Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization Documents

Comment: One commenter said justifying the rule under “the guise of national security is ironic” because the rule's likely consequence in derailing the livelihoods of aliens may push them to violate the law for survival. Another commenter stated that most of the public safety and national security risk created by malicious aliens stems from their presence in the United States rather than their ability to work and encouraged DHS to study how significant the risk associated with income generated through lawful employment is compared to the risk associated with presence on U.S. soil. A commenter stated that DHS implicitly assumes that unemployment is the antidote to potential crime when common sense and empirical evidence provides the opposite is true.

Response: DHS disagrees with the comment that this rule will result in derailing the livelihoods of aliens and the insinuation that it may push individuals to become criminals to survive.

As explained in the IFR, DHS has taken significant steps to reduce the overall EAD filings that followed the unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States during previous years.\44\ For example, DHS has narrowed the use of parole and better aligned TPS and related programs with statutory criteria. As a result, initial EAD applications have significantly declined since 2025. USCIS has also seen a decline in the number of filings in the largest EAD categories that were formerly eligible for automatic extensions based on the filing of a renewal EAD application, as shown in Table 1.

\44\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.000

BILLING CODE 9111-97-C

The two largest categories of Form I-765 applicants are those with pending asylum applications (C08) and those with pending adjustment of status applications (C09). Together these categories made up approximately 80% of all I-765 applicants from January 2025 through the end of June 2026.\45\

\45\ Though their numbers were much smaller, I-765 applications also declined in the A07, A08, A10, C16, C20, C24, and C31 categories. DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 03/ 2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office (CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June 30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

Table 1 shows how C08 and C09 filings have decreased since the start of the current administration in January 2025. USCIS received a total of 240,060 C08 filings in January 2025, which decreased to 32,472 in June 2026.\46\ Similarly, USCIS received a total of 64,106 C09 filings in January 2025, which decreased to 36,455 in June 2026. USCIS notes the decreased EAD filing rates support the point made in the IFR that the potential lapse, and in particular the duration of any lapse, is speculative and could be outweighed by the harm posed by automatic extensions.

\46\ DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 03/ 2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office (CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June 30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

Finally, DHS regularly publishes detailed statistics on its activities,\47\ but declines to perform a study of the additional risk to national security caused by income aliens generated through lawful employment for multiple reasons. For example, isolating and quantifying the incremental risk attributable solely to income derived from lawful employment--as distinct from the risk associated with presence, travel, associations, unauthorized employment, or other activities--would present significant methodological and data limitations. The relevant population would be small, sensitive national security information would constrain the availability and use of underlying case data, and it would be difficult to draw statistically meaningful conclusions.

\47\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics, https://ohss.dhs.gov (last visited Apr. 2, 2026).

DHS acknowledges the commenter's view that the primary public safety and national security risk posed by malicious actors arises from their presence in the United States and not solely from their continuing ability to work. Even so, DHS considers it important and appropriate to use its authorities to reduce risks associated with both presence and employment. Access to lawful employment can provide malicious actors with financial resources, routine cover for their activities, and access to certain workplaces and facilities. Limiting the ability of aliens with potentially malicious intent to retain EADs and/or employment authorization, and to lawfully work and generate income, without full vetting is therefore a meaningful component of DHS's broader efforts to safeguard benefit integrity, national security and public safety.

For these reasons, DHS continues to view measures that reduce the likelihood that malicious actors can obtain or rely on employment authorization and related secure documentation as worthwhile.

Comment: Some commenters stated that, if the goal is to strengthen vetting integrity, the logical solution is to expedite case processing so that all

background checks and reviews are completed more quickly. One commenter also stated that workers should be able to maintain their employment authorization and support their families while vetting occurs.

Response: DHS undertakes every effort to complete case processing as expeditiously as possible while being conscious of the importance of vetting every benefit requestor thoroughly for eligibility, including vetting for criminal activity and other security risks. DHS believes screening, vetting, and determining continued eligibility before granting a renewal of employment authorization and/or documentation is essential to enhance program integrity and better protect public safety and national security. Such processes, however, especially given the volume of initial and renewal EAD applicants that USCIS encounters, necessarily take time. Note that expediting a case generally means that USCIS would move the benefit request to the front of the processing queue to the detriment of those who may have filed earlier but does not otherwise change the time needed to properly conduct screening and vetting and determine continued eligibility. To the extent that these commenters suggest that USCIS should expedite all EAD renewal applications and thus put renewal EAD applications in front of other applications in the processing queue, DHS maintains that this would not be a viable solution and would not enhance program integrity or better protect public safety and national security.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the security benefit of the rule is incremental because renewal applicants have already been robustly vetted and will not be re-vetted until the EAD renewal is adjudicated, stating that this second vetting by USCIS occurs even if EAD extensions are automatic.

Response: USCIS must ensure that all aliens who request immigration benefits from USCIS are eligible for the benefit sought, merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable, and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety. It is necessary and within USCIS' authority to continue investigating immigration benefit requests and to assess whether an applicant has established ongoing eligibility and warrants favorable discretion, if applicable, and whether they pose a risk to the national security and public safety of the United States, before issuing immigration benefits. This includes renewal applications for employment authorization and/or EADs, which may reveal new derogatory information or changed circumstances that were not present at the time of the initial grant.

Comment: One commenter stated that the IFR would cause DHS resources to be spent on EAD processing while people remain in the United States without decisions on their ability to stay, stating that the rule “punishes applicants, families, communities, and employers for USCIS' failure to timely process applications.” Another commenter similarly stated that the rule “does not meaningfully improve homeland security” and would divert resources rather than supporting security or operational efficiency.

Response: DHS is dedicated to ensuring that all aliens who enter and remain in the United States do not present threats to national security or public safety. USCIS plays an instrumental role in preventing terrorists and other bad actors from harboring in the United States, and screening and vetting should be prioritized over purely expedient adjudications to that end. DHS will continue to work to reduce frivolous, fraudulent, and meritless EAD filings to free up adjudicatory and other resources to better ensure national security and program integrity. Therefore, DHS does not agree that focusing resources on careful EAD renewal adjudications “diverts” resources from security; rather, such adjudications are themselves a core security function of USCIS. e. Other Comments on Security Rationale

Comment: Some commenters expressed concern with DHS's rationale that bad actors could benefit from EADs being automatically extended and the income generated from working to support “nefarious activities,” stating that it is speculative, discriminatory, and perpetuates anti-immigrant rhetoric. A commenter said this is particularly dangerous language for Asian American communities who face a persistent narrative as the “perpetual foreigner” and will only contribute to that “pernicious stereotype” and support unfounded suspicions that Asians are agents of foreign governments.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. DHS ended the practice of providing automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs based on the filing of a renewal EAD application to ensure continued eligibility and prioritizing the proper vetting and screening of aliens in furtherance of its mission. This rule does not target Asian American communities or any other specific group of aliens. Instead, this rule, as written, applies to all aliens who were eligible for the automatic extension of their employment authorization and/or EADs under former 8 CFR 274a.13(d). As explained in the IFR and this final rule, DHS is prioritizing the completion of vetting prior to granting an immigration benefit to enhance program integrity and better protect public safety and national security. The examples provided in the IFR illustrated the broader concern that extending employment authorization before completing vetting can allow aliens who may present public safety or national security risks to retain employment authorization. Ending automatic extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures that continued employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS has completed renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. DHS believes that the program integrity, public safety, and national security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

Comment: Commenters stated that, while DHS repeatedly cites purported national security concerns as justification for the IFR, the “underemphasized yet explicit” motivation for the IFR is a reduction in EAD filings overall. They stated that the rule is intended to generally deter immigration, specifically for asylum seekers, and that DHS ignores that asylees and refugees are authorized employment even if the expiration date on their EAD has passed. One commenter stated that, while DHS claims it is ending the practice of automatically renewing EADs for refugees and asylees to take a “uniform approach” and avoid “the potential for confusion” of employers, it does not quantify the potential confusion or justify why it cannot at least provide automatic renewals for refugees and asylees, who are authorized to work incident to their status.

The commenters concluded that the IFR is meant to undermine and frustrate those with legal work authorization and will cause unnecessary lapses in work authorization creating unreasonable obstacles, citing DHS's referenced goal of providing a “comprehensive policy solution” and stating the rule is actually intended to unnecessarily confuse employers, frustrate immigrants' ability to work, and push more into “dire straits.” Another commenter questioned enhanced security as the true intent of

the rule, suggesting other motives such as intentionally causing aliens to fall out of status and lose their jobs.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters that the goal of this rule is to reduce EAD filings overall, generally deter immigration or to “unnecessarily confuse employers” and “frustrate immigrants' ability to work.” As previously stated, the purpose of this rule is to prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens, to ensure continued eligibility, and to confirm that applicants continue to merit favorable exercises of discretion, if applicable, before granting new periods of employment authorization and/or new EADs by ending the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or EADs.

DHS recognizes that aliens who are granted asylum or refugee status are authorized employment incident to their asylum or refugee status. As explained in the IFR, aliens who are authorized employment incident to their status \48\ and are maintaining their respective immigration status, such as asylees and refugees, will continue to be employment authorized while maintaining their immigration status, regardless of the expiration date on their EAD. Aliens who are authorized employment incident to status will continue to have the choice to file Form I-765 to obtain EADs for proof of identity. As stated in the IFR, DHS is taking a uniform approach for all aliens by ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs.

\48\ See 8 CFR 274a.12(a).

Comment: One commenter said that eliminating automatic extensions does not serve E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, which orders DHS and other agencies to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United States. The commenter said eliminating automatic extensions has no impact on this mandate, as the purpose of such automatic extensions is to afford USCIS the time and resources to make a robust determination in compliance with its statutory and regulatory obligations in cases where aliens were already approved for employment authorization.

