Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization Documents

Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern about the removal of automatic extensions of EADs for H-4 dependent spouses. Some commenters said that eliminating automatic EAD renewal disproportionately harms women, who make up most H-4 EAD holders. Multiple commenters raised concerns that H-4 nonimmigrants are dependent on their spouses' H-1B status, creating vulnerabilities.

A number of commenters remarked that current processing times for H-4 EAD applications frequently exceed the recommended filing time of 180 days prior to the current EAD's expiration and argued the removal of automatic extensions would result in many aliens losing employment authorization and facing unavoidable work gaps. Commenters said that delays in H-1B processing, from either the Department of Labor or DHS, could adversely affect an H-4 nonimmigrant's status and application for an EAD, complicating timely filing.

Other commenters suggested that removing the automatic extension would significantly reduce the employability of H-4 nonimmigrants and will cause adverse effects including family income and savings disruption, termination of health insurance for spouses and children, possible eviction or inability to meet mortgage obligations, psychological stress and medical hardship, administrative burden on employers managing I-9 reverifications, and work interruptions.

Other commenters said that H-4 EAD holders contribute significantly to the economy through their specialized work and through taxes; have been thoroughly vetted by USCIS; and are actively contributing to their

communities. The commenters indicated that the lack of a reasonable extension period for a fully vetted and documented population of legal residents is counterproductive to the goals of a stable immigration system. Therefore, one commenter urged DHS to reconsider this IFR, or revert to the previous duration of the automatic extension or extend it to at least 240 days, to align with the current USCIS processing timelines or exempt certain categories like C26 and other legal resident categories who are already vetted multiple times.

Other commenters highlighted the effects of the IFR on business as they are relying on a stable and authorized workforce to meet client commitments, drive innovation, and support U.S. economic growth. This commenter concluded that the IFR would primarily affect H-4 and L-2 dependents whose EAD renewals already face significant processing delays, which in turn disrupts projects, increases administrative burdens and cause significant financial and emotional distress to the employees and their families. Many also believed that they could lose their authorization to work, impacting them and the U.S. citizens they employ. Many urged USCIS to retain the automatic extensions to reduce backlogs and improve adjudication, reduce disruptions to businesses, including small-businesses, and increase America's global competitiveness.

Response: This rule does not change the underlying eligibility of H-4, L-2, or other employment-based dependents to apply for employment authorization and/or EAD. This final rule also does not alter the eligibility of employment-based adjustment applicants to seek EADs while their Form I-485 applications are pending. For nonimmigrants whose employment authorization is incident to status and not necessarily evidenced by an EAD (for example, certain L-2 spouses with appropriate notation on their Form I-94), that authorization continues for so long as the underlying nonimmigrant status remains valid, irrespective of any separate EAD. For those whose employment authorization is granted under 8 CFR 274a.12(c), renewal of that authorization remains discretionary and time limited.

As is the case for all nonimmigrant classifications who were eligible to receive an automatic extension of the validity of employment authorization documents prior to the IFR, this rule eliminates only the practice of providing an automatic extension of the EAD validity and, where applicable, attendant employment authorization based solely on a timely filed renewal EAD application on or after October 30, 2025. DHS acknowledges that, given current and historical processing times for some dependent and employment-based EAD categories, as well as the steps needed to fully adjudicate and vet an application, there may be a risk that USCIS may not complete adjudication of every renewal application before the prior card expires. In such cases, affected dependents and adjustment applicants may experience temporary lapses in employment authorization and associated impacts on income, benefits, and career continuity. Employers may also face disruptions if they are unable to retain those employees pending renewal.

DHS has carefully weighed these impacts against its responsibility to ensure that renewed employment authorization is granted only after USCIS has completed appropriate vetting and determined that the applicant continues to be eligible and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. Automatic extensions for H-4, L-2, and employment-based adjustment applicants present the same underlying security and program integrity concerns as automatic extensions for other categories: they allow continued employment authorization and use of facially expired secure documentation for up to 540 days based solely on a pending application, before USCIS has determined continued eligibility in light of any new information, including potential ineligibility for employment authorization or potential criminal or other derogatory information.

For these reasons, DHS declines to preserve automatic extensions of any length for any subset of renewal EAD applicants, including employment-based- dependents or adjustment applicants.\106\ Providing carve outs would perpetuate 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.

\106\ See 90 FR 48799, 48810 (discussing DHS consideration of alternatives, such as shorter automatic extensions of EADs and outlining the security and eligibility concerns underlying rejection of alternatives).

DHS notes that many employment-based EADs are linked to other benefit requests (for example, principal nonimmigrant extensions or adjustment applications) and that USCIS is engaged in efforts to streamline and coordinate processing where operationally feasible. USCIS will continue to explore process improvements to further reduce the potential for future backlogs, including the potential for expanded use of premium processing or other tools where authorized by statute, while ensuring that security and integrity are not compromised.

DHS recognizes the important economic and personal contributions of employment-based nonimmigrants, their families, and adjustment applicants, and the disruption that lapses in employment authorization may cause for these aliens, their employers, or to the businesses that these aliens may have opened and operated based on their EAD. Nevertheless, DHS concludes that the need to ensure that renewed employment authorization is extended only after full adjudicative review for continued eligibility (including whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable) and vetting, consistent with current national security and public safety priorities, justifies ending automatic extensions for these categories as well and outweighs the potential impacts of temporary lapses in employment authorization. 6. Clarification Request

Comment: A commenter requested that USCIS confirm that the filing date governs eligibility for automatic extensions. Specifically, the commenter sought to confirm that all timely filers before October 30, 2025, would receive automatic extensions, regardless of when their current EAD expired.

Response: The IFR,\107\ and this final rule, do not impact the validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to October 30, 2025, or which are otherwise automatically extended by law or Federal Register notice. To have received an automatic extension under the regulation in effect prior to October 30, 2025, an eligible renewal application must have met the following conditions:

\107\ See 90 FR 48799, 48799 (Oct. 30, 2025).

The alien must have timely filed an application to renew the employment authorization and/or EAD before the EAD expires. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(i); \108\

\108\ TPS beneficiaries must have filed during the re- registration period in the Applicable Federal Register notice; see 81 FR 82398, 82455 (Nov. 18, 2016).

The alien's application to renew the employment authorization and/or EAD must have been properly filed before

October 30, 2025,\109\ irrespective of when the EAD expired;

\109\ To have been properly filed before October 30, 2025, the alien must have submitted their application so that USCIS actually received the properly signed application, with required fees, on or before October 29, 2025. See 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(i). Accordingly, an alien whose application was submitted but not yet received before October 30, 2025, is ineligible for the automatic extension.

The renewal EAD application is based on the same employment authorization category shown on the front of the expiring EAD or, for an alien approved for TPS, whose EAD was issued pursuant to either 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(12) or (c)(19); and

The alien's eligibility to apply for employment authorization continued notwithstanding the expiration of the EAD and was based on an employment authorization category that does not require the adjudication of an underlying application or petition before the adjudication of the renewal application, as may have been announced on the USCIS website.\110\

\110\ The website entitled “Automatic Employment Authorization Document (EAD) Extension” has since been archived in light of the IFR but the web page is still available for viewing at https://www.uscis.gov/archive/automatic-employment-authorization-document-ead-extension (last updated Oct. 29, 2025).

For aliens who meet these requirements, an EAD that appears on its face to be expired (“facially expired”) is considered unexpired for up to 540 days from the expiration date on the front of the EAD when combined with a Notice of Action (Form I-797C) that USCIS mails to an applicant, indicating a timely filing (i.e., the receipt notice for the Form I-765 issued by USCIS has a receipt date that is prior to the expiration date on the EAD and before October 30, 2025) of the renewal application based on the same employment eligibility category as stated on the facially expired EAD (or in case of an EAD and I-797C notice that contains either A12 or C19 category code--the category code need not match for these categories. In those cases, the alien's facially expired EAD is considered unexpired for up to 540 days from the date of the EAD, even if the EAD expires on or after October 30, 2025. 7. Recommendations for the Automatic Extension and EAD Validity Period

Several commenters encouraged DHS to explore alternative solutions that better balance national security, economic stability, and human dignity. i. Maintain the Automatic Extension, Including Various Lengths of the Extension Period

Comment: Many commenters urged DHS to withdraw the IFR and instead maintain the automatic extension policy. Some commenters stated that keeping the automatic extension policy is necessary to protect workers and their families from losing continuity of employment caused by processing delays and protecting the economic and strategic interests of the United States. Multiple commenters reasoned that the automatic extension should be retained until reliable EAD renewal processing benchmarks (for example, less than 90 days) are consistently met.

