asylees (but not those with pending asylum applications), refugees, and certain other aliens are “qualified aliens” for purpose of receiving public benefits to cover basic needs under Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.\32\ Therefore, even if there are gaps in employment on account of adjudication delays, these aliens may be able to obtain public benefits.

\31\ On December 4, 2025, USCIS changed the validity periods for certain other EAD categories, including pending asylum seeker (“C08”) to enhance screening and vetting efforts. See DHS, USCIS, Policy Alert, Subject: Updating Certain Employment Authorization Document Validity Periods (December 4, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf. Therefore, C08 applicants now must seek renewal of their EAD more often than under the previous 5- year EAD validity period. DHS, however, cannot accurately predict whether this policy change will adversely affect EAD renewal processing times, as a likely increase in EAD renewals could be offset by other recent or future policy changes. For example, on February 23, 2026, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to modify filing and eligibility requirements for aliens requesting employment authorization based on a pending asylum application and an employment authorization document. See 91 FR 8616 (Feb. 23, 2026). As of the publication of this final rule, the NPRM has not been finalized. If finalized as proposed, changes to eligibility for C08 employment authorization could significantly reduce the number of initial C08 applications and, by extension, the longer-term number of renewal applications.

\32\ Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 (1996), codified at 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646; see 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(1) and (2) (defining asylees and refugees as “qualified aliens” eligible for federal public benefits); see also 8 U.S.C. 1611(a) (providing that an alien who is not defined as a “qualified alien” is not eligible for federal public benefits).

Comment: A commenter referenced Article 17 of the Refugee Convention, which provides that refugees lawfully in the territory of the host state (which would include not only asylees and resettled refugees, but all aliens pursuing asylum claims who apply for renewal EADs), shall be the accorded the “most favorable treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances.” The commenter stated that, because the rule does not end all automatic extensions of the validity period of EADs for those applying for renewal (for example, TPS-based EAD validity extensions through FRN), it provides refugees applying to renew their EADs less favorable treatment than other foreign nationals. The commenter concluded that the rule is therefore issued in violation of Article 17 of the Refugee Convention and should be withdrawn.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters. The United States implemented the “Wage-earning and Employment” provision of Article 17 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (as incorporated through the 1967 Protocol) through sections 207 and 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157, 1158, and implementing regulations at 8 CFR 207, 208 and 274a. Refugees (and asylees) \33\ have the right to employment authorization upon arrival, with minimal restrictions and are provided a pathway to lawful permanent residency because their status in the United States is permanent. This approach aligns with Article 17's requirements and complies with the U.S. obligation including that these individuals are not subject to more restrictive conditions than other foreign nationals in similar circumstances. Even if Article 17 were imposing a binding obligation, nothing in Article 17 requires DHS to provide employment authorization to noncitizens seeking refugee status or asylum before DHS or an immigration judge has made a final determination that they meet requirements for asylum or refugee status and grant the alien's application.

\33\ Asylees are aliens who are physically present in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry and who meets the definition of a refugee because he or she has a reasonable fear of persecution as defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). In contrast, a refugee is an alien located outside the United States who has been determined to have a fear of persecution. Asylees who meet the conditions of section 208 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158 are afforded the same treatment as refugees in regard to the wage- earning and employment requirement of Article 17. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, applicants for asylum are not asylees or covered by Article 17. Even if they were, the United States implemented Article 17 through sections 207 and 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157, 1158.

TPS applicants do not have the same protections and legal definition as refugees and asylees. Aliens granted TPS and TPS applicants are only temporarily in the United States on account of the Secretary's designation under section 244 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and 8 CFR part 244. As part of the TPS statute, Congress provided employment authorization for purposes of the entire designation period. See INA sec. 244(a)(1)(B) and (2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B) and (2). To comply with the law enacted by Congress, DHS is typically extending employment authorization via a Federal Register notice. However, TPS applicants still must apply for the renewal employment authorization document as part of the redesignation to obtain evidence of employment. Additionally, TPS may be terminated, and TPS never leads to permanent residency. See INA sec. 244(b)(3)(B), (h), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(B), (h). Thus, upon termination of TPS, TPS beneficiaries and applicants may lose employment authorization in the United States. See 8 CFR 244.12 and 13. Refugees (and asylees) once granted, do not typically lose their refugee status and thus, their right to employment and path to lawful permanent residency and eventually citizenship. Therefore, the implementation scheme and the termination of automatic extension is not contrary to the United States international obligations. 2. DHS Justification and Need for the Rule i. Security Rationale for the Rule a. General Security Rationale Comments