Response: DHS maintains that this rule accomplishes the mandate of E.O. 14159. This executive order directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, in Section 16 to take all appropriate action to align any departmental activities with the policies set out by the President, to ensure that “employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United States.” As stated in the IFR and this rule, ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of EADs is consistent with this instruction in E.O. 14159 because a previous grant of employment authorization does not mean that an applicant remains indefinitely eligible for employment authorization, and it is necessary to review eligibility to ensure that an alien's circumstances have not changed such that the alien is no longer eligible. Granting automatic extensions of employment without proper vetting and full adjudication to ensure continued eligibility is not consistent with E.O. 14159 or with current priorities. ii. Consistency in USCIS Rationale and Reversal of Longstanding Policy

Comment: Multiple commenters wrote that USCIS says it does not expect delays in processing EAD renewals in the future, but also says it must end automatic extensions on EADs now because it needs more time to finish security checks. Commenters said both cannot be true. Commenters also stated that, if DHS expects continued delays, then ending automatic extensions will push employees out of work authorization simply because the government cannot finish adjudicating these cases fast enough. These commenters said courts invalidate rules when an agency's reasoning is contradictory and the agency offers no adequate justification for the inconsistency, with some commenters citing F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Also referencing this purported inconsistency, multiple commenters stated that DHS's conclusion that EAD applications will decline and that more adjudicative resources will reduce EAD renewal processing times ignores that those same resources will be available at the initial stage to address any red flags. Thus, the commenter said DHS's purported need for fuller investigations at the renewal stage will be even less necessary moving forward. The commenter said the claim also cannot be reconciled with the Department's historic position that it can complete sufficient investigations promptly, given sufficient resources.

Multiple commenters said the IFR rejects and contradicts the policies of both the 2016 and the recent 2024 rules, the purpose of which was to mitigate the harm to workers and employers caused by interruptions in work authorization, without adequate explanation, justification, or alternative remedies. One commenter specified that the IFR cites no data showing sustained reductions in renewal processing times, no new performance metrics, and no analysis demonstrating that the long-recognized adjudication challenges identified in 2016 and again in 2024 have materially changed.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the reasoning in the IFR, and this final rule, is contradictory or unjustified. DHS notes the IFR does not state that “USCIS does not expect delays in processing EADs.” Instead, DHS explained it has taken measures to address floods of filings from TPS beneficiaries and other applicants, and that DHS expects that overall filing rates for initial and renewal EADs are likely to substantially decline, freeing up adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD processing times.\49\

\49\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

USCIS routinely evaluates filing volumes relative to adjudicative resources and reallocates workloads to address priorities as appropriate and feasible, including between initial and renewal EAD filings. The IFR explains that, while USCIS continues to work to improve processing times and reduce backlogs, DHS has determined that automatic extensions are inconsistent with ensuring continued eligibility or with current security and vetting priorities. DHS believes that the reasoning provided in the IFR is appropriate and that the purpose of the IFR has been adequately justified. Ending automatic extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures that continued employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS has completed renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. DHS believes that the program integrity, public safety, and national security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

As discussed in greater detail in response to a previous comment in Section IV.C.2.i.a. of this preamble, the decision to end automatic extensions reflects a change in how DHS balances operational efficiency and continuity of employment against these security and benefit integrity concerns rather than an inconsistency in DHS's underlying commitment to timely adjudications.

DHS expects that overall, EAD filing rates will substantially decline and free up adjudicative resources to reduce

renewal EAD processing times. Decreasing processing times would result in a reduced need for aliens filing renewal EAD applications to rely on an automatic extension of their EAD to avoid potential lapses. Since the IFR became effective on October 30, 2025, USCIS has seen a steady decrease in overall EAD filings. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble. USCIS notes that decreased EAD filing rates support the point made in the IFR: that the potential for an alien to have a lapse, and in particular the duration of any lapse, is speculative and could be outweighed by the harm posed by automatic extensions. iii. Lack of Acknowledgement of the Backlog and Other Operational Realities

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the IFR ignores that backlogs persist today and provides no projections or plans to reduce the backlogs that necessitate automatic extension. Some of these commenters said the IFR incorrectly portrays backlogs as a future “scenario,” but processing delays are significant. A commenter stated that external analyses reinforce the conclusion that long delays in EAD adjudication are a documented, ongoing reality and, despite this record, DHS offers no empirical data showing in the IFR that processing times have improved enough to make automatic extensions unnecessary. A commenter stated that external analyses reinforce the conclusion that long delays in EAD adjudication are a documented, ongoing reality and, despite this record, DHS offers no empirical data showing in the IFR that processing times have improved enough to make automatic extensions unnecessary. Some commenters referenced DHS backlog data in asserting the value of the automatic extension mechanism and the rule's lack of acknowledgement of the backlog. Another commenter stated that, while striving for timely adjudication is a worthy goal, it does not eliminate the need for automatic extensions, and USCIS should not eliminate the regulatory provision of automatic extensions in its entirety.

Response: DHS is ending the automatic extension of employment authorization and EADs not because USCIS has completed its backlog of pending cases, but rather because DHS is prioritizing ensuring continued eligibility and proper vetting. However, USCIS will continue to work through its backlog of cases without unnecessarily granting immigration benefits to those who may be ineligible or threaten the public safety and national security of the United States.

DHS acknowledged the EAD backlog in the IFR, stating that most of the backlog resulted from prior policy decisions that resulted in an overwhelming number of initial and subsequent renewal EAD filings.\50\ DHS discussed potential future backlog scenarios while also acknowledging the current backlogs in each of those rules. Specifically, DHS provided data in the 2024 TFR to project the impact of the asylum filing surges and backlogs to consider possible renewal EAD application filing behaviors and the impact throughout the effective period of the 2024 TFR. See 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024). DHS discussed the same data in the 2024 Final Rule. See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024). These rules attempted to mitigate the impact of potential future renewal EAD processing backlogs that could have been caused by a variety of circumstances, and DHS used those data projections to estimate the impact of codifying the automatic extension period increase from up to 180 days to up to 540 days. DHS has reassessed that conjectural approach and determined that, notwithstanding ongoing backlogs, automatic extensions are not an appropriate mechanism given the associated security and integrity risks.

\50\ See 90 FR 48799, 48807 (Oct. 30, 2025) (discussing an influx of EAD applications that “continues to bog down USCIS processing times and adjudicative resources,” and “was largely caused by the prior administration's policies that allowed a significant number of aliens to enter the country on parole and seek asylum and/or TPS, and alongside such applications, employment authorization”).

As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, DHS has taken significant steps to reduce the overall EAD filings that followed the unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States during previous years.\51\ Significant declines in initial EAD applications since 2025 highlight the impact of these changes, which include a narrowed use of parole and a realignment of TPS and related programs with statutory criteria. Specifically, USCIS has also seen a decline in the number of filings in the largest EAD categories that were formerly eligible for automatic extensions based on the filing of a renewal EAD application, as shown in Table 1. See Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble. The two largest categories of Form I-765 applicants are those with pending asylum applications (C08) and those with pending adjustment of status applications (C09). Together these categories made up approximately 80% of all I-765 applicants from January 2025 through the end of June 2026.\52\ Table 1 shows how C08 and C09 filings have decreased since the start of the current administration in January 2025. For example, USCIS received a total of 240,060 C08 filings in January 2025, which decreased to 32,472 in June 2026.\53\ Similarly, USCIS received a total of 64,104 C09 filings in January 2025, which decreased to 36,455 in June 2026.

\51\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025). See also USCIS, “DHS Strengthens Integrity in Nation's Immigration System, Returns to Commonsense Legal Immigration Levels,” https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-strengthens-integrity-in-nations-immigration-system-returns-to-commonsense-legal-immigration (Nov. 13, 2025); Testimony of USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow, Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security: ICE, CBP, and USCIS: Hearing Before the House Comm. on Homeland Security, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM00/20260210/118916/HHRG-119-HM00-Wstate-EdlowJ-20260210.pdf, at 6, (Feb. 10, 2026), (“These critical efforts have strengthened the integrity of our legal immigration system, reinforced accountability, and ensured that USCIS resources are directed toward lawful, properly filed cases.”).

\52\ Though their numbers were much smaller, I-765 applications also declined in the A07, A08, A10, C16, C20, C24, and C31 categories. DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar. 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 03/2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office (CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June 30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

\53\ DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar. 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 03/2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office (CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June 30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.

Comment: Multiple commenters said the IFR ignores the reality of continued high demand for work authorization and that DHS is wrong to expect that EAD renewal filings will “substantially decline” because this Administration attempted to terminate the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole program and several TPS designations. Many people who first came through CHNV and similar parole programs, or who previously had TPS, have now applied for asylum or other protections that still require EAD renewals. Additionally, the commenters said the termination of the CHNV parole program and the TPS designations have all been challenged in court with no final judgments issued; if terminations are reversed, parolees and TPS beneficiaries will continue applying for EAD renewals. The commenters

concluded that DHS must plan for continued high renewal volumes.

One commenter said the rule fails to account for the impact that halting asylum decisions will have on the backlog of renewal EAD applications. The commenter referenced the November 28, 2025, statement of the USCIS Director that “USCIS has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.” The commenter said halting asylum decisions means that asylum applications will remain pending longer, which means more asylum applicants' EADs will expire during the pendency of their asylum applications and result in the need to file additional requests to renew their EADs.