Numerous commenters said DHS should at a minimum restore the up-to- 180-day automatic extension period. Other commenters recommended various extension periods, including up to 120 days, up to 180 days, or up to 240 days, rather than removing extension periods entirely to better align with the current USCIS processing timelines and ensure minimal workforce disruption.

Response: DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestions. Keeping a reduced automatic extension period would conflict with DHS's overriding concern that granting employment authorization benefits to aliens without those aliens being properly vetted and determined to continue to be eligible (and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable) based on a complete adjudicative review is contrary to the DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and protect public safety and national security.\111\ As explained in the IFR,\112\ if DHS pursued these options, aliens with derogatory information flagged during the background check process would nevertheless still obtain an automatic extension of some lengths (such as 180 or 240 days). These extensions pose a security vulnerability and undermine benefit integrity. As with the up to 540-day automatic extension, any automatic extension duration would not eliminate the risk that an alien who wished to fund nefarious activities could continue to work lawfully and generate money. These same aliens could use their automatically extended employment authorization and/or EADs to obtain valid identity documents, which would make it easier to commit conduct detrimental to the United States.

\111\ 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.”).

\112\ See 90 FR 48810.

ii. Consecutive EAD Validity Periods

Comment: Numerous commenters recommended implementing consecutive EAD validity periods so that applicants could file early without losing work authorization, time, and money. Commenters reasoned that under the current system, when aliens file well in advance of expiration, USCIS routinely issues overlapping validity periods rather than starting the new approval period at the end of the existing authorization period resulting in early filers losing usable work authorization time. Some commenters concluded that consecutive EAD validity periods would allow aliens to apply far in advance, provide USCIS with a longer adjudication window, and preserve the full period of authorized employment.

Similarly, another commenter reasoned that EADs should be issued for longer validity periods to reduce the frequency of renewals, stating that a 1-year EAD is, in practice, effective for only 6 months as renewal adjudication typically requires approximately 6 months. The commenter wrote that the IFR ignores the operational realities, that, although USCIS may accept EAD renewals filed more than 180 days before expiration, the agency issues overlapping--not consecutive--validity periods, effectively cutting into the card's usable time and forcing applicants into an ever earlier renewal cycle.

Response: DHS considered the alternatives suggested by the commenters but will not adopt them. DHS's top priority is the robust vetting of all aliens in our country to better protect the safety of American workers and the public at large. The IFR, and this final rule, will enhance public safety by ensuring proper vetting before issuing renewal EADs, which are important benefits, and improve program integrity. DHS is enhancing its vetting and screening efforts, increasing its ability to detect aliens with potentially harmful intent, deter fraud, and place removable aliens into proceedings. USCIS uses all provisions under the law, to the extent permissible under the law, to deny benefits to those who are a risk to public safety and national security. This includes more frequent vetting of aliens, including more frequent determinations that an alien granted an EAD continues to remain eligible for employment

authorization and, as applicable, continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion. DHS believes that it would be inconsistent with these policy goals for USCIS to issue, concurrently or in close proximity, multiple EADs to the same alien with consecutive validity periods or to issue EADs with longer validity periods, as the commenters suggest. Consecutive EADs based on the filing of multiple renewal applications, concurrently or in close proximity, would be tantamount to one EAD with a longer validity period. The result of these alternatives would be less frequent vetting and eligibility determinations, which would be directly contrary to DHS's stated policy goal of the IFR and this final rule. iii. Allowing Application Filing Earlier Than 180 days

Comment: Some commenters recommended extending the filing window for EAD renewals beyond the current 180 days prior to expiration to mitigate processing risks. A few commenters said USCIS should allow EAD renewals to be filed 12 months prior to expiration.

Response: 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. However, USCIS does not postdate the renewal EAD in relation to an applicant's current EAD's validity period. Therefore, applicants who file and have their EAD applications adjudicated further ahead of the expiration of their current EADs may have less of a risk of incurring gaps in their employment authorization but may also have a shorter combined employment authorization validity period.

USCIS is committed to continuing to explore processing efficiencies, including possible expansion of premium processing for some or all affected populations. iv. Enhanced Vetting

Comment: Some commenters said DHS should implement enhanced vetting, such as ongoing security checks for applicants, without eliminating automatic extension of EADs. Other commenters recommended DHS maintain the automatic extension of EADs for up to 540 days while renewal applications are adjudicated, but conduct vetting on a “particularized basis,” noting that USCIS can use its discretionary authority to cancel an extension in individual cases when and if derogatory information or other concerns arise.

Response: In service of the DHS mission, and to ensure that DHS grants benefits only after having thoroughly vetted in the context of the renewal application and full adjudicative review for continued eligibility (including, as applicable, whether the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion), DHS declines to adopt these recommendations. DHS has determined that automatic extensions are not compatible with its current security and benefit integrity priorities, even in an environment where enhanced vetting tools are used. DHS will grant renewed employment authorization only after USCIS has reviewed a completed application, conducted the appropriate checks, resolved any derogatory information, and determined that the applicant continues to be eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. Even if DHS were to cancel the extension in individual cases, as the commenter suggests, the alien would still have had the benefit of a renewed EAD, even if for a short time, without proper vetting and a full eligibility adjudication, which is contrary to the DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security. Any automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EAD validity based solely on the filing of a renewal application, even if subsequently cancelled or terminated, would not eliminate the risk that an alien who wished to fund nefarious activities could continue to work lawfully and generate money, even though the alien may not be eligible for the renewal EAD in the first place. Thus, DHS believes granting a benefit without completely and fully finishing the adjudicatory process (including vetting) would make it easier for aliens engaged in nefarious activity to commit conduct detrimental to the United States and will not adopt the commenter's suggestion. 8. Processing Capacity and Timelines i. Timely Processing of Renewals

Comment: A few commenters stated support for the IFR but urged USCIS to ensure timely processing of renewals, so workers and employers do not experience unintended lapses in employment authorization. A commenter added that if the process cannot be completed within 180 days of application, then the IFR is “very unfair.” Many commenters said USCIS should be required to adjudicate and process all EAD applications more quickly. Multiple commenters recommended a specific timeframe (for example, under 90 days or under 6 months/180 days) be set for renewals to ensure timely processing. A commenter stated that efficient, timely processing is the only measure that genuinely improves both security and economic stability.

Response: DHS remains committed to timely processing applications without lowering security and vetting standards or benefit integrity. DHS understands the importance of timely processing and strives to adjudicate applications as efficiently as possible. However, a variety of factors can affect processing times, such as security vetting requirements and the total number of applications pending review. USCIS continually monitors its resource allocations and makes adjustments, as appropriate and feasible to ensure customer service. However, DHS cannot commit to a maximum processing time in all cases given the need for thorough review of each application to ensure that USCIS only grants employment authorization after full vetting and screening of the applicant, including resolution of any derogatory information, and determining that the alien continues to be eligible for employment authorization and/or an EAD and to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable.

DHS notes that we expect overall EAD filing rates (initials and renewals) are likely to substantially decline given actions DHS has taken to align policy with statutory text. DHS anticipates that this decline will free up adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD processing times and the need for renewal EAD applicants in the longer term to rely on an automatic extension of their EAD to avoid lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity due to processing delays.\113\

\113\ See section IV(C)(2)(i)(c), supra.

Therefore, aliens seeking renewal of their employment authorization and/or EADs may not be likely to experience lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. ii. Increase Resources and Staffing

Comment: Numerous commenters urged USCIS to focus on reducing backlogs, improving processing capacity, and modernizing processing systems. Some commenters discussed how the IFR offers no alternative solutions or proposed improvements to processing times. A commenter urged DHS to work with Congress to approve appropriations to strengthen USCIS' capacity to consistently facilitate adjudications in a timely manner. Some

commenters said it was crucial for USCIS to enhance staffing and resource allocation to ensure that approvals are completed before expiration of EADs. A commenter stated that USCIS should consider redoubling resources and staffing to reduce backlogs and minimize harmful impacts.