Comment: Multiple commenters said the IFR rests on a single asserted justification: the desire to complete vetting and security checks before approving an individual's \34\ work permit renewal, and DHS offers no other policy rationale for eliminating automatic extensions. Commenters stated the IFR is a reversal in policy without new evidence or a reasoned explanation and violates the APA. The commenters stated that DHS's sole rationale suffers from numerous problems and reveals a significant mismatch between the concern asserted and the real-world purpose and impact of automatic extensions.

\34\ USCIS generally refers to “aliens” when discussing foreign nationals present in the United States. The term “alien” is a legal term defined in the INA that is used to describe any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. See INA sec. 101(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1). Some commenters used “aliens”, but others may have used different terminology (such as person or individual). In general, when describing comments in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language used in those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity. Otherwise, DHS has used alien, or applicant, beneficiary, or requestor.

Additional commenters stated that DHS's security rationale for the IFR contradicts findings in its own 2024 Final Rule, which did not identify any adverse impact of automatic extensions on USCIS' ability to conduct security checks. Commenters stated that DHS offers no credible rationale for this new finding. Some commenters also stated that this rule ignores that DHS narrowly tailored the prior automatic extensions to certain applicants who applied for EAD renewals, which “reasonably assured” the agency that the individual remained eligible for employment authorization and protected the program from abuse.

Response: DHS does not agree that the IFR is a “reversal of policy without new evidence or a reasoned explanation,” that the justification for the rule is a “mismatch between the concern asserted and the real-world purpose and impact of automatic extensions,” or that DHS failed to consider important aspects of the program. DHS, in the IFR, explained that it is ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of employment authorization documents to enhance integrity in adjudications of employment authorization requests and better protect public safety and national security by ensuring that aliens are properly vetted and determined to continue to be eligible (and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable), for employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the alien. The Department also explained the permissibility of the change and specifically acknowledged and considered reliance interests that applicants could have engendered by the prior policy and explained why the policy considerations outweighed these interests. The IFR and this final rule reflect a continuation and refinement of DHS's longstanding focus on security, fraud prevention, and benefit integrity in the employment authorization context.

In 2016, DHS eliminated the interim EAD and replaced it with the 180-day automatic extension of employment authorization and explained that it would support the Department's vital mission of securing the nation from the many threats it faces. Therefore, DHS determined that the elimination of both the 90-day EAD processing timeframe and the issuance of interim EADs was necessary.\35\ This change in 2016 reflected DHS's “continued attention to security and commitment to improving adjudication processes, including technological advances in document production, to reduce fraud and address threats to national security.” See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule). DHS implemented the automatic extension of employment authorization to avoid gaps in employment without compromising national security and public safety given the context at the time. However, the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs, whether 180 days or 540 days, extends employment authorization based solely on the filing of a renewal EAD application, before USCIS has completed full vetting, resolved any derogatory information, and determined continuing eligibility for the benefit. Today, concerns regarding national

security, public safety, and integrity of immigration benefits are at a high point, and the President has directed DHS, through Executive Orders 14159 and 14161, to vet and screen aliens to the maximum extent possible and to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to unauthorized aliens.\36\ DHS notes there is no statutory requirement for USCIS to automatically extend EADs.

\35\ On November 18, 2016, as part of DHS's efforts to implement the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21), DHS published a final regulation that eliminated interim EADs and provided for a 180-day automatic extension period. 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016).