Response: DHS acknowledges that various policy changes outside of this rulemaking, such as significant changes to humanitarian parole programs,\54\ the termination of TPS designations,\55\ and changes made to the asylum program,\56\ have affected, and will continue to affect, the demand for employment authorization and/or EADs in the future. DHS also recognizes the continued high demand for employment authorization and/or EADs, and DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the IFR ignored such demand. Rather, as the IFR and this final rule explain, DHS believes the program integrity, public safety, and national security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.

\54\ See, e.g., Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025). This termination is the subject of ongoing legal challenges but remains in place. See Doe v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass); Noem v. Doe, 145 S. Ct. 1525 (2025).

\55\ The TPS designations for numerous countries have been terminated in the past year, but there has been significant litigation over these terminations. See, e.g., Mullin v. Doe, No. 25-2083 (argued Apr. 29, 2026). The latest status of TPS designations is available on the USCIS website. USCIS, Temporary Protected Status (Mar. 17, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status.

\56\ See, e.g., Proclamation 10888, Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion, 90 FR 8333 (Jan. 20, 2025) (suspending the entry of aliens who unlawfully enter the United States across the southern border and barring those aliens from asylum and other provisions of the INA). Litigation against the Proclamation is ongoing, but asylum remains barred for covered aliens as of the time of drafting this rule. See Refugee and Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Mullin, No. 25-5243,--F.4th--, 2026 WL 1110616 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 24, 2026) (affirming the district court's decision with modifications to the definition of the certified class and enjoining the Departments from continuing to implement the Invasion Proclamation, including the Proclamation's restriction on asylum but staying the decision until after disposition of either a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc).

While DHS recognizes that the demand for employment authorization and/or EADs remains high, the various immigration-related initiatives implemented by this administration described previously in the IFR preamble have reduced EAD filings overall. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

Comment: Commenters stated that the IFR ignores the impact of DHS's recent and planned future reductions in the USCIS workforce. Specifically, in April, nearly 20,000 USCIS staff--about 80 percent of the workforce--received communications urging them to end their employment with USCIS. The commenter said the rule does not explain how ongoing or planned USCIS staffing cuts affect the adjudicative resources available to process renewal EAD applications or how it accounted for these cuts in its planning to reduce backlogs. Another commenter similarly said the IFR also ignores the effects of this administration's “decimation” of the federal workforce and the longest shutdown of government operations in history.

Response: The IFR and this final rule do not undercount or ignore the impact of processing times and resources needed for adjudicating EADs. As stated previously, DHS is prioritizing public safety, national security and benefit integrity.

DHS notes that USCIS is generally fee-funded and able to continue its adjudicatory work during government shutdowns. However, DHS notes that government shutdowns could impact our ability to work with federal law enforcement partners and other agencies that are more directly impacted.

Regarding the size of USCIS' workforce, DHS agrees that adequate staffing and efficient allocation of resources are important to reducing backlogs and minimizing the risk that a renewal EAD application will remain pending past the current card's expiration. USCIS continuously takes operational steps within existing budgetary and hiring authorities to further enhance processing efficiency, including hiring and reallocating personnel, refining workflows, investing in automation where appropriate,\57\ and implementing the fee \58\ and program changes directed by recent legislation and executive actions.\59\

\57\ For example, USCIS has undertaken various efforts to incorporate AI to deliver immigration services to their customers more efficiently. See DHS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services--AI Use Cases, https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory/uscis (last updated Feb. 12, 2026).

\58\ See DHS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (“These fee collections fund the cost of fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration benefit requests, including those provided without charge to refugee, asylum, and certain other applicants or petitioners”). USCIS is primarily a fee-based agency. See sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) that is generally not appropriated by Congress.

\59\ See, e.g., USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures by H-R.1 Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952 (Apr. 29, 2026).

iv. “Proper Planning” Rationale

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that DHS's assertion that renewal applicants' “proper planning” could avoid lapses in work authorization is false and ignores operational realities and backlogs, asserting that EAD renewal applicants cannot “properly plan” for every unforeseen circumstance that may affect USCIS processing times. Commenters stated that the 2016 and 2024 Final Rules were issued to address unforeseen circumstances that neither the agency nor applicants could reasonably anticipate.

Commenters cited processing backlog figures when stating that applicants who follow the agency's recommendation not to file more than 180 days in advance face unavoidable employment gaps. Multiple commenters stated that many EAD applications, including renewals, took longer than 180 days to adjudicate.\60\

\60\ See USCIS, Immigration and Citizenship Data, FY 22 Appropriations Reporting Requirement--Application Processing Data for September, 2025, https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-and-studies/immigration-and-citizenship-data (last visited Feb. 13, 2026).

Response: As previously discussed, DHS has determined that the potential impact that some aliens may experience a temporary lapse, of unpredictable duration, in the validity of their employment authorization and/or EAD is outweighed by the need to better protect the safety and security of the American people by ensuring that employment authorization and/or an EAD is not granted until USCIS has thoroughly vetted and screened the applicant, resolved any derogatory hits, and determined that the alien continues to be eligible for the immigration benefit and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable.

USCIS provides case processing times for select forms and locations to inform the public how long it generally takes to process benefit requests.\61\ USCIS updates case processing times on its website monthly with the latest available data. The processing times

fluctuate over time and are based on how long it took USCIS to complete (meaning issue an approval or denial notice) 80% of adjudicated cases over the six months prior to the posted processing times.\62\ Each case is unique, and some cases may take longer than others. Processing times should be used as a reference point, not an absolute measure of how a case will take to be completed. The fact that a particular form type and category shows a processing time slightly longer than 6 months at the 80th percentile does not mean that a particular application will take longer than 6 months to approve or deny. Processing times, because they represent a 6-month reporting period, are a lagging indicator as it pertains to more recent policy changes and related filing rates. Processing times are also based on the time it took USCIS to approve or deny applications, which can be skewed by the time needed to request additional evidence before an application is approved or denied.

\61\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times (last visited May 8, 2026).

\62\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info (last visited Apr. 22, 2026).

Although USCIS generally recommends that applicants not file requests to renew EADs more than 180 days before the expiration of their EADs, there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain date ahead of expiration. Proper planning by applicants includes filing early, rather than close to the expiration of the EAD, and ensuring that all evidence needed for USCIS to determine eligibility has been submitted with the application at the time of filing. While proper planning might not avoid a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or documentation in all cases, it should help to reduce the potential of a lapse and shorten the duration if a lapse were to occur. 3. Rationale for Eliminating the Automatic Extension of EADs

Comment: A couple of commenters opposed the rule without providing their rationale. They supported automatic extension of employment authorization, and the provision of employment authorization documents, without vetting or reviewing aliens' applications. One called the regulatory change “wrong” and “inhumane.”

Response: As discussed in greater detail in response to more specific comments elsewhere in this preamble, to the extent that some renewal applicants might face a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or documentation, DHS believes this approach is nevertheless justified as it will enhance program integrity and better protect public safety and national security. Ending automatic extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures that continued employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS has completed renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. DHS believes that the program integrity, public safety, and national security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization and or EAD validity.

In addition to these independent reasons for promulgating this rule, DHS is acting in accord with presidential directives. As discussed in the Executive Summary, E.O. 14159 instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security, alongside the Secretary of State and Attorney General, to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to unauthorized aliens.\63\ Furthermore, removing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs aligns with Executive Order 14161, which requires DHS to vet and screen all aliens within the United States “to the maximum degree possible,” \64\ and Presidential Proclamation 10949, which orders DHS to ensure that aliens already within the United States do not support foreign terrorists or bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.\65\

\63\ See Executive Order, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

\64\ See 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 31, 2025).

\65\ Proclamation 10949 (June 4, 2025), 90 FR 24497-98 (June 10, 2025).

4. Impact on USCIS Processing i. Administrative Burden and Efficiency

Comment: Multiple commenters asserted that the IFR would increase the administrative burden on the government and further slow the adjudication process and USCIS' ability to timely processes EAD renewals. A commenter stated that eliminating the automatic extension does not speed up adjudications, but simply “creates a guaranteed administrative failure” and will lead to increases in emergency service requests, inquiries, and appeals. Similarly, another commenter wrote that the IFR would create unnecessary administrative inefficiencies as USCIS would likely face an increase in prematurely filed renewal applications, multiple submissions from applicants fearing gaps in employment, and additional employer verification requests during pending periods. One commenter reasoned it would be less burdensome for USCIS to not implement the IFR than to implement it.

Other commenters stated that the Agency has been unable to timely adjudicate EAD renewals for several years and the IFR does not resolve the current operational reality to avoid gaps in employment authorization, because even when applicants file at the earliest possible date, their current EADs often expire long before adjudication concludes as USCIS processing times are sometimes 8 to 11 months. A commenter remarked that backlogs and resulting lapses in employment authorization are not the fault of EAD renewal applicants.

One commenter stated that the IFR does not account for the impact of other DHS rules, including the recent Duration of Status proposed rule,\66\ which would increase the adjudication workload on USCIS staff and jeopardize the Agency's ability to ensure extensions can be consistently processed within existing timeframes.

\66\ DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media, 90 FR 42070 (proposed Aug. 28, 2025).

Response: DHS acknowledges that backlogs and operational challenges were justifications for the 2022 and 2024 Temporary Final Rules and the 2024 Final Rule. However, as DHS explained in the IFR, the automatic extension of the validity 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 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 granted in the exercise of discretion, if applicable. The automatic extension, therefore, poses a security vulnerability that could allow bad actors to continue to work and generate income to potentially finance nefarious activities that pose an imminent threat to the American public. Granting benefits without proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to the

mission of DHS and poses a threat to the safety and security of the American people.\67\ DHS believes that this concern outweighs concerns about potential backlogs and operational challenges that may result in temporary lapses of employment authorization and/or EAD validity.