Response: DHS agrees that reducing backlogs, improving processing capacity, and modernizing case-processing systems, as well as ensuring sufficient staffing, are important objectives, and USCIS is pursuing such efforts as permissible within its existing statutory fee authority and broader initiatives.

For example, USCIS continuously takes steps within existing budgetary and hiring authorities to further enhance processing efficiency, hire new staff,\114\ reallocate personnel, refine workflows, invest in automation,\115\ and implement the fee \116\ and program changes directed by recent legislation and executive actions.\117\

\114\ See, e.g., USICS, “USCIS Received 35,000 Applications for Homeland Defenders, Most for Any Job in Agency History,” https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-received-35000-applications-for-homeland-defenders-most-for-any-job-in-agency-history (Nov. 6, 2025).

\115\ 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).

\116\ 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.

\117\ See, e.g., USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures by H-R.1 Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952 (Apr. 29, 2026).

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.\118\ As such, DHS also expects that overall EAD filing rates (both initials and renewals) will decline over time due to other actions taken by USCIS, such as narrowing the use of parole and better aligning TPS and related programs with statutory criteria. In fact, USCIS has already seen a reduction in EAD filings since January 2025 as evidenced by Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble above. 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. DHS expects that this reduction in volume will free adjudicative resources, and USCIS will continue to monitor its workloads and adjust staffing and resource allocations as appropriate.

\118\ 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.”).

This final rule, however, is not a backlog-management measure. It addresses the fundamental concern that automatic extensions allow employment authorization and/or EAD validity to continue for up to 540 days based solely on the filing of a renewal application, before USCIS has fully completed vetting, resolved any derogatory information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. Even if additional resources were to further improve processing times, they would not eliminate the core security and program-integrity risk inherent in granting automatic extensions without a full adjudication of the application.

Comment: Multiple commenters suggested implementing premium processing options for EAD renewals. A commenter stated that since many applications take more than 6 months, premium processing should be an option before ending the automatic extension. Some commenters noted that this alternative allows employers and/or employees to determine for themselves if the additional cost of premium processing is reasonable and necessary for their business or individual needs. Other commenters said DHS should focus on allowing concurrent premium processing for H-1B, H-4, and H-4 EAD applications to provide predictability for dependent applicants and their employers.

Response: USCIS will continue to explore expanding premium processing for Form I-765 for affected populations.\119\ USCIS will alert the public through the website if it expands premium processing services to include additional classes of applicants for employment authorization and, if so, which categories will have premium processing.\120\

\119\ The statutory authority for premium processing is found at section 286(u) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1356(u).

\120\ See DHS, USCIS, How Do I Request Premium Processing? (last updated Mar. 23, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/how-do-i-request-premium-processing.

USCIS reminds the public that, in the absence of premium processing, an applicant may request that USCIS expedite the adjudication of an application, including for employment authorization, that is under USCIS jurisdiction.\121\ USCIS considers all expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and generally requires documentation to support such requests.\122\ The decision to expedite is within the sole discretion of USCIS.\123\ 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.\124\

\121\ See DHS, USCIS, Expedite Requests (last updated Sep. 8, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests.

\122\ See id.

\123\ See id.

\124\ See id.

Note that EADs for H-4 nonimmigrants who timely filed renewal EAD applications before October 30, 2025, were automatically extended if they had an unexpired Form I-94, Arrival Departure Record, showing valid H-4 nonimmigrant status. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(iii); 90 FR at 48804. Even under the rules prior to the IFR, however, an H-4 nonimmigrant spouse eligible for employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(26) was not eligible for an automatic extension of employment authorization if their renewal application was dependent upon the adjudication of an application to extend their H-4 nonimmigrant status. See 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1)(iii) (Jan. 1, 2025). USCIS is engaged in efforts to streamline and coordinate processing where operationally feasible. USCIS will continue to explore process improvements to further reduce the potential for future backlogs, including the potential for expanded use of premium processing or other tools where authorized by statute, while ensuring that security and integrity are not compromised. iii. Prioritize Initial EAD Reviews

Comment: A commenter reasoned that DHS resources should prioritize initial EAD screenings, where new entrants are evaluated, rather than duplicating

review efforts for previously cleared renewal applicants.

Response: Although renewal EAD applicants will already have been vetted during the adjudication of their initial EAD applications, DHS disagrees that review at subsequent stages, including upon the filing of a renewal EAD application, is duplicative. Aliens may engage in criminal activity after entry, for example, and new derogatory information, including that which is newly obtained despite having occurred previously, may appear at any stage. DHS will continue to prioritize vetting with the filing of every benefit request, and DHS will proceed with finalizing this rule to end the practice of automatically extending employment authorization and/or EADs to ensure that applicants do not receive benefits without full and complete vetting in conjunction with the application and a determination that they continue to be eligible. 9. Coordination, Guidance, and Outreach i. Additional Guidance and Communication

Comment: A commenter said USCIS should provide clear communication and documentation outlining the impacts of the IFR and information on how professionals in similar situations can navigate the change effectively. Similarly, other commenters recommended:

Clear employer guidance (such as updated I-9 instructions and outreach);

SAVE-based verification so that employers are less dependent on self-reported information;

An electronic notification system for renewal filing receipt and adjudication status that employers can rely upon for reverification purposes; and

Health-sector-specific guidance recognizing the unique staffing obligations of hospitals, laboratories, and emergency care providers.

Response: On October 30, 2025, USCIS published an update to section 5 of the Handbook for Employers M-274, which contains guidance for employers regarding Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. The update highlighted October 30, 2025, as the relevant date to determine whether an alien qualifies for the automatic extension announced in the 2024 Final Rule.\125\ USCIS further updated the Handbook at Section 5.1 to spell out the categories and sources of evidence for those aliens who qualified for the automatic extension.\126\ USCIS updates the M-274 periodically, and in addition offers guidance for employers on the agency website, hosts several monthly webinars for employers and employees on the I-9, and maintains a Form I-9 Contact Center with a phone number and email address.\127\

\125\ See 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.

\126\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.1 Automatic Extensions Based on a Timely Filed Application to Renew Employment Authorization and/or Employment Authorization Document Before Oct. 30, 2025 (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/51-automatic-extensions- based-on-a-timely-filed-application-to-renew-employment- authorization.

\127\ See USCIS, I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9 (last updated April 2, 2025) (explaining the relation of the M-274 to the I-9); see also USCIS, I-9 Central, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central (last visited May 6, 2026) (a central website with a number of updated links on I-9 topics); USCIS, Employment Eligibility Webinars, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9- central/form-i-9-resources/employment-eligibility-webinars (last visited May 6, 2026); USCIS, Form I-9 Contact Us, https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-contact-us (last updated April 15, 2025).

SAVE is an online service administered by USCIS that provides point in time immigration status and U.S. citizenship information to federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local agencies.\128\ SAVE is limited to its statutory purposes \129\ and, accordingly, does not provide employment eligibility verification to private employers. E-Verify, which is also administered by USCIS, does provide a service that allows employers to electronically confirm employment eligibility of newly hired workers.

\128\ USCIS, SAVE (last visited Apr. 23, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/save.

\129\ See, e.g., Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, 3396 (Nov. 6, 1986) (mandating creation of an electronic system for verifying the immigration status of alien applicants for, and recipients of, certain types of federally funded benefits and requiring that the system be made available to federal, state, and local agencies administering these benefits); Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (Aug. 22, 1996) (restricting immigrant eligibility for public benefits, expanding the need for benefit-granting agencies to verify immigration status); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996) (requiring the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, and now DHS as its successor, to respond to inquiries from federal, state, and local agencies seeking to verify or determine the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law); REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005) (requiring state motor vehicle administrations to verify the immigration status of alien applicants for a REAL ID driver's license or identification card); Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (Mar. 23, 2010) (provided for a variety of healthcare reforms, including health insurance benefits and subsidies for qualified aliens lawfully present in the United States, to be verified by health and human services agencies using SAVE); The Federal Aviation Administration Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (FAA Act), Public Law 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (Jul. 15, 2016) (directing DHS to authorize SAVE access for airport operators to determine the eligibility of individuals seeking unescorted access to any security identification display area of an airport).