\36\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

DHS has provided a reasonable explanation for changing its policy, namely by giving greater weight to different policy considerations than in the past. DHS has concluded that, owing to current conditions and presidential directives, the security and program-integrity risks inherent in automatic extensions must be given greater weight than the benefits and different temporary circumstances that motivated prior rules. Given the inherent national security and public safety concerns that flow from granting immigration benefits (including EADs) to aliens before determining continued eligibility, DHS believes that rescinding the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs is a necessary remedy. Ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs enables DHS to better protect the public's safety and enhance benefit integrity. b. Lack of Evidence Supporting Security Rationale

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that DHS did not present evidence or data supporting the claim that automatic extensions pose security risks or that eliminating extensions would meaningfully enhance screening. Multiple commenters stated that the absence of any such evidence demonstrates that the purported problem does not exist. Several commenters wrote that for nearly 10 years, millions of workers have worked under automatic extensions, but the IFR provided no evidence showing that this system allowed security risks to persist or resulted in later security-based denials.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. DHS explained in its AC21 Final Rule nearly 10 years ago that it was prioritizing national security and fraud concerns by eliminating the interim EAD and the mandated EAD 90-day processing timeframe. Specifically, DHS noted that “any reduction in the level of eligibility and security vetting before issuing evidence of employment authorization, whether on an interim basis or otherwise, would both be contrary to its core mission and undermine the security, quality, and integrity of the documents issued.” \37\ Consistent with that rationale, and as explained in the IFR, DHS now believes that eliminating the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs will ensure that all identity verification, public safety and security related checks are completed, and that a determination has been made that the applicant continues to be eligible and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, before renewing employment authorization and/or an EAD. The IFR also clearly explained the relevance of the Boulder incident and its connection to the automatic extension,\38\ and why the measure was justified. Maintaining automatic extensions based upon the filing of an EAD renewal application would be inconsistent with DHS's stated benefit integrity, security and fraud-prevention objectives.

\37\ See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule).

\38\ See 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025) (explaining that the need to fully vet applicants for renewal EADs became clear when an alien with an automatically extended EAD perpetrated a terrorist attack that injured many people in Boulder, Colorado on June 1, 2025).

Comment: Many commenters stated that DHS's reliance on a single anecdotal incident involving an individual in Boulder, Colorado, was insufficient evidence to justify a policy reversal negatively affecting hundreds of thousands of law-abiding workers and their employers. Commenters wrote that DHS did not demonstrate that the incident involved an automatic extension or how eliminating automatic extensions would have prevented this incident.

Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR relied on insufficient evidence to justify the IFR's policy change as alleged by commenters. The concern addressed by the IFR and this final rule is that, under the automatic extension framework, an alien's employment authorization and/ or EAD validity could be extended for up to 540 days based only on the filing of a renewal application and without having fully vetted the alien for eligibility, including background and security checks. When employment authorization is automatically extended before those checks are complete, aliens who may no longer qualify for the benefit, or who present public safety or national security concerns, are able to remain employment-authorized. This allows aliens who could be public safety or national security threats to use associated documentation to potentially obtain other credentials, such as driver's licenses, and use such document, in turn, to engage in nefarious activities. For example, an alien could rent a car by using the driver's license obtained with an automatically extended EAD as an identity document and subsequently use the car to perpetrate a terrorist attack or other criminal activity. As explained in the IFR and throughout this final rule, DHS has found that these public safety and national security concerns outweigh the interim impacts that may result from a temporary lapse in an individual aliens' employment authorization and/or documentation while USCIS completes refreshed vetting, evaluates any new derogatory information, and determines that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable.

The IFR references the attack by an alien against peaceful demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, as a concrete example of an alien in possession of an automatic extension that highlighted the urgent need to mitigate additional public safety emergencies, as well as the importance of ensuring aliens are not granted employment authorization until adjudicative review has been completed. The alien responsible for the Boulder, Colorado, incident was the beneficiary of an automatic extension of his employment authorization, and is thus one example of an alien who remained employment authorized without having undergone full vetting for eligibility or security concerns. Attacks, such as the one in Boulder, Colorado, are tough to predict, but they may not be impossible to stop with proper and thorough vetting and intelligence sharing among government agencies each time an alien is seeking immigration benefits.\39\ DHS is prioritizing the completion of vetting

prior to granting an immigration benefit to ensure public safety and national security and to mitigate the immediate risks posed to Americans. Ending automatic extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application alone addresses that systemic vulnerability. It ensures that continued employment authorization and its documentation is conferred only after USCIS has completed refreshed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. As discussed in the Executive Summary, President Trump has directed DHS to “vet and screen to the maximum degree possible” all aliens within the United States and ensure that “employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien.” \40\ In line with presidential priorities, DHS is prioritizing program integrity, public safety, and national security and believes the benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