\67\ See, e.g., 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 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the creation of an organization to conduct “law enforcement/background checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to granting immigration benefits.”).

As DHS stated in the IFR, it is the policy of the Administration “to faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people.” \68\ Pursuant to this policy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in collaboration with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, has been directed to “rescind the policy decisions of the previous administration that led to the increased or continued presence of illegal aliens in the United States, and align any and all departmental activities with the policies set out by this order and the immigration laws” including by “ensuring that the parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is exercised on only a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute” and by “ensuring that designations of TPS are consistent with the provisions of section 244 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1254a), and that such designations are appropriately limited in scope and made for only so long as may be necessary to fulfill the textual requirements of that statute.” \69\

\68\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.

\69\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.

DHS has already taken a number of actions in support of the directives described in the preceding paragraph.\70\ Thus, in addition to the serious concerns relating to automatic EAD extensions discussed previously, DHS is taking steps independent of this rule, including narrowing the use of parole and to align TPS designations with statutory criteria, that are likely to result in lower EAD filing volumes and improve renewal EAD application processing times.

\70\ See, e.g., Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025); Termination of the October 3, 2023 Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status, 90 FR 9040 (Feb. 5, 2025); Special Immigrant Juvenile Classification and Deferred Action, USCIS Policy Alert (June 6, 2025) https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policymanual-updates/20250606-SIJDeferredAction.pdf (last visited June 13, 2025).

With respect to the comment about the impact of other DHS rules that could impact the adjudication workload on USCIS and thus, the processing timeframe of EAD renewals: DHS published a final rule eliminating duration of status (D/S) on July 17, 2026.\71\ DHS agrees with commenters that there will be an increase in the filing volume of Forms I-539, Application for Extension of Stay/Change of Status, received by USCIS following September 15, 2026, the effective date of the final rule as those nonimmigrants who are required to file such forms begin to do so. The transition period described in 8 CFR 214.1(m), however, provides for a 4-year transition period for F and J nonimmigrants currently in the United States for D/S to gradually shift to a fixed admission period.\72\ As explained in the final rule, these F and J nonimmigrants will continue to remain admitted for D/S until they depart, or until the program end date specified on designated forms or 4 years after the effective date of the rule, whichever comes first.\73\ This would allow time for DHS to shift resources as needed to ensure that the larger, increased volumes are integrated into existing workflows. USCIS will continue to monitor its resource allocations and adjust as appropriate.

\71\ See 91 FR 44976.

\72\ See 91 FR 44976 (discussing 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)).

\73\ See 91 FR 44976, 45017.

On December 4, 2025, USCIS changed the validity periods for certain other EAD categories, including C08s, to enhance its screening and vetting efforts.\74\ 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 an NPRM proposing to modify filing and eligibility requirements for aliens with a pending asylum application requesting employment authorization and an employment authorization document (EAD). 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.

\74\ 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.

ii. Processing Timelines

Comment: One commenter asserted that early filing routinely leads to rejections or denials, and that filing fees are not returned to the applicant if they are rejected for early filing. Another commenter reasoned that since USCIS' policy only allows service inquiries after 365 days, this would limit employer and employee's options for addressing delays.

Response: Although USCIS generally recommends that applicants not file to renew their EAD more than 180 days before the expiration of their current EAD, USCIS will not reject or deny an otherwise eligible Form I-765 renewal solely because it was filed sooner. The USCIS Contact Center is an available resource and provides specific customer service options, including how to obtain assistance if a case is rejected or denied.\75\ Further, USCIS does not have a set rule that applicants must wait 365 days to submit a service inquiry. Rather, USCIS posts processing times on its Case Processing Times web page, which includes a tool to help determine whether an applicant can request an update on their case. Depending on the applicant's receipt date and other factors, USCIS provides an estimated date for when a case inquiry may be submitted or a link to submit a case inquiry.\76\

\75\ See USCIS, Contact Us (last visited Feb. 3, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/contact-us.

\76\ See Frequently Asked Questions About Processing Times, USCIS, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/processing-times-faqs (last visited Mar. 23, 2026).

DHS recognizes that an alien who is authorized employment incident to their status may still wish to obtain an EAD. Aliens who are authorized employment incident to status will continue to have the choice to file Form I-765 to obtain an EAD as proof of identity and employment authorization. DHS also recognizes that, in the absence of automatic extensions, some aliens may experience temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity if their renewal applications are not adjudicated before their current EADs expire. However, DHS maintains that the security risks associated with automatically extending employment authorization and/or EADs without updated vetting and adjudication outweigh the benefits of using automatic

extensions to ensure that aliens have uninterrupted employment authorization and/or EADs. While DHS cannot guarantee that every renewal will be adjudicated before the existing EAD expires, DHS believes that proper planning by applicants, combined with reduced filing volumes and ongoing operational improvements, may lessen the likelihood and duration of lapses. iii. Procedural Fairness

Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the procedural fairness of applicants losing work authorization due to USCIS processing times. Specifically, some commenters said that the IFR would punish people who are following the law, complying with immigration procedures, or, more generally, “have done everything right,” losing status through “no fault of their own.” Likewise, several commenters remarked that the current automatic extension policy helps prevent nonimmigrants from being punished for delays beyond their control. A few commenters said that removing automatic extensions without addressing processing delays would be unjust.

A few other commenters remarked that the IFR would contradict administrative equity or fairness. Other commenters said that the rule would contradict DHS's own acknowledgement that interruptions in work authorization cause “substantial and unnecessary harm.” A couple of commenters said that the rule would penalize law abiding applicants due to an extreme individual case.

Response: DHS recognizes that many renewal applicants diligently comply with filing requirements and that delays in adjudication may not be within their control. DHS also acknowledges that prior rulemakings, including the 2016 and 2024 rules, sought to mitigate the impact of processing delays on workers and employers by providing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs.

However, as explained in the IFR, DHS has reassessed the balance between continuity of employment authorization and the need to ensure that immigration benefits are granted only after appropriate vetting and eligibility determinations. There is no statutory entitlement to an automatic extension of employment authorization. Employment authorization in the relevant categories is generally discretionary and time-limited, and renewal requires a new adjudication. The IFR and this final rule do not deny renewal to eligible applicants; they simply require that continued employment authorization be based on an approved renewal application rather than on the mere filing of that application.

DHS has determined that granting automatic extensions without updated vetting and adjudication is inconsistent with its mission and with E.O.s directing DHS to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to unauthorized aliens and that all aliens in the United States are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible. While DHS is mindful of the hardships that may arise from temporary lapses in employment authorization, the need to protect national security and public safety, and to enhance the integrity of immigration benefits, justifies discontinuing automatic extensions. iv. General or Mixed Feedback on USCIS Processing

Comment: Several commenters asked questions about USCIS operational metrics, processing times, use of RFEs, and remedial actions for applicants who lose their jobs due to adjudication delays. A commenter agreed that a 540-day extension was too long because there should be thorough vetting before granting EADs and/or employment authorization.

Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' questions about the rule's impact. As discussed in the IFR and earlier in this preamble, the department has taken measures to address policies that resulted in the historic spike in EAD applications received during the previous administration. DHS anticipates a substantial decrease in both initial and renewal filings for EADs,\77\ which would allow for a reduction in processing times for renewal EADs.

\77\ See 90 FR 48814, footnote 157.

USCIS has the discretion to deny benefit requests for lack of required initial evidence or for ineligibility, or to request that additional evidence is submitted within a specified period of time.\78\ The benefit requestor bears the burden of proof for establishing eligibility.\79\ A request for evidence (RFE), though it may add time to the adjudication of an application, is an opportunity for the applicant to provide additional evidence to USCIS in support of their application.

\78\ See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(ii).

\79\ See INA sec. 291, 8 U.S.C 1361.

DHS will not be implementing remedial actions in case an alien's employment authorization lapses. DHS believes that careful planning by applicants includes filing early, rather than close to the expiration of the EAD, and ensuring that all evidence needed for USCIS to determine eligibility has been submitted with the application at the time of filing, may help to reduce the risk of a potential lapse in employment authorization. While proper planning might not avoid a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or documentation in all cases, it should help to reduce the potential of a lapse and shorten the duration if a lapse were to occur. DHS also notes that an applicant may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of an application that is under USCIS jurisdiction.\80\ USCIS considers all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and generally requires documentation to support such requests.\81\ The decision to expedite is within the sole discretion of USCIS.\82\ Expediting a case generally means that USCIS would adjudicate a benefit ahead of others, including those who may have filed earlier, so USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit of each expedite request.\83\

\80\ See USCIS, Expedite Requests (last updated Sep. 8, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests.

\81\ See id.

\82\ See id.

\83\ See id.

Finally, DHS agrees with commenters' belief that the previous 540- day automatic extension was too long, as demonstrated by this rule's finalization of the IFR's removal of the automatic extension process. 5. Combined Impacts on Individuals, Employers, the Economy, and Specific EAD Categories i. Impacts on Aliens, Families, and Communities a. General Hardship, Fairness, Educational Disruptions, and Family Impacts

Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns that the IFR would cause lapses in valid work authorization, causing job loss or interruptions of work, while undermining aliens' financial stability.

Commenters expressed that lapses in work authorization lead to job loss, income loss, housing/food insecurity, loss of health coverage, strain on community resources, educational disruption, and harm to families and children, and that this is unfair to individuals who have complied with all requirements. Many commenters expressed general concerns about the consequences of lost wages due to gaps in employment authorization. For example, commenters shared that lost wages could lead to housing and food

insecurity for nonimmigrants. Several commenters wrote that a lapse in employment could make nonimmigrants face the threat of eviction and other commenters shared concerns about increased risk of homelessness. Commenters remarked that many nonimmigrants may not have families or friends to lean on for temporary shelter, making this group particularly vulnerable to income shortages. One commenter remarked that in the current job market, it would be extremely difficult for them to find another job if they were to lose employment due to a lapse in work authorization.