DHS will not adopt the suggestion to provide an electronic notification system that employers can access to see information about the status of pending applications. Employment authorization applications may contain sensitive information. Under the Privacy Act of 1974,\130\ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),\131\ and other applicable laws, regulations and policies,\132\ USCIS and other immigration agencies are legally obligated to safeguard a petitioner's and applicant's information and limit information sharing. Third party access to information relating to pending application information may result in accidental disclosure of information that is protected by law.

\130\ Public Law, 88 Stat. 1896, 93-579 (Dec. 31, 1974), codified at 5 U.S.C. 552a (specifically 5 U.S.C. 52a(b) (providing that no agency shall disclose any records which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by or with the prior written consent of the individuals to whom the record pertains).

\131\ Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 378 (September 6, 1966) codified at 5 U.S.C. 552 (see specifically 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C), exempting from FOIA release materials that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy) and DHS's implementing regulations at 6 CFR part 5 (Disclosure of Records and Information).

\132\ See, e.g., 8 CFR part 103, specifically 8 CFR 103.2(a)(3) and 8 CFR 103.2(b)(19)(i) and (ii) (when read together, articulating that notification is provided only to applicants, petitioners, and representatives).

However, for aliens alleging that they qualify for an automatic extension of their employment authorization under previous rules, an employer may use the Form I-797C, Notice of Action, that an alien supplies for employment verification purposes, to check the status of the underlying benefit request by going to the USCIS Case Status Online web page \133\ and entering the receipt number on the Form I-797C.

\133\ See DHS, USCIS, Case Status Online, https://egov.uscis.gov (last visited May 26, 2026).

As for health-sector-specific guidance, DHS appreciates the unique staffing obligations of hospitals, laboratories, and emergency care providers. However, the comment does not suggest the type of guidance that would be

uniquely useful to this population, and DHS believes the IFR, this final rule, and USCIS web page updates that followed the IFR and will accompany this final rule are sufficient guidance for all affected aliens and their employers. ii. Accountability

Comment: A commenter suggested requiring accountability on renewal processing times so workers and employers can plan realistically. Another commenter recommended quarterly performance reports by category.

Response: DHS understands the importance of timely processing and strives to adjudicate applications as efficiently as possible. However, as discussed above in Section IV.C.8.i. of this preamble, processing times can be affected by a variety of factors, including security vetting requirements, and the need for thorough review to enhance program integrity and better protect public safety and national security. USCIS will continue to monitor its resource allocations and adjust, as appropriate. DHS will not commit to periodic reports at this time beyond the processing times available on the USCIS website.\134\

\134\ See DHS, USCIS, Case Processing Times, https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times (last visited May 8, 2026).

Comment: A commenter discussed Continuous Immigration Vetting (CIV) as a more effective timely identification of national security and public safety risks than point-in-time screening and vetting that occurs only upon application submissions. Multiple commenters asked why DHS cannot utilize “concurrent vetting,” an apparent reference to CIV, as an alternative to the procedures implemented by the IFR. Commenters noted that DHS currently employs CIV in some contexts. Specifically, commenters noted that, “DHS already has a system that protects security while letting people keep working, and it has not explained why it cannot keep using it.”

Response: DHS appreciates the commenters' focus on the role of CIV and other automated screening tools in enhancing national security and public safety. CIV is an event-based vetting tool that automates and streamlines the process of notifying USCIS of potential derogatory information in Government databases that may relate to individuals in USCIS systems, as new information is discovered.\135\ DHS agrees that continuous screening and vetting capabilities (including systems such as CIV and ATLAS, along with interagency information sharing) are important components of DHS's security efforts.

\135\ DHS, Privacy Impact Assessment for the Continuous Immigration Vetting, (Feb. 14, 2019), https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscispia-076-continuous-immigration-vetting.

However, these tools are not a substitute for the full adjudicative process that occurs when USCIS considers a new application for an immigration benefit, including a renewal of employment authorization. Continuous vetting may identify new information or trigger further review, but it does not, by itself, resolve questions of eligibility (including whether the alien warrants a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable), assess all relevant evidence, or provide the structured context in which USCIS officers make determinations about continued eligibility and the exercise of discretion, if applicable. Eligibility determinations are complex and require an officer to examine all the facts and evidence of a case prior to a finding. Vetting, like CIV, is one part of the overall process.

A core concern addressed by the IFR and this final rule is that automatic extensions of EADs allow employment authorization to continue for up to 540 days based solely on the filing of a renewal application, without USCIS first completing adjudicative review and the related vetting, including the resolution of any derogatory information. 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. Even with continuous vetting in place, an alien could remain work authorized under an automatic extension and use that authorization to obtain or maintain other documents, such as driver's licenses, including REAL ID compliant driver's licenses in some jurisdictions, during a period when USCIS has not yet reevaluated eligibility in light of any new information or changed circumstances.

Accordingly, DHS has determined that automatic extensions are not compatible with its current security and benefit integrity priorities, even in an environment where CIV and other continuous vetting tools are used. Those tools complement but do not replace the requirement that renewed employment authorization be granted only after USCIS has completed the actions discussed above. Therefore, DHS declines to rely on CIV as a basis for retaining automatic extensions of EADs.

Comment: Multiple commenters requested that USCIS withdraw or delay the implementation of the IFR until DHS could guarantee timely EAD processing for all categories.

Several commenters requested a grace period or transitional period to mitigate the abrupt impacts of the IFR. Some commenters reasoned that the IFR provided no grace period for applicants who relied on the prior policy at the time of filing, imposing undue hardship on individuals and families who would face employment gaps threatening their livelihoods and financial security.

Some commenters requested specific transitional measures, including:

Granting the automatic extension to all applicants whose renewal applications were postmarked before the effective date of the rule, even if received later;

Delaying the effective date of the IFR by at least 90 days;

Providing a transition period of at least 12 months for employers and employees to adjust workforce planning and compliance systems;

A phased transition to prevent work authorization gaps during EAD adjudication; and

Coordinating with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to assess workforce impacts prior to full implementation.

A few commenters urged DHS to delay implementation and open a full notice and comment period.

Response: DHS understands that the IFR and this final rule, and any resulting gaps in continued employment authorization, may have adverse impacts on employers and applicants to the extent that individuals experience disruptions in employment. However, as stated earlier in the preamble 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. DHS notes that USCIS has, as expected, seen a steady decrease in overall EAD filings since

January 2025. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.

In addition, as discussed in Section IV.C.2.iv. of the preamble, proper planning by an alien may allow the alien to timely file a renewal EAD application thus mitigating the risk of experiencing prolonged lapses in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Ultimately, granting benefits without proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to the DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security.\136\ DHS believes that these policy goals outweigh concerns about potential backlogs and operational challenges that may result in a temporary lapse of employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Therefore, DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggested transitional measures or otherwise delay implementation of this rule.

\136\ 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.”) (last visited May 26, 2026).

Comment: A commenter reasoned that an alternative to ending the policy of automatic extensions would be a more concerted effort to explain the 540-day automatic extension to employers who may be confused. The commenter suggested “(1) conducting outreach and public engagements with employers, unions, and associations of human resources staff to explain the extensions; (2) posting about the extensions on its websites or social media platforms; and (3) creating fact sheets, FAQs, and other materials that explain the extensions in accessible language.”

Response: DHS conducted most, if not all, of the outreach the commenter suggested following publication of the 2024 TFR and 2024 final rule.\137\ However, additional outreach would not resolve concerns with the automatic extension framework. For example, employers are required to use an applicant's unsecure Form I-797, Notice of Action, with separate web pages and tools to determine whether, and for how long, an alien employee remains in an automatically extended period of employment authorization. Further, additional outreach would not address the fact that employers do not receive direct notice if their alien employees' pending EAD renewal applications have been denied, which creates a risk that employers could unwittingly engage in unauthorized employment and provide income to aliens with potentially nefarious motives.