\39\ The public, including members from Congress, criticized immigration and law enforcement authorities, including DHS, for not detecting the alien's activities and not protecting the public. They emphasized the urgency to fix security vulnerabilities. See House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, “Chairman Pfluger, Green Request DHS Documents on Suspect in Boulder Terror Attack” (June 4, 2025), https://homeland.house.gov/2025/06/04/chairmen-green-pfluger-request-dhs-documents-on-suspect-in-boulder-terror-attack (“This tragedy is indicative of a heightened terrorism threat on U.S. soil, signaling an urgent need for increased homeland security measures, particularly with respect to foreign nationals who are unlawfully present in the United States, as Soliman reportedly overstayed a nonimmigrant visa. Our nation has now faced several major acts of antisemitic terror this year alone, including the recent assassination of two Israeli embassy staffers in our nation's capital.”).

\40\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Comment: One commenter stated that DHS “offered no credible evidence of security risks associated with” the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs, and that the IFR therefore “lacks any substantive rationale.” Other commenters claimed the security rationale for the rule is inadequate given that aliens applying for EAD renewals have already been vetted. Some commenters said many EAD holders are also likely to have other pending applications before USCIS with evidentiary submissions, background, and identity documents that allow for additional agency vetting.

Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR lacks a rationale. DHS is prioritizing the completion of proper vetting before issuing immigration benefits and cannot continue to extend employment authorization or EADs without determining that the applicant continues to be eligible and, when applicable, merits a favorable exercise of discretion, regardless of any prior vetting that may have been conducted in connection with past or pending benefit requests. DHS is not required by statute to provide an automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs. Rather, DHS is exercising its authority to structure employment authorization processes in a manner that ensures the integrity of the immigration benefit provided, and better advances national security, public safety, and program integrity.

Comment: Commenters wrote that the IFR misstates how security vetting works, stating that all relevant background check processes occur independently of whether a worker has an unexpired EAD. The commenter said many security flags require follow up investigation, interagency coordination, and a full review of classified or sensitive information that can take considerable time to evaluate, and these assessments occur within the structured adjudicative framework, not during the mechanical, threshold review of an EAD-renewal request.

Response: DHS disagrees with the premise of these comments. While some background checks and security review processes may be ongoing, others are initiated when USCIS receives a request and are completed in connection with that adjudication. There are no statutory or other regulatory limitations on USCIS' authority to conduct background and security checks to determine eligibility for employment authorization. Additionally, background checks and vetting can be a lengthy process that may require additional time to resolve or to make an eligibility determination. For USCIS to renew an immigration benefit, the applicant must meet the relevant eligibility standards and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. All individuals who apply for immigration benefits, including applications for employment authorization, are required to submit and sign the application authorizing the release of any information from their records that USCIS may need to determine eligibility for the benefit sought. By signing and submitting the form to USCIS, the applicant consents to verification by USCIS, as well as use of information to determine initial or continued benefit eligibility. Given the, at times, lengthy vetting process, the previous practice allowed automatic extension of EADs to aliens that would otherwise be found ineligible after USCIS initiates or resolves background check information.

The previous practice of automatically extending employment authorization for a period of up to 540 days prioritized EAD backlog management over program integrity, public safety and national security. Requiring completion of adjudicative review before extending employment authorization and/or EADs better aligns with DHS's vetting responsibilities and the policy priorities of enhancing program integrity, public safety, and national security.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that USCIS remains free to conduct continuous vetting during the renewal process and deny the renewal application and terminate employment authorization immediately should it identify new information indicating a security concern.