Several commenters expressed concern about the negative impact that the IFR would have on families. Some commenters said that employment lapses would result in financial insecurity for households. Some commenters specifically expressed concern that the IFR would cause significant financial hardship for families, including those who depend on dual incomes to meet basic needs such as mortgage payments, rent, childcare, healthcare, food, transportation, and other living expenses. A commenter said that the IFR could force family separation. A commenter remarked that a lapse in employment authorization would affect nonimmigrants' ability to travel and visit or take care of sick family members. Another commenter wrote that work authorization gaps would disproportionately affect households where women care for children, elders, and disabled family members.

Several commenters expressed concern regarding the IFR's specific impact on children. For example, commenters shared that employment gaps would hinder their ability to provide care for their special needs children. A commenter remarked that families that continually face unmet needs endure stress that can impact the long-term health and development of children. Similarly, another commenter wrote that if household income is interrupted, children could lose their access to stable food, shelter, healthcare, and education “overnight.” The commenter reasoned that, as a result, children whose parents lack stable work authorization are more likely to suffer from poor overall health, and have a greater likelihood of hospitalization, school absenteeism, and disciplinary issues. Commenters remarked that food insecurity from disrupted wages would contribute to conditions such as hypertension and diabetes and said that children from poor families are four times as likely to be in “less than very good health” than children from wealthier families. Another commenter similarly remarked that they anticipate U.S. citizen children with an immigrant parent to be particularly impacted by the IFR.

A few commenters said that the IFR poses humanitarian difficulties and challenges aliens' rights to pursue dignified work, as well as the American Dream. Other commenters said that the IFR is inhumane and erodes trust in the immigration system, while others stated it sends the message that working aliens are dispensable.

One commenter stated that many EAD applicants are victims of disasters abroad and do not need to face further hardship. Similarly, multiple commenters stated that aliens come to the United States fleeing conflict or persecution and described automatic work authorization as “a lifeline.” Another commenter described the IFR's removal of automatic extensions of EAD validity periods as an unlawful form of coercion, stating that it will make life in the United States unbearable for aliens. A few commenters expressed concerns about the IFR causing potential discrimination in the hiring process. For example, a couple of commenters expressed concern that employers would not hire employees who are dependent on work authorization, due to potential disruptions from processing delays. One commenter remarked that the automatic extension policy helps level the hiring playing field against potential discrimination.

A couple of commenters remarked that many nonimmigrant families live on modest wages and may not have enough saved up to supplement a gap in income. One commenter added that, since asylum seekers are not eligible for federal benefits, this group would be left particularly vulnerable.

Some commenters also expressed concerns that nonimmigrants would lose benefits such as unemployment insurance and employer sponsored health coverage during employment authorization gaps. One commenter said that many nonimmigrants rely on EADs to demonstrate their eligibility to purchase healthcare on the Healthcare Marketplace. Multiple commenters added that, without health care coverage, aliens may be more likely to avoid treating health conditions and seeking preventive services. Commenters remarked that this would consequently increase use of emergency rooms and urgent care and expose nonimmigrant populations to medical debt. Additional commenters remarked that the 2025 tax and budget law, Public Law 119-21, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” will further limit health coverage for aliens, and expressed concern for resulting health outcomes, citing several articles which demonstrated correlation between one's ability to afford health insurance and their health outcomes. One commenter also remarked that some medical insurance plans require minor children to have an unexpired EAD for coverage.

Many commenters expressed concerns about the impact that the IFR would have on public resources. Commenters reasoned that loss of income would have to be supplemented by increased reliance on public assistance programs, charity, and other community or humanitarian services. For example, commenters said that the IFR would increase demand for services like food pantries, emergency shelters, clothing or donation centers, and community health centers. A few commenters remarked that these resources are already strained, particularly after having absorbed the spillover from shrinking federal assistance programs. One commenter remarked that cities in Maine are already exceeding their general assistance funds and cannot afford additional strain on resources. The commenter added that alien workers fill vital roles at social service agencies, working as translators, interpreters, case managers, and cultural brokers. The commenter reasoned that loss of these workers would exacerbate the strain on these agencies, predicting that if the alien workers face a lapse in EAD validity, they may then turn to the social service agency for help. The commenter added that local support services such as food banks have already seen an uptick in demand over the past year.

Several commenters expressed concern that nonprofit legal providers would see an overwhelming increase in demand for services. Similarly, some commenters said that crisis-driven requests require timely responses and cannot be integrated into existing caseloads without sacrificing key legal services, and that shouldering more of these cases would cause stress to their organization and divert attention away from humanitarian case preparation.

Response: DHS recognizes that lapses in employment authorization can create real hardship for affected aliens, their families, their employers and the communities in which they live. Commenters described risks such as job loss, reduced income, housing and food insecurity, loss of health coverage, strain on community resources, educational disruption, and negative impacts on children and family stability, particularly for households

relying on dual incomes or modest wages. DHS is also mindful of other disruptions that a temporary lapse in employment authorization of an alien may bring, including for those who may rely on an automatic extension to obtain REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and other forms of identification.

DHS considered these concerns before issuing the IFR \84\ and again in finalizing this rule. However, DHS has concluded that the need to ensure proper vetting and screening, and continued eligibility, before granting renewed employment authorization and issuing secure evidence of that authorization outweighs the risk that some applicants might experience a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. DHS also determined that extending this benefit without updated adjudication and screening is inconsistent with its mission and with E.O.s \85\ directing DHS to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to unauthorized aliens and that aliens in the United States are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.

\84\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\85\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025) and 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).

Nevertheless, DHS emphasizes that this rule does not eliminate eligibility for employment authorization or prevent eligible aliens from obtaining initial or renewal EADs. Rather, it ends the practice of automatically extending employment authorization and/or EAD validity for up to 540 days based solely on the filing of a renewal application, without completion of adjudicative review and related vetting, including resolution of any derogatory information. Continued employment authorization will now depend on USCIS' approval of a renewal application, after USCIS has determined that the alien continues to be eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable.

This rule also does not change underlying eligibility standards for immigration benefits, public benefits, or educational programs, and it does not restrict aliens from seeking assistance for which they are otherwise eligible under Federal or State law. Certain categories of aliens, such as refugees and asylees, remain “qualified aliens” for specified public benefits under existing statutes, and those authorities are unchanged by this rule. Likewise, this rule does not alter the ability of States, localities, or private organizations to provide charitable or humanitarian assistance.

DHS also notes that, independent of this rule, it has taken steps to reduce the extraordinary EAD filing volumes driven by prior policies, including narrowing the use of parole and aligning TPS designations with statutory criteria. DHS expects that overall EAD filing rates (initial and renewal) will substantially decline because of those actions, freeing adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD application processing times. For example, initial and renewal EAD applications for the largest EAD categories that were formerly eligible for automatic extensions have significantly reduced since the start of 2025. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

Accordingly, the decreased EAD filing rates support the point made in the IFR that any claims about an increase in the number and duration of employment authorization and/or EAD lapses are speculative and outweighed by the harm posed by automatic extensions.

USCIS also publishes current case processing time information on its website.\86\ Proper planning by applicants, such as monitoring EAD expiration dates, consulting posted processing times, and filing renewal applications as soon as permitted by regulation and form instructions, can further mitigate the risk and duration of any lapses in employment authorization.

\86\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info (last visited Apr. 22, 2026).

Overall, DHS recognizes the seriousness of the hardships described by commenters but concludes that, on balance, the national security, public safety, and benefit integrity interests served by ending automatic EAD extensions outweigh the potential adverse impacts associated with temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. b. Mental Health and Vulnerability, Including Risk of Exploitation

Comment: Commenters asserted that employment gaps due to the lack of automatic extensions and processing delays will exacerbate stress, trauma, and anxiety, and may push some aliens into unauthorized or exploitative employment or unsafe living conditions.

Multiple commenters remarked that the IFR would instill fear, stress, depression, and anxiety, among other mental health concerns. One commenter asserted that some of the immigrant population is already experiencing significant levels of trauma and stress from immigration enforcement activity, and that the IFR would only exacerbate such feelings.

Many commenters shared concerns about nonimmigrants' increased level of vulnerability to exploitation by employers and landlords, as well as human trafficking, sexual harm, and abuse owing to the IFR's elimination of automatic extensions. For example, multiple commenters said that loss of employment authorization makes nonimmigrants vulnerable to exploitative working conditions. Some commenters remarked that if aliens lose their ability to work legally, they may seek under the table work or unlawful employment. Commenters warned that this leaves such individuals vulnerable to exploitation, explaining that these jobs often have lower wages, minimal labor protections, and abusive conditions which they may be afraid to report due to unlawful status. They also indicated that 84.9 percent of unauthorized immigrants reported not being paid time and a half for overtime labor, and 37.1 percent reported being victims of minimum wage violations. The commenter added that many employers of unauthorized workers do not carry workers compensation insurance, meaning that employees may be responsible for covering their own medical costs in the case of work- related injury. The commenter added that since USCIS recently ended a program that protected whistleblowers, unauthorized employees are now less likely to report various types of abuse. A different commenter added that forcing applicants into unlawful employment may also impact their eligibility for future immigration benefits, putting them in a long-term position of vulnerability.

Response: DHS recognizes that uncertainty about employment authorization and potential lapses in income can contribute to stress, anxiety, and other mental health challenges, particularly for individuals who may already have experienced trauma or instability. DHS also recognizes that economic insecurity and lack of lawful employment opportunities can increase vulnerability to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, landlords, or others, and may heighten risks of trafficking, abuse, or other harm.