\137\ 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) (temporarily increased the automatic extension period to up to 540 days); 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024) (permanently increased the automatic extension period to up to 540 days).

After considering these concerns, DHS determined that continued reliance on the 540-day automatic extension, even with expanded outreach and educational materials, would not sufficiently address these compliance and program integrity risks. DHS will continue to provide clear, accessible information about employment authorization validity through its public-facing resources.

DHS notes that the justification for the IFR and this final rule is to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security. While employer confusion is relevant to the integrity of the EAD program, conducting more outreach to employers to eliminate potential confusion would not address the primary concerns addressed by the IFR and this final rule. Therefore, DHS declines to adopt this suggestion.

Comment: Additional alternatives and recommendations included suggestions of specific remedies for applicants:

Implementing 90-day Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with fee refunds for delays.

Allowing automatic extensions for applicants who file their EAD applications at least nine months before their current EADs expire and committing to adjudicating those applications within nine months.

Enabling interim I-9 verification during card production.

Allowing automatic extensions for certain EAD categories for which vetting may take longer than others.

Response: DHS has considered the alternatives noted above as well as a return to previous practices. USCIS generally does not refund fees to applicants for immigration benefits. See 8 CFR 103.2(a). While DHS continues to focus on ways to improve processes, DHS will not commit to allowing automatic extensions or interim verification for certain EAD application categories because the time it takes to vet an applicant is entirely dependent on the applicant and his or her case history and vetting is just one part of the overall adjudicative review to determine continued eligibility and that the applicant continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. DHS is also not enabling interim I-9 verification during EAD production because approval notices are not secure documents establishing proof of current work authorization. USCIS notices can only be used in the very limited circumstances where DHS has expressly authorized a specific combination for I-9 purposes in the M-274 Handbook for Employers.\138\

\138\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274 (last updated July 7, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/ handbook-for-employers-m-274. For example, a USCIS approval notice that extends an H-1B worker's nonimmigrant status, together with the attached Form I-94, may serve as evidence of that worker's continued employment authorization.

DHS is not enacting the suggested alternatives because it is prioritizing national security and public safety and is determined to cease any provision of employment authorization documents to ineligible aliens.\139\

\139\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).

Comment: Numerous commenters stated that DHS failed to demonstrate valid “good cause” to bypass the standard notice and comment process. Commenters said that immediate implementation without notice and comment rulemaking represents a “significant procedural failure.” Two commenters requested that USCIS reconsider the decision to immediately implement the IFR and that fair advance notice should be given in the future.

Other commenters stated that the described “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” had no causal connection to the automatic extension, was speculative, unsupported by any reliable evidence, and at any rate that a single example of potential adverse consequence is insufficient to establish the meticulous and demanding good cause standard. Commenters indicated that the analysis was devoid of specific factual allegations of harm or threat to public safety.

Commenters also indicated that the IFR failed to explain how the incident in Boulder was related to the automatic work authorization extension provision or why this one incident, even if related, would justify the impact the termination of this rule would have on hundreds of thousands of workers and their U.S. employers.

Many commenters stated that DHS's claim that providing a notice and comment period would cause noncitizens to “rush” to file EAD renewal applications was unfounded. One commenter said that this “rush” is unlikely given that USCIS instructs applicants not to file more than 180 days before their current EAD expires, and because the high renewal fees make rapid, unplanned filings less feasible.

Multiple commenters said that to properly invoke the “good cause” exemption, the claimed harm must be “demonstrable and immediate--like war, health crisis, or economic collapse.” The commenters noted that DHS recognizes that “good cause” has been limited to quantifiable threats, such as in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks or hurricanes, and that one anecdote is insufficient evidence of “demonstrable and immediate” harm at the scale of economic collapse. They also asserted that DHS failed to establish that the attack would not have occurred in the absence of automatic renewals, or that it would have been detected or prevented with additional vetting. Finally, these commenters also indicated that there was no good cause because DHS failed to overcome indisputable evidence that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters that DHS failed to meet the good cause standard under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or that DHS did not provide sufficient factual evidence of a public security risks to justify bypassing notice and comment procedures. DHS maintains that, under the totality of the circumstances, bypassing notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) was justified to act swiftly and expeditiously, as notice and comment procedures would have been impracticable or contrary to public interest.

DHS also disagrees that the IFR was devoid of specific factual allegations of harm or threat to public safety, that the harm was speculative, and that the solution of the IFR was not rationally connected to the need for immediate action. The IFR clearly explained the relevance of the Boulder incident and its connection to the automatic extension,\140\ and why the measure was justified, notwithstanding the impact of the automatic extension's termination on aliens and employers. DHS notes that it has now considered all comments received on the IFR and responded to them in this preamble, thereby providing the notice and comment process sought by commenters.\141\

\140\ See 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025) (explaining that the need to fully vet applicants for renewal EADs became clear when an alien with an automatically extended EAD perpetrated a heinous attack that injured many people in Boulder, Colorado on June 1, 2025).

\141\ Cf. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657, 683-84 (2020) (holding that an agency's IFR complied with the APA's procedural requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(2)-(3)).

DHS believes that commenters may have misunderstood the risks associated with granting automatic extensions of an alien's expired employment authorization and/or EAD that is merely based on the timely filing of a renewal EAD application but not on fully vetting an applicant's eligibility or background. As explained in the IFR, aliens could obtain an automatic extension even if they no longer qualified for employment authorization and/or an EAD. Examples include if the alien no longer possessed the underlying status, had derogatory information that would render them ineligible for employment authorization, or would not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. These aliens could properly file a timely renewal application to obtain the benefit of continued employment authorization and/or an EAD for up to 540 days. This would allow aliens who could be public safety or national security threats to use associated documentation to potentially obtain other credentials, such as driver's licenses, and use it to engage in nefarious activities.

Unfortunately, aliens committing harmful acts and those engaging in nefarious activities do not operate on a schedule that aligns neatly with them seeking benefits applications. They may or may not engage in harmful activity post-approval of an application granting immigration status. Attacks, such as the one in Boulder, Colorado, are tough to predict, but they may not be impossible to stop with proper and thorough vetting and intelligence sharing among government agencies each time an alien is seeking immigration benefits.\142\ Congress has long emphasized the importance of vetting each and every applicant before an immigration benefit is granted.\143\ Fully vetting each applicant during every USCIS encounter helps identify patterns, flags activities, alerts officials to potential threats, and protects U.S. residents from harm. The attack in Boulder, Colorado--committed by an alien in possession of an EAD that was automatically extended--provided clear evidence of the ongoing public emergency, exposed the security vulnerability of the automatic extension, and demonstrated that every time USCIS is granting a benefit without fully vetting an applicant, an opportunity is lost to detect bad actors and protect the public. The public's response to the Boulder event underscored the urgency to act to safeguard public safety,\144\ and DHS acted accordingly.

\142\ It is DHS's mandate, among others, to prevent terrorist attacks and administer immigration laws, including administering the laws pertaining to employment authorization. For purposes of grating employment authorizations to aliens, the authority is delegated to USCIS. DHS acknowledges the commenters reference to statistics indicating that aliens may commit less crimes than native born citizens. This rule deals exclusively with aliens. Therefore, the information as well as the comparison is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

\143\ See Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report 108- 774], “Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,” p. 74, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf (last visited May 26, 2026).

\144\ The public, including members from Congress, criticized immigration and law enforcement authorities, including DHS, for not detecting the alien's activities and not protecting the public. They emphasized the urgency to fix security vulnerabilities. See “Chairman Pfluger, Green Request DHS Documents on Suspect in Boulder Terror Attack” (June 4, 2025), https://homeland.house.gov/2025/06/04/chairmen-green-pfluger-request-dhs-documents-on-suspect-in-boulder-terror-attack (“This tragedy is indicative of a heightened terrorism threat on U.S. soil, signaling an urgent need for increased homeland security measures, particularly with respect to foreign nationals who are unlawfully present in the United States, as Soliman reportedly overstayed a nonimmigrant visa. Our nation has now faced several major acts of antisemitic terror this year alone, including the recent assassination of two Israeli embassy staffers in our nation's capital.”); see CPR.org, “Colorado notified feds after failed gun purchase by accused Boulder firebomber, months before the attack” (June 6, 2025), https://www.cpr.org/2025/06/10/cbi-notified-homeland-security-after-attempted-gun-purchase-by-boulder-attacker (questioning how DHS's failure to probe Soliman's attempted purchase or how, more broadly, they approach immigration enforcement investigations through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which tracks and notifies authorities when people without legal status attempt to buy guns).