Some commenters stated that DHS already has the capability to perform continuous screening and vetting, such as through ATLAS and the Continuous Immigration Vetting (CIV) program, which allow for ongoing information sharing and monitoring of individuals in the immigration system, stating these systems can identify security concerns at any time, not just during the renewal application process.

Response: DHS continues to implement various strategies to address public safety and national security concerns. These efforts include, but are not limited to, the use of continuous screening and vetting capabilities, interagency information-sharing, and enhancements to identity and security verification processes. However, these tools do not obviate the need to complete appropriate vetting and screening before extending employment authorization. Conducting background checks, whether continuously or at certain intervals (for example, when an alien again applies for an immigration benefit), is only one part of the overall vetting and screening process.

Furthermore, derogatory information identified during the background check process must still be reviewed and resolved.\41\ DHS believes that before any immigration benefit is granted, such as an extension of employment authorization and/or an EAD, USCIS should complete the vetting and screening process and determine that the alien continues to be eligible for the benefit and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable.

\41\ Thus, even with CIV, USCIS is required to manually resolve derogatory information, which needs time. See DHS/USCIS/PIA-076 Continuous Immigration Vetting, at 8, https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscispia-076-continuous-immigration-vetting (last updated March 31, 2023) (“Although automation assists with the identification of national security concerns, FDNS officers also manually review each hit to confirm the validity, relevancy, and accuracy of the information and to determine if the information is actionable, consistent with DHS authorities. If actionable, USCIS FDNS may perform administrative investigations to produce findings to sufficiently inform adjudications.”).

Comment: A commenter stated that the rule discounts the multiple layers of

vetting and monitoring tools that are already being conducted by employers to identify potential security threats, including Form I-9 verification, E-Verify participation, and criminal background checks.

Response: DHS will not delegate to employers its responsibility to enhance program integrity and better protect public safety and national security. The varying levels of vetting by different employers are not a substitute for the vetting that USCIS conducts. USCIS has information-sharing agreements with various agencies within the U.S. government and foreign partners. Therefore, vetting from an employer is typically not comparable to USCIS access and vetting. In addition, Form I-9 and E-Verify are not used for national security and public safety vetting. Form I-9 is required for all U.S. employers to document identity and employment authorization for every worker hired. E-Verify is a voluntary program that electronically compares the information on Form I-9 with SSA and DHS records to confirm employment eligibility.\42\ Criteria for security checks and vetting depend upon the immigration benefit sought as well as various other factors, and each benefit request has its own requirements and vulnerabilities. DHS does not believe that renewing employment authorization should be an exception to the stated policy objectives of better protecting public safety and national security and ensuring continued eligibility and that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion (as applicable) prior to issuing immigration benefits. USCIS is exercising its full authority to investigate immigration benefit requests filed by aliens who may pose risks to the national security and public safety of the United States while adhering to the provisions of the INA and applicable laws, as outlined in DHS Delegation of Authority 0150.1 and 15006.\43\ The elimination of automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or an EAD based on the filing of a renewal application is one component of this broader effort to enhance program integrity and safeguard the United States.

\42\ See E-Verify, 1.1 Background and Overview, https://www.e-verify.gov/e-verify-user-manual-10-introduction/11-background-and-overview (last updated May 29, 2024).

\43\ See, e.g., DHS, Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Delegation No. 0150.1 (June 5, 2003), available at https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=234775; DHS, USCIS, Delegation to Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to Order Expedited Removal and to Enforce Immigration Laws, Delegation No. 15006 (May 2, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/Delegation_to_USCIS_for_LE_Authorities_15006_1_1.pdf. DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 is based on the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and delegates broad authority under the INA, to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), now USCIS, to administer the laws, process benefits, investigate potential fraud, make prosecution recommendations, and initiate removal proceedings. DHS Delegation Number 15006 grants the Director of USCIS the authority to issue warrants, order immediate removal of aliens, to detain or release aliens on bond, and the ability to investigate civil and criminal immigration law violations.