The IFR and this final rule do not deny eligible aliens access to employment authorization or to the underlying immigration benefits for which they qualify. Rather the IFR, affirmed by this final rule, removes only the automatic extension mechanism that previously allowed aliens to remain employment authorized for up to 540

days based solely on a pending renewal application, without completion of updated vetting and adjudication. As described throughout this preamble, DHS has determined that such automatic extensions present an unacceptable security and program integrity risk because they confer significant benefits before USCIS has completed vetting and screening, resolved any derogatory information, determined continued eligibility and that the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable.

DHS cannot structure its regulatory framework on the assumption that aliens and/or employers will respond to temporary lapses in employment authorization by engaging in unauthorized employment or other unlawful conduct. The INA prohibits the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens and establishes consequences for both employers and aliens who violate those provisions. While DHS recognizes that some aliens may face difficult choices if a lapse occurs, DHS does not condone unauthorized employment or believe that it is an appropriate response to a temporary lapse in employment authorization.

DHS shares commenters' concerns about exploitation and abuse. DHS, including through components such as ICE and USCIS' fraud detection and victim protection programs, will continue to enforce laws related to human trafficking, forced labor, and other forms of exploitation, and to coordinate with the Department of Labor and other agencies on enforcement. Existing protections for victims of trafficking, crime, and abuse (including T and U nonimmigrant classifications and VAWA) are unaffected by this rule. Nothing in this rule diminishes DHS's commitment to identify and assist victims or to support the investigation and prosecution of traffickers and other offenders.

DHS recognizes that some aliens may experience heightened stress or vulnerability if their employment authorization temporarily lapses. However, DHS has concluded that the need to ensure that employment authorization is extended only after appropriate vetting and adjudication, consistent with current national security and public safety priorities, justifies ending automatic extensions. DHS also expects that reductions in overall EAD filing volumes may help limit the frequency and length of lapses and that timely filing and planning by applicants can further reduce uncertainty. For reduced filing volumes, see Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble. c. Identification, Driver's Licenses, and Access to Services

Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that lapses in employment authorization and the associated use of employment authorization documents would hinder nonimmigrants' abilities to obtain or renew their driver's licenses, open and access bank accounts, obtain or renew health insurance, enroll in educational programs and training, and interact with law enforcement. Commenters remarked that lack of a driver's license could interfere with critical daily activities for nonimmigrants, such as taking children to school, commuting to work, or attending doctors' appointments or immigration hearings. A few commenters shared that in many cases, nonimmigrants require driver's licenses to perform their job duties and that, without a valid driver's license, nonimmigrants may be pushed to drive without a license, compromising road safety.

Response: DHS acknowledges that EADs are commonly used by aliens as identity and, in some contexts, status documents for State-issued driver's licenses and identification cards, financial services, and other purposes. Under the prior automatic extension framework, an EAD that was facially expired could be treated as unexpired for certain purposes if accompanied by a Form I-797C receipt notice, including obtaining a driver's license. As explained in the IFR, DHS determined that continuing that practice and the use of automatically extended EADs is no longer appropriate.

This rule does not change State authority to determine which documents are acceptable for issuance of driver's licenses or other State identification, nor does it amend the Department's REAL ID regulations for issuance of driver's licenses or identification cards acceptable for federal official purposes defined in the REAL ID Act. It does, however, make clear that, for renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025, a pending Form I-765 and associated receipt notice will no longer operate to automatically extend EAD validity under DHS regulations. An EAD that is facially expired will not be treated as unexpired for employment or immigration purposes unless it qualifies for an automatic extension under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) based on a renewal application filed before October 30, 2025, or is otherwise extended by law or an applicable Federal Register notice (for example, certain TPS-related documents).

The rule does not prevent eligible aliens from seeking or renewing EADs, nor does it prohibit States or other entities from accepting alternative forms of identification or documentation where permitted by law.

DHS also expects that, as overall EAD filing volumes decline and renewal processing times improve, the risk and duration of lapses will be reduced. USCIS has already seen a decline in filing rates for the main EAD categories that were eligible for automatic extensions. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

DHS concludes that the security and benefit integrity gains from ensuring that EADs used as evidence of identity and work authorization reflect a recent adjudication and completed vetting outweigh the potential risks associated with discontinuing automatic extensions. ii. Employment, Employers, and Economic Impacts a. Employer Burdens, Business Continuity, and Sector Specific Concerns

Comment: Multiple commenters argued that loss of automatic extensions will increase Form I-9 compliance complexity, cause turnover and productivity losses, exacerbate existing shortages in health care, education, agriculture, manufacturing, etc., and impose particular burdens on small employers.

Commenters expressed opposition to removing automatic extensions, stating that such a change would cause significant disruption to employers, including operational inefficiencies (loss of productivity and delays), administrative burdens, staffing gaps, human capital costs and retention, civil penalties, and compliance burdens as employees await renewal decisions without work authorization. A few commenters stated that employers could violate Form I-9 compliance rules due to unclear authorization statuses.

Multiple commenters asserted that the IFR would exacerbate existing labor shortages and projected a continued decrease in labor force participation rates through at least 2030, cautioning that the IFR could worsen such shortages by preventing asylum seekers from working during EAD processing and removing vetted workers. One commenter stated that labor shortages would negatively impact the U.S. economy, hinder growth and contribute to inflationary pressures. Another commenter stated that a decline of 2 million immigrant workers between 2019 and 2021 contributed to labor

shortages across sectors, including a labor shortage in the construction industry valued at $10.8 billion, reasoning that the IFR would replicate such labor shortages across every industry. A commenter stated that until public and private sector efforts could fully meet industry demand, the United States would need additional workers to fill jobs left vacant by the domestic workforce, expressing concern that ending the EAD extension could further disrupt workforce stability and business continuity for manufacturers. Many commenters stated that the removal of automatic extensions would negatively impact critical industries and sectors of the U.S. economy that rely on foreign workers, including agriculture, technology, energy, manufacturing, logistics, transportation, hospitality, education, and construction. Several commenters expressed concern about the impact on healthcare and healthcare workers, noting that even a brief lapse in employment authorization disrupts patient care, clinic operations, and community health access. One commenter remarked about how the IFR will adversely affect teaching hospitals and academic health systems that employ EAD workers.

Other commenters expressed concerns that the IFR would undermine labor unions, collective bargaining, and workforce stability by disrupting bargaining units that include immigrant workers with EADs, stating that increased risk of sudden job loss among workers would strain unions' ability to enforce workplace standards, forcing them to devote more resources to protecting vulnerable workers and addressing instability caused by the IFR.

Multiple commenters expressed the importance of automatic extensions for business continuity amid persistent government processing delays and stated that the IFR would impose unnecessary burdens and costs, especially on smaller companies without in-house legal departments. Some commenters stated that the rule would force employers to conduct extensive contingency planning and workforce audits to prepare for potential lapses in work authorization. Specifically, a commenter stated that groups such as asylees, who are authorized to work incident to status, may still be asked to show an EAD to their employer, and further reasoned that the IFR could still cause employer confusion and job loss among these groups. Other commenters stated that eliminating automatic EAD extensions would cause businesses to lose workers and cited to a USCIS analysis establishing that EAD extensions previously saved U.S. employers an estimated $3.5 billion by avoiding labor turnover.

Numerous commenters expressed concern that employers would be forced to terminate employees due to administrative delays in processing EAD renewals. Commenters stated that previous sudden reversals of work permit rules have created confusion for employers and caused them to make rash decisions based on misinformation about changing Federal regulations, leading to erroneous layoffs where workers with valid EADs were dismissed because employers did not understand how to comply with current rules. A commenter said that such impacts would exacerbate the ongoing teacher shortage crisis.

Response: DHS recognizes that some sectors, including healthcare, education, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality, and technology, and unionized workplaces may be particularly sensitive to interruptions in workforce continuity.

This rule does not change employers' underlying obligations under section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, and 8 CFR part 274a to hire only individuals who are authorized to work in the United States, to verify employment eligibility, and to reverify employment authorization when existing documentation expires.

By ending automatic extensions for renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 2025, this rule ensures that employment authorization will be evidenced by a secure, unexpired document issued following adjudication. This reduces the risk that employers will rely on outdated or invalid documentation, and it aligns with DHS's responsibility to ensure that employment authorization and/or an EAD is provided only after USCIS has completed appropriate vetting and determined continued eligibility.

To ensure that workplaces and businesses have a clear understanding of the requirements of the IFR, DHS has updated the Handbook for Employers (M-274) and related guidance to assist employers in understanding these changes and properly completing Form I-9. Employers are responsible for ensuring I-9 compliance for all of their employees, including updates to the I-9 verification process.\87\

\87\ 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.

DHS acknowledges that, where renewal adjudications are not completed before current EADs expire, some employers may face temporary staffing gaps and associated costs. These can include lost productivity, overtime for remaining staff, recruitment and training for temporary or replacement workers, and internal administrative costs associated with planning, auditing, and compliance. DHS discussed these categories of impacts in the IFR and in the economic analysis accompanying this rule and recognizes there may be negative impacts for some employers.\88\ DHS outlined the difficulties in estimating the number of EADs that would lapse in the Section V.B.1. of this preamble. However, in this final rule DHS has made estimates of economic impacts and emphasizes that there is likely to be variation in the impacts, due to factors such as dynamic process times, filing volumes, and filing behavior. For this reason, DHS provides a wide range for the estimates.

\88\ See 90 FR 48799, 48817 (Oct. 30, 2025). See also Section V of this preamble.