If DHS had announced the change, and followed the standard rulemaking procedures, the automatic extension process would have continued during the time spent developing this final rule. During that period, aliens with unresolved derogatory information could have obtained an automatically extended EAD. Even if USCIS had ultimately denied the actual application, the documents related to the automatically extended EAD would remain in possession of the affected alien, even if they were engaging in nefarious activity. Indeed, the automatically extended EAD may have given the attacker the very thing that enabled him to follow through with the attack in the first place. This demonstrates that the threat of attacks, as shown by the events in Boulder,

Colorado, is real, immediate, and ongoing.

If DHS had announced the rulemaking, DHS believes that aliens would have rushed to file renewal EAD applications to obtain automatic extensions before the rule's effective date. DHS does not believe that USCIS' instructions to renewal applicants to file 180 days before the expiration of their authorization would have helped in this regard as it would have been unclear how quickly a final rule would be issued by DHS.

Similarly, DHS does not agree that renewal fees necessarily make rapid, unplanned filings less feasible. Historically, increased filing fees have not depressed the number of individuals seeking immigration benefits, and fee waivers are still available for some applicants.\145\

\145\ See, e.g., 89 FR 6194, 6355 (Jan. 31, 2024) (“DHS saw no or limited decreases in the number of benefit requests submitted after its fee adjustments in 2010, 2016, and 2020 and has no data that would indicate that the fees for family-based benefit requests, lawful permanent residence, and naturalization in this final rule would prevent applicants from filing.”).

For these reasons, allowing automatic extension to continue for the duration of the notice and comment period would have been irresponsible given the high threat level.\146\ It would also have been contrary to the public interest, impeding DHS's ability to fully execute its functions--to vet every EAD applicant with each application to prevent terrorist attacks and grant immigration benefits only to eligible aliens.

\146\ See E.O. 14159, 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025); see also, e.g., Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community (March 2025), at 5, https://www.intelligence.gov/annual-threat-assessment (last visited Sep. 9, 2026), (“Transnational criminals, terrorists, and other nonstate actors are threatening and impacting the lives of U.S. citizens, the security and prosperity of the Homeland, and U.S. strength at home and abroad. Some transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) are producing and trafficking large amounts of illicit drugs that are imperiling American lives and livelihoods. They are conducting other illegal activities that challenge U.S. security, such as human trafficking, cyber operations, money laundering, and inciting violence. U.S. citizens--at home and abroad--are also facing more diverse, complex, and decentralized terrorist threats. Actors, ranging from designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations--including the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS), al-Qa`ida, other Islamist terrorist groups, and some drug cartels--to terrorists acting alone or in small cells, are likely to pursue, enable, or inspire attacks. Finally, large-scale illegal immigration has strained local and national infrastructure and resources and enabled known or suspected terrorists to cross into the United States.”). For additional information and updated information on the national security risks and threat assessments, see Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S., https://www.intelligence.gov/annual-threat-assessment (last visited Sep. 9, 2026).

Finally, DHS is not aware of any case law--and the commenters did not cite to any--requiring that good cause can only be demonstrated if there has been more than one incident that causes an emergency or that the demonstrable and immediate harm must be of the scale of an “economic collapse” or a 9/11-type of event. Similarly, the government is not required to prove that the Boulder, Colorado attack would not have occurred in the absence of automatic extension renewals. The applicable APA standard is whether “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” \147\ This standard is met when, inter alia, there is an emergency; when delay caused by the APA's notice and comment procedures would result in serious harm to life, property or an immediate threat to the public safety; or when announcing the rule would have hurt the public interest.\148\ DHS has met the standard.

\147\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

\148\ See 90 FR 48812-14.

Immediately ending the practice and acting expeditiously given the security posture was a reasonable measure. As is noted throughout this rulemaking, this rule does not remove the alien's ability to seek and obtain employment authorization in accordance with current laws and regulations. To address the prior flood of EAD applications, as discussed earlier, this administration has taken significant actions that are expected to result in fewer EAD applications and shorter renewal EAD processing times.\149\

\149\ 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 (last updated 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.”) (last visited May 26, 2026).

Additionally, the issuance of employment authorization and/or an EAD depends largely on the applicant timely filing a renewal EAD application with sufficient evidence to establish eligibility. Thus, early and timely filing of a renewal application may allow the alien to mitigate or reduce the risk for the alien, the alien's family, and the alien's employer. DHS does not anticipate, nor have commenters provided evidence, that the IFR will adversely impact hundreds of thousands of workers and their U.S. employers. This assessment considers efforts to reduce the number of filings through policy and operational measures, as well as expected improvements in processing resulting from the overall reduction in filings. While DHS cannot rule out the potential for temporary lapses in employment authorization, 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.

Immediately ending the practice of providing automatic extensions resulted in continued improvement in program integrity by ensuring that employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with the laws of the United States, allowed the agency to properly perform its adjudicative function, and immediately closed the gap in the security vulnerability that the automatic extension created. ii. “Foreign Affairs” Exception

Comment: Many commenters stated that DHS improperly relied on the exception for to a pre-promulgation notice-and-comment for rules involving the “foreign affairs function of the United States.” Commenters stated that this exception has a “high bar” and courts have warned against “[t]he dangers of an expansive reading of the foreign affairs exception” in the immigration context, where inevitable “incidental foreign affairs effects” would effectively “eliminate[ ] public participation in this entire area of administrative law.” Other commenters said that DHS does not explain how, or cite anything to substantiate its allegation that, the comment period would disrupt foreign affairs, other than reiterate the national security crisis as demonstrated by the recent events in Boulder, Colorado. The commenters stated that these speculative and vague claims cannot support a “foreign affairs” exception.

Response: DHS disagrees that it did not explain how, or cite anything to substantiate, its explanation that the rulemaking involves a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” \150\ DHS further explained that the comment period would disrupt a foreign affairs function because the practice of granting automatic extensions involves the status of people and the transfer of goods across the border, and ending the practice of granting automatic extensions directly implicates foreign

affairs because of the significance a decline in remittances can have on many countries. Eliminating the practice of providing automatic extensions based on the filing of a renewal EAD application is also part of the implementation of the President's foreign policy directives, thus further implicating a foreign affairs function.\151\ Engaging in notice and comment procedure also would have resulted in undesirable international consequences, as outlined in the IFR.\152\

\150\ 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

\151\ See 90 FR 48814 and footnote 139. DHS is addressing the comments related to the application of Secretary Rubio's foreign affair determination in response to the next comment.

\152\ See 90 FR 48814-15.

Specifically, DHS explained in detail why ending the practice of providing employment authorization based on the filing of an EAD renewal application will also impact foreign remittances sent abroad, to the extent that such remittances include money earned through employment based on automatically extended employment authorization cards and EADs. Reductions in remittances, including those stemming from changes in U.S. immigration policies have been viewed unfavorably by other countries.\153\ DHS also established how remittances may pose international money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Thus, ending the practice of providing unvetted employment authorization and/ or documents, and fully vetting these aliens, particularly those coming from regions or nations with identified security risks, as well as economic impacts on other countries on account of the U.S. immigration policies, involves more cautious and sensitive considerations of those matters as they could easily impact foreign nations.\154\

\153\ Id.

\154\ 90 FR 48815.

Further, as also indicated in the IFR, having to engage in notice and comment rulemaking on such matters may lead to the disclosure of sensitive intelligence related to the reasons why the administration is taking this step in the first place.

Overall, these consequences were neither speculative nor vague.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that DHS's justifications for invoking the foreign affairs function exception were both unsupported and overbroad, relying on a recent notice from the Secretary of State claiming that virtually all border-related activities constitute “foreign affairs.” One commenter added that this notice has no legal effect, as agencies cannot define the scope of the APA or its exceptions. Another commenter stated that the IFR regulates domestic employment authorization, not foreign affairs. The commenter said that courts apply the foreign affairs function exception only when an agency action clearly implicates foreign relations or when notice and comment would provoke “undesirable international consequences,” neither of which are justified in the IFR.