DHS has determined that these operational burdens are outweighed by the national security, public safety, and benefit integrity concerns associated with automatic EAD extensions. Automatic EAD extensions allow employment authorization and/or EAD validity to continue for up to 540 days based solely on a pending renewal application, before USCIS has completed updated background checks and adjudication. Considering current security priorities and E.O.s directing enhanced vetting of aliens already present in the United States, DHS has concluded that continued reliance on automatic extensions is not an acceptable means of managing adjudication backlogs.

Independent of this rule, DHS has taken steps expected to reduce initial and renewal EAD filing volumes by narrowing the use of parole and aligning TPS and related policies with statutory text. As discussed previously in response to comments, DHS anticipates that overall EAD filings will decline and that adjudicative capacity can increasingly be focused on timely renewal adjudications.

DHS notes that an applicant may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of an application that is under USCIS jurisdiction.\89\ USCIS considers all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and generally requires documentation to support such

requests.\90\ The decision to expedite is within the sole discretion of USCIS.\91\ Expediting a case generally means that USCIS would adjudicate a benefit ahead of others, including those who may have filed earlier, so USCIS carefully weighs the urgency and merit of each expedite request.\92\

\89\ See USCIS, Expedite Requests, https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests (last updated Sep. 8, 2026).

\90\ See id.

\91\ See id.

\92\ See id.

DHS recognizes the concerns raised by employers, unions, and industry groups and will continue to monitor implementation and processing times. Nonetheless, DHS concludes that ensuring that renewed employment authorization is granted only after complete vetting and adjudication is necessary to better protect national security and public safety and to enhance the integrity of the employment verification system. Adhering to a system that prioritizes national security, public safety, and benefit integrity outweighs the potential risks and additional burdens that applicants and their employers may face by a potential temporary lapse in employment authorization. b. Immigrant Contributions to the Economy and Macroeconomic and Local Economic Impacts of the Rule

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that the IFR ignores the vital economic contributions of immigrants, and operational realities that the work authorization is a critical tool to successfully integrate aliens into the United States and contribute to the economy. Commenters also stated that the IFR is disrupting businesses that employ these aliens and thereby losing the economic contribution of immigrants. For example, commenters discussed the positive impacts that asylees and refugees make to the U.S. economy and stated that this population contributed more revenue than they cost in expenditures to the U.S. government. Another commenter said that in 2023, New York State's immigrant population represented about 23 percent of the total population and paid $74.8 billion in taxes, thus demonstrating that immigrants are productive members of the workforce. The commenter also stated that a lapse in employment authorization could mean that they would lose their homes, face hunger, contribute less taxes to state and the federal government or would otherwise become vulnerable (such as incurring negative health effects). Another commenter said that immigrant workers are a key driver of New York City's economy, making up 36 percent of the population; accounting for 37 percent of total wage, salary, and business income; and in 2021, contributed tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes and spending to the city and state. An additional commenter identified in-migration of workers, including asylum seekers and other immigrants, as one of the few positive trends offsetting the rapid exit of older workers and emphasized that many economic development strategies depend on immigrants' continuous access to work authorization. Other commenters highlighted potential impacts on the economy, pointing out that asylum seekers and refugees work in sectors that face shortages and pay billions in taxes, and that immigrants will add $7 trillion to the economy over the next decade.

Commenters raised concerns about the macroeconomic impacts of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs, such as undermining U.S. economic competitiveness, innovation capacity, and national interests by forcing workers into temporary unemployment. Other commenters predicted that the IFR would lead to negative economic impacts, including reduced tax revenue, costs to taxpayers, supply chain disruptions, reduced consumer spending, the risk of a recession, and job losses. Some commenters expressed general concern that the IFR will reduce economic productivity and destabilize the workforce and the economy, considering that one in five U.S. workers is an immigrant who relies on EADs.

Commenters said that the IFR would significantly increase States' healthcare costs by driving up the uninsured rate among immigrants, who already face limited access to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. The commenters remarked that with lapses in work authorization eliminating employer-sponsored insurance, States could bear nearly $280 billion in uncompensated care costs. The commenters also stated that the IFR would adversely impact the States' ability to enforce their laws, reasoning that legal workers with lapses in work authorization would increasingly enter the underground economy and become less likely to report labor and civil rights violations and discussed how this would interfere with the States' ability to enforce their labor and civil rights laws, because effective enforcement relies on employees' ability and willingness to report violations.

A commenter said the IFR would have significant negative consequences on the federal budget and federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Labor (DOL) because the IFR would reduce the amount of taxable income reported to the IRS when applicants face prolonged lapses in employment authorization, diminishing federal revenue and complicating federal fiscal projections. The commenter further asserted that cutting off work authorization for aliens awaiting renewal would push thousands of workers into unauthorized employment or out of the workforce entirely and consequently increase DOL's investigatory burdens.

Furthermore, commenters highlighted a range of potential negative impacts on the local and state economy, such as disrupting the workforce and hindering an alien's ability to maintain consistent employment, which, in turn, could directly affect essential community services, including infrastructure projects, healthcare, and public safety. A commenter highlighted that immigrants play a major role in entrepreneurship. Another commenter remarked that Maine stands to lose an economic boom they are currently experiencing if immigrant workers lose work authorization.

While expressing concerns about the impacts the IFR's regulatory changes would have on the economy, multiple commenters requested a return to previous practices allowing automatic extension of EAD validity periods.

Response: DHS agrees that immigrants, including aliens who were eligible for the automatic extension of their employment authorization and/or EAD for up to 540 days, make important contributions to the national and local economies through their labor, entrepreneurship, tax payments, and consumer spending; and that continuity of lawful employment can benefit workers, employers, and communities. DHS also acknowledges the many cited studies, data points, and experiences to support their claims about these contributions.

As the commenters noted, prior DHS rulemakings, including the 2022 and 2024 temporary final rules and the 2024 final rule, emphasized the economic and operational benefits of automatic extensions as a tool to mitigate the effects of EAD processing delays. Those rules estimated that automatic extensions could reduce wage losses for affected workers, avoid turnover costs for employers, and maintain tax contributions that might otherwise be impacted by lapses in employment authorization. In adopting those measures, DHS gave significant weight to the economic and labor market

advantages of continuity of employment.

The IFR and this final rule in contrast reflect a reassessment of that policy and how to balance those economic considerations against DHS's core responsibilities for national security, public safety, and benefit integrity. DHS has determined that continued use of automatic extensions, which allow employment authorization and the related use of secure documentation to continue for up to 540 days based solely on the filing of a renewal application, before USCIS has completed updated vetting, resolved any derogatory information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable, is not consistent with DHS's current policy priorities reflected in, among others, E.O. 14159 \93\ and 14161.\94\ Those E.O.s direct DHS to vet and screen aliens already present in the United States to the maximum degree possible, to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to unauthorized aliens, and to identify all resources that may be used to ensure that all aliens who are already in the United States, are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.

\93\ See Executive Order 14159 “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025)

\94\ See Executive Order 14161, “Protecting the United States from Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” 90 FR 8451 (Jan. 31, 2025). See also Presidential Proclamation 10949, “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To Protect the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” 90 FR 24497 (June 10, 2025).

Accordingly, ending the practice of providing automatic extension of employment authorization documents 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 continue to be eligible (and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable) for employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the alien. DHS emphasizes that it 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 economy.\95\ In light of these directives, DHS is now placing greater weight on security and benefit integrity considerations.

\95\ 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 prohibit 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.R. REP. 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.R. REP. 99-682, 46-52, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5656.

DHS recognizes that ending automatic extensions may result in temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity for some renewal applicants if the adjudication of their renewal EAD application is not completed before their current EAD expires. Those lapses can lead to lost wages for affected workers, lost output and turnover costs for employers, and associated reductions in payroll and income tax contributions for the duration of the lapse. DHS also acknowledges that such impacts may be more pronounced in certain localities, sectors, or communities where EAD holders represent a substantial share of the workforce, and that employers and governments may face transitional challenges as they adjust to this change.

While DHS faces uncertainty in projecting the size of any future affected population and the magnitude of resulting macroeconomic impacts, under several assumptions DHS has estimated the impacted population and cost-impacts for a specific window of time. As explained in the IFR and earlier in this preamble, EAD processing times have fluctuated over recent years due to changes in application volumes, programmatic policies, resource levels, and court orders. DHS has also undertaken significant policy changes, such as narrowing the use of parole and better aligning TPS and related programs with statutory criteria, that are expected to materially reduce initial and renewal EAD filings over time. Given this evolving environment, DHS estimates of the number of renewal applicants who might experience lapses in the absence of automatic extensions population, and the resultant impact estimates, likely face significant variation. For this reason, we clearly articulate the assumptions and inputs relied upon to make the estimates and provide ranges for them.

With respect to commenters' concerns about reduced tax revenues and increased uncompensated care, DHS acknowledges that lower earned income during periods when some workers are not employed could reduce certain tax payments and contributions toward employer-sponsored health coverage for those individuals. At the same time, total tax receipts and healthcare costs depend on numerous factors across the broader economy, and DHS cannot attribute or forecast such aggregate effects with sufficient precision to support a quantitative estimate specific to this rule.

DHS also does not agree that ending automatic extensions will necessitate or require a shift of large numbers of workers into unauthorized employment.\96\ While DHS acknowledges that unauthorized work can create an underground labor market where exploitation is more likely and enforcement more difficult, this rule does not require or condone unauthorized employment. The INA prohibits the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens and establishes consequences for both employers and aliens who engage in such conduct. See INA sec. 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a; 8 CFR part 274a. DHS will continue to enforce those provisions, as well as coordinate with the Department of Labor and other agencies on labor-rights enforcement and protection of workers, regardless of immigration status. Nothing in this rule alters existing worker-protection authorities or the ability of Federal, State, or local entities to investigate and remedy labor law violations.