Response: Nothing in the law prevents the Secretary from adopting the foreign affairs determination made by Secretary Rubio for rulemaking purposes.

As outlined in the IFR, the Secretary has broad general authority under section 103(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) to administer and enforce “this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers . . . .” See INA sec. 103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1).

The Department of State is the agency that is leading interagency coordination in developing and implementing foreign policy and foreign affairs matters. Correspondingly, DOS and DHS are called upon to coordinate often, including in numerous Presidential actions reflecting the President's top foreign policy priorities, such as E.O. 14161 upon which this action is based. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State both derive their authority from the law and the powers granted to the executive. Thus, it is appropriate for the Secretary of Homeland Security, in fulfilling the Secretary's responsibilities under the APA and this rulemaking, to refer to Secretary Rubio's determination. This approach ensures also that the government presents a unified position on issues related to entry, status, immigration and the removal of aliens, in alignment with the President's foreign policy determination and objectives.\155\ Correspondingly, DHS continues to find that EADs and employment authorizations, including automatic extensions under former 8 CFR 274a.13(d), are directly connected to the alien's status or authorized period of stay, because eligibility for employment authorization and/or documentation is dependent on the alien's status or circumstances. Because the grant of employment authorization and/or EADs is integral to the control of aliens, and affects the transfer and movements of goods, including money across the U.S. border, these actions fall within the Secretary's foreign affairs determination and within the President's foreign policy directives, thereby clearly involving and implicating the foreign affairs functions.

\155\ See, e.g., Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 409 (2012) (recognizing that decision on removability requires a determination whether it is appropriate to allow a foreign national to continue living in the United States. Decisions of this nature touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice).

iii. Reasoned Decision-Making Requirement

Comment: Many commenters, including organizations and a form letter campaign, said that, not even a year ago, DHS determined that a 540-day automatic extension of employment authorization was necessary to meet a Congressional mandate. However, the IFR eliminates automatic extensions entirely without any new evidence or a coherent rationale to justify such a reversal. The commenters reasoned that the IFR fails to satisfy the “reasoned decision-making” requirement of the APA and cited FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009).

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the IFR did not provide a reasoned justification for the rulemaking. The IFR discussed the prior rulemakings pertaining to EAD automatic extensions and then explained that this administration's priority is the robust vetting of all aliens in our country to better protect the safety of American workers and the public at large. 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025). The IFR also explained that this rulemaking will enhance public safety by ensuring proper vetting before issuing renewal EADs, which are important benefits, and improve program integrity. See 90 FR 48799, 48804 (Oct. 30, 2025). DHS is enhancing its vetting and screening efforts, increasing its ability to detect aliens with potentially harmful intent, deter fraud, and place removable aliens into proceedings. DHS uses all applicable provisions under the law to help protect the United States from those who pose a risk to public safety and national security.

The IFR, and this final rule, ends the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization documents, so that DHS can take appropriate action before an immigration benefit is again provided to an alien. The IFR discussed specific examples of the harm that could result from continuing to automatically extend an alien's expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal EAD

application.\156\ The IFR also explained that such automatic extensions grant the benefit without USCIS first performing the following actions: an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information, and a determination that the employment authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if applicable.\157\ Without the IFR, and this final rule, aliens could still obtain an automatic extension despite derogatory information that could flag them as a national security or public safety risk. As described above, vetting and screening might not be completed and derogatory information reviewed and resolved before the alien's EAD expires. 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 DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security.\158\

\156\ See 90 FR at 48807-48808.

\157\ See 90 FR at 48808.

\158\ 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.”) (last visited May 26, 2026).

iv. Arbitrary and Capricious/Procedural Deficiencies That Violate the APA

Comment: A few commenters said that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the APA since the rule neither adequately analyzed the impacts on employers and the economy nor proposed mitigation strategies. One commenter said that the IFR is arbitrary and capricious because it provides no economic analysis of the IFR's impact, disregards evidence of persistent backlogs and ongoing demand for work permits, relies on speculative or unsupported assertions, and ignores serious reliance interests. The commenter said that the IFR is arbitrary and capricious under the APA because the agency failed to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. The IFR acknowledged and analyzed the potential impacts of the IFR but explained that due to factors contributing to a high degree of uncertainty, DHS cannot estimate the number of renewal EAD applicants who will be affected by this rule. See 90 FR 48816. The analysis included a discussion of the potential impacts on U.S. employers of aliens with EADs. See 90 FR 48817. As explained in the IFR and in Section V.B.1. of this preamble, given the large amount of uncertainty pertaining to EAD filing rates and processing efficiencies, including those stemming from recent and future policy changes that may affect EAD eligibility, DHS was unable to produce a tenable population estimate for the future population that could be affected by the IFR and this final rule. See 90 FR 48817.

DHS recognizes, despite limitations on the ability to quantify future impacts of this rulemaking, that some aliens may experience a temporary lapse in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity in the absence of an automatic extension, and that this could impact the alien and their U.S. employer. As explained earlier in this preamble, DHS has determined 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: A commenter said that DHS provides no estimate of how many unionized workers are likely to lose employment authorization because of adjudication delays, an omission that is particularly glaring given the size of the affected workforce. The commenter added that DHS also does not analyze how sudden, government-caused employment interruptions could weaken labor unions or destabilize labor management planning across sectors that depend heavily on immigrant workers. The commenter stated that the IFR's silence on these issues underscores its arbitrary and capricious nature, which is in violation of the APA.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. The IFR acknowledged and analyzed the potential impacts of the IFR but explained that due to factors contributing to a high degree of uncertainty, DHS cannot estimate the number of renewal EAD applicants who will be affected by this rule. See 90 FR48816. As explained in the IFR, given the large amount of uncertainty pertaining to EAD filing rates and processing efficiencies, including those stemming from recent and future policy changes that may affect EAD eligibility, DHS is unable to produce a tenable population estimate for the future population that may be affected by the IFR and this final rule. See 90 FR 48799, 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025). The degree of uncertainty is not exclusive to non-unionized workers who might be potentially affected by the IFR and this final rule if faced with a temporary lapse in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Given the high degree of uncertainty, DHS cannot estimate the number of unionized renewal EAD applicants who will be affected by this rule and the impacts, if any, that might flow to labor unions.

Comment: Multiple commenters requested that DHS withdraw the IFR in its entirety because it violates the APA and/or is arbitrary and capricious. One commenter said that DHS did not establish why the current vetting is insufficient and that upending work authorization for millions without sufficient factual data in support violates the APA. Another commenter said that the rule violates the APA because USCIS is removing the guardrails it acknowledged needing, without any facts or proof that would indicate improved adjudication times.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the IFR violates the APA, or that DHS did not provide sufficient justification for the rule. DHS will not withdraw the IFR. DHS is adopting the IFR as final following careful consideration of the comments received.

The IFR and this final rule end the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization documents so that DHS can take appropriate action before an immigration benefit is provided to an alien. The IFR discussed specific examples of the harm that could result from continuing to automatically extend 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.\159\ The IFR also explained that such automatic extensions grant the benefit without 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.\160\ Without the IFR, and this final rule, aliens could still obtain an automatic extension despite derogatory information that could flag them as a national security or public safety risk. As described previously, vetting and screening might not be completed and derogatory information reviewed and resolved before the alien's EAD expires. 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 DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security.\161\

\159\ 90 FR 48799 48807-48808 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\160\ 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025).

\161\ 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.”) (last visited May 26, 2026).

DHS has determined that the potential impact that some aliens may experience a temporary lapse 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. v. Reliance Interests

Comment: Many commenters stated that the IFR disregarded significant reliance interests that DHS itself reaffirmed when it issued a permanent 540-day automatic extension less than one year before the IFR. Commenters said the 2025 IFR eliminates extensions entirely, imposing consequences DHS recently deemed economically harmful and operationally unworkable. Several commenters added that this reversal in policy, without new evidence or a reasoned explanation, violates the APA.