\96\ The final rule making the up to 540-day automatic extension period permanent was based on speculative assumptions given the operational realities at USCIS at the time. 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”).

DHS further notes that this rule does not change underlying eligibility criteria for employment authorization or prevent renewal applicants from obtaining employment authorization and/or an EAD. Eligible aliens remain able to apply for and receive renewed EADs, and, once those renewals are approved, continue contributing economically through lawful employment. DHS expects that other policy changes that DHS has made will reduce EAD filing volumes, and when combined with ongoing process improvements and careful resource allocation within USCIS, will lessen the frequency and duration of any future lapses in employment authorization and/or EADs.\97\ DHS has seen falling

numbers of I-765 applications since October 2025. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

\97\ See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble for numbers of I-765 applicants from the largest eligibility categories, the C08 and C09, from January 2025 to June 2026.

Renewal applicants can further reduce their risk of a temporary lapse in employment authorization by filing as early as permitted under applicable regulations and form instructions, ensuring that their application includes all evidence needed to establish continued eligibility so that processing is not delayed by a Request for Evidence, and by keeping informed of current processing-time information posted by USCIS.\98\ Proper planning by applicants, together with anticipated reductions in overall EAD demand, may help mitigate the extent of any temporary disruptions.

\98\ USCIS publishes case processing times on USCIS.gov that are regularly updated. See USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times (last visited May 8, 2026).

As discussed above, DHS believes the public safety, national security and benefit-integrity benefits of eliminating automatic extensions outweigh the potential macroeconomic and local economic costs identified by commenters. Ending the practice of providing automatic extension of employment authorization documents 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 continue to be eligible (and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable) for employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the alien. iii. Relief for Specific Immigration Categories a. Impact on Refugees, Asylees, Asylum Seekers, Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs), and Other Humanitarian Categories

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that refugees, asylees, TPS beneficiaries, VAWA self-petitioners, and unaccompanied children will be disproportionately harmed by gaps in work authorization because of their vulnerability, limited access to public benefits, which makes work authorization crucial to their wellbeing, and reliance on work to support themselves, safety, and integration. A commenter indicated that the IFR would not only destabilize the workforce, but would inflict unconscionable distress and cause lasting harm to refugees, asylees (including those with pending claims) and other humanitarian entrants and their families, solely on account of the government's processing delay and the impact of lapses in employment on this population.

Some commenters expressed concern that asylum seekers of specific nationalities including Haitians, Ukrainians, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Afghans were disproportionally affected by the IFR. Additionally, some of these commenters indicated that these aliens did not enter through an unknown or informal process but known, vetted and humanitarian programs, and are law-abiding and productive individuals that benefited the government and the economy. For that reason--while at the same time acknowledging the Department's interest in benefit integrity, security vetting, and aligning policies with recent executive directives emphasizing enforcement and careful screening, a commenter advocated for a narrow, risk-sensitive approach that preserves the core logic of the interim final rule while avoiding an “all or nothing” outcome for the vetted humanitarian population.

Another commenter remarked that the removal of the automatic extension of EADs would have severe consequences for those obtaining status through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in particular Asian American and Pacific Islander women, who are particularly vulnerable to these harms, as work interruptions can force them into unsafe situations or dependence on abusive partners. Others indicated that access to employment authorization offers safety, stability, and a better quality of life for survivors of gender-based violence. One commenter explained that abusers commonly misuse the immigration system, for example, by threatening to withhold, withdraw, or sabotage immigration filings, as a means of control and intimidation, and predicted the rule would exacerbate this problem. This submission called attention to backlogs in adjudicating EAD renewal applications and predicted hardships for survivors and families due to lapses in employment.

A commenter expressed concern that unaccompanied children and youth would be negatively impacted. The commenter said that young protection seekers, even those not yet eligible to work, often rely on EADs as a form of government identification to access essential social services and care such as psychological, education, and housing services. The commenter also said that EADs “facilitate critical access to jobs and training opportunities for older youth.”

Response: DHS understands that refugees, asylees, asylum applicants, TPS beneficiaries, VAWA self-petitioners, unaccompanied children, and other humanitarian populations may be particularly vulnerable to hardship if they experience lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. As recognized in the IFR for purposes of all applicants, including those in humanitarian programs, DHS is cognizant that a lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD validity may impact individual aliens, and their families. Many applicants in the United States may have fled persecution, violence, or disaster, may have limited access to public benefits, and often rely heavily on employment authorization to support themselves and their families and to integrate into their communities.

This rule does not eliminate access to employment authorization for any of these categories. Refugees and asylees (not including asylum applicants) remain employment authorized incident to their status under 8 CFR 274a.12(a); they may continue to work so long as they maintain that status, regardless of the expiration date on any EAD issued as evidence of that authorization. Similarly, aliens with a pending asylum application may apply for employment authorization in accordance with the regulations provided at 8 CFR part 208 and 8 CFR part 274a. TPS beneficiaries likewise receive employment authorization consistent with section 244 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and its implementing regulations at 8 CFR 244, and TPS-related extensions of documentation may continue to be provided by law or Federal Register notice. This rule does not change those underlying eligibility frameworks.

The IFR and this final rule simply end the practice of automatically extending the validity of EADs and, for categories not authorized incident to status, attendant employment authorization based solely on the filing of a renewal application on or after October 30, 2025, except where extensions are provided by law or Federal Register notice (such as certain TPS-related documents). DHS has determined that automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs, even for vulnerable populations, present the same underlying concern: they allow continued employment authorization and use of secure documentation for up to 540 days based solely on a pending renewal application, before USCIS has determined continued eligibility and that the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion (if applicable) in

light of any new information, including potential criminal or other derogatory information.

Consistent with Executive Orders \99\ and the Department's mission, DHS does not believe that it is reasonable to maintain a separate automatic extension regime for particular categories of applicants, while at the same time addressing this core security and benefit integrity issue. Even a risk-based approach for humanitarian programs, as a commenter suggested, would fail to address the core concern that some aliens could continue employment authorization, and potentially use associated documents to obtain other benefits, without updated vetting and adjudication. The Department has instead chosen a uniform approach that applies the same principle across affected categories.

\99\ See Executive Order 14159 “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025); Executive Order 14161, “Protecting the United States from Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” 90 FR 8451 (Jan. 31, 2025); Presidential Proclamation 10949, “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals To Protect the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” 90 FR 24497 (June 10, 2025).

DHS acknowledges that some asylum applicants and other humanitarian applicants may experience temporary lapses in employment authorization if renewal adjudications are not completed before their current EADs expire. Asylum applicants, in particular, may have limited access to public benefits under existing statutes, and gaps in income may be difficult to absorb. DHS considered these factors but concluded that they did not outweigh the need to ensure that each renewal of employment authorization and/or an EAD is granted only after USCIS has completed appropriate vetting and determined that the applicant continues to be eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable.

DHS notes that, separate from this rule, asylum and refugee status confers or may lead to eligibility for certain public benefits under existing law, and certain other vulnerable groups may be eligible for specialized support programs.\100\ Those frameworks are not altered by this rule.

\100\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Domestic Violence Fact Sheet (discussing access to HHS funded services for immigrant survivors of domestic violence), https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/national-origin/domestic-violence/index.html (last revised Aug. 22, 2012).

In addition, DHS has taken steps to reduce incentives for frivolous or non-meritorious filings that might delay adjudications for bona fide humanitarian applicants, thereby seeking to improve processing for those with meritorious claims. For example, in the past four years, USCIS has seen alarming new filing trends, including a 360% overall increase in VAWA self-petition filings.\101\ When unqualified aliens misuse the VAWA program, it causes significant processing delays, harming survivors with legitimate claims.\102\ On December 22, 2025, USCIS took steps to address these issues by updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to streamline and clarify the expectations of submitted evidence and reduce the need for Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny, among other clarifying changes.\103\

\101\ See USCIS, USCIS Restores Integrity to the VAWA Domestic Abuse Program After Finding Rampant Fraud, https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-restores-integrity-to-the-vawa-domestic-abuse-program-after-finding-rampant-fraud (last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

\102\ Id.

\103\ See USCIS, USCIS Policy Alert: Violence Against Women Act, PA-2025-33 (last updated Dec. 22, 2025).

With respect to unaccompanied children and youth, this rule does not change any statutory protections or procedural safeguards applicable to that population.\104\ To the extent that employment- eligible unaccompanied children and youth seek EADs to participate in job training opportunities for valid employment purposes, they remain eligible to apply and, if approved, to work consistent with existing regulations. The IFR and this final rule do not impact or prevent the use of valid EADs as identity documents; they simply end the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization documents for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in certain employment authorization categories filed on or after October 30, 2025.

\104\ See, e.g., William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457 (Dec. 23, 2008).

DHS recognizes the heightened vulnerability of humanitarian populations and will continue to administer those programs consistent with statutory protections and humanitarian objectives. However, DHS concludes that the core principle underlying this rule, namely that renewed employment authorization should not be automatically extended without fully completing the adjudicative review and the related vetting, including resolution of any derogatory information identified during the vetting process--must be applied consistently across affected categories to fulfill DHS's national security, public safety, and benefit integrity responsibilities. As explained in detail in the IFR, granting benefits without fully completing the adjudicative review, which includes proper vetting, is contrary to the statutory mission of DHS and poses a threat to the safety and security of the American people.\105\

\105\ See, e.g., 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 (Oct. 9, 2004), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (recommending, among other things, the creation of an organization to conduct “law enforcement/background checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to granting immigration benefits.”).