Several commenters stated that for nearly a decade, USCIS has automatically provided an extension of some length to some groups of workers with expiring EADs. The commenters said that employers and workers structured hiring, staffing, payroll planning, and employee retention around that assurance, and now, DHS cannot abruptly withdraw the permanent 540-day automatic extension without addressing these significant reliance interests. The commenters said that doing so violates core administrative law principles, because Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 30 (2020), concluded that agencies must meaningfully consider reliance interests when abandoning prior policy.

Several commenters stated that the IFR failed to consider the reliance interests of broader stakeholders, including state and local governments, service providers, regional economies, and federal agencies, all of whom depend on stable workforces. A commenter stated that in Maine, automatic extensions are especially critical for the thousands of immigrants who rely on regulatory stability and plan their lives around this expectation, and DHS's actions failed to properly consider these significant reliance interests and have “pulled the rug out from under them without explanation.”

Response: DHS disagrees with the assertion that the IFR did not sufficiently consider the reliance interests of the regulated public on the prior rules that provided for automatic extension of EADs and/or employment authorization based on a timely filed renewal application. The IFR specifically discussed and acknowledged reliance interests and explained why DHS has determined that any reliance interests are outweighed by the removal of automatic extensions for aliens in certain employment authorization categories. See 90 FR 48809-10. In preparing this final rule, DHS further considered all comments that articulated specific reliance interests.

DHS believes that the benefits of this rule to the United States outweigh any reliance interests held by the alien, his or her family, the employer or the public at-large in the automatic extensions of EADs to avoid temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. The Federal Government has a duty to protect U.S. national security, public safety, and the integrity of immigration benefits, and in the context of the IFR and this final rule, to better ensure that employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with prohibiting the unlawful employment of aliens. Any reliance interest in the prior regulatory framework and policy does not outweigh the need to protect public safety and the integrity of immigration benefits and employment authorization. vi. Failure To Consider Alternatives

Comment: A commenter argued that DHS's rejection of two alternatives ((1) returning to a 180-day automatic work permit extension period and (2) issuing interim EAD cards) without substantive analysis and based upon unsubstantiated risks to national security does not satisfy the APA's requirement of “meaningful consideration of alternatives.”

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that it did not meaningfully consider reasonable alternatives. These were reasonable alternatives for DHS to consider since they are prior DHS policies. As DHS explained in the IFR, and reiterates in this final rule, these and the other sub regulatory alternatives mentioned above suffer the same flaws as the up-to-540-day automatic extension. The automatic extension of an EAD, whether for 180 days, 540 days, or through the issuance of an interim EAD, grants the benefit of extending an alien's expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal EAD application. 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 aliens, and a determination that the employment authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if applicable. If DHS pursued these options, aliens with derogatory information flagged during the background check process would nevertheless still obtain an automatic extension of 180 days, or an interim EAD, even if derogatory information cannot be reviewed and resolved, and their application denied, before the alien's EAD expires. These automatic extensions therefore pose 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.

Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the IFR failed to consider reasonable alternatives to eliminating automatic extensions entirely, which violates the standards of “rational decision-making” required under the APA. A commenter said DHS did not articulate any consideration of alternative, sub-regulatory means to achieve increased security for the American public, such as providing direction to staff to prioritize the vetting of EAD renewal applications, which

would be appropriate and a better option to meet the agency's security goals than the rule's termination of the post-2024 practice of providing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs for 540 days for eligible aliens who timely filed. A commenter stated that DHS ignores the straightforward solution of printing extension confirmations on secure paper or commonsense alternatives such as issuing multiple EADs with consecutive validity periods or improving USCIS data systems to identify and expedite renewal applications for applicants whose EAD will imminently expired, and that rejecting a simple administrative fix in favor of a rule that foreseeably creates widespread employment interruptions reflects precisely the sort of arbitrary and capricious decision-making the APA prohibits.

Another commenter said that DHS's failure to address consecutive EAD validity periods underscores the inadequacy of its “proper planning” rationale and confirms that the agency did not meaningfully consider reasonable, less disruptive alternatives, which is in violation of the APA.

Response: DHS considered the alternatives suggested by the commenters but declined to adopt them. This administration's priority is the robust vetting of all aliens in our country to better protect the safety of American workers and the public at large. The IFR, and this final rule, will enhance public safety by ensuring proper vetting before issuing renewal EADs, which are important benefits, and improve program integrity. DHS is enhancing its vetting and screening efforts, increasing its ability to detect aliens with potentially harmful intent, deter fraud, and place removable aliens into proceedings. DHS uses all applicable provisions under the law, to protect the United States from those who are a risk to public safety and national security. This includes more frequent vetting of aliens, including more frequent determinations that an alien granted an EAD continues to remain eligible for employment authorization, and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable. DHS believes that it would be inconsistent with these policy goals for USCIS to issue, concurrently or in close proximity, multiple EADs to the same alien with consecutive validity periods. Essentially, this would allow an alien to submit multiple EAD applications at or around the same time, and consecutive EADs would be tantamount to one EAD with a longer validity period. The result of this alternative would be less frequent vetting and eligibility determinations, which would be directly contrary to DHS's stated policy goal of the IFR and this final rule.

DHS does not agree that identifying and expediting renewal applications for applicants whose EAD will imminently expire is a reasonable alternative. Such an approach, even if operationally feasible, would simply encourage and incentivize applicants to wait until the last minute before filing the EAD renewal application. Expediting the applications of those who wait to file would have the unintended consequence of delaying the adjudication of those who filed six months in advance of their EAD expiration. DHS does not believe it is reasonable to reward applicants who wait until the last minute to file their renewal EAD application by moving those applications to the front of the processing queue to the disadvantage of other applicants who filed months in advance.

Furthermore, DHS does not agree that a reasonable alternative is to issue evidence of an automatic extension of employment authorization on secure paper, as that would not further the policy goal of more frequently vetting, screening, and adjudicating continued eligibility and that the alien continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable. Secure paper would also not resolve the issue DHS noted in the IFR \162\ pertaining to the risks associated with automatic extension of employment authorization and the potential for employer confusion as to when the automatic extension of employment authorization ends. The potential confusion stems from the fact that the alien, not their employer, is the party to the renewal application and is the one notified if the renewal application is denied. Their employer is not separately notified and is dependent on notification from the alien that their renewal application has been denied and they are no longer employment authorized. If the alien does not immediately notify their employer, the employer could unknowingly employ an alien who is no longer authorized to work in the United States. The use of secure paper to print evidence of the automatic extension would have no effect on this issue, or the need to ensure more frequent vetting and screening and that the alien continues to be eligible for employment authorization and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable.

\162\ See 90 FR 48799, 48808-48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

vii. Comment Period

Comment: Several commenters requested that DHS extend the comment period beyond the December 1, 2025 deadline. An individual commenter requested that DHS extend the comment period to 60 days beyond December 1, 2025. Additional commenters requested that DHS rescind the IFR's implementation and provide a full 90-day comment period. One commenter requested that DHS reopen the comment period for at least 60 days.

Response: DHS believes that the 33-day comment period from October 30, 2025, to December 1, 2025, was sufficient and reasonable, given the straightforward purpose of the IFR, as evidenced by the quality of comments that DHS carefully considered in the promulgation of this final rule.

The APA does not specify a minimum comment period. On January 20, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025), which put the public on notice that it was the President's priority to take all appropriate action to alien any departmental activities with the policies set out by the President and to ensure, among others, “that employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, and that employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United States.”

Additionally, on Jan. 20, 2025, the President also issued E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security and Public Safety Threats, which directs the coordination among the departments to identify all resources that may be used to ensure that all aliens seeking admission to the United States, or who are already in the United States, are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible. On October 29, 2025, the IFR was published for public inspection, which allowed individuals to familiarize themselves with the rule. On October 30, 2025, the comment period opened with the publication of the rule in the Federal Register and commenters had 33 days, that is to December 1, 2025, to provide comments. DHS believes that the 33-day period is sufficient given the straightforward purpose of the IFR.

Comment: Commenters stated that the post-promulgation comment period offered by DHS was insufficient to bypass the APA's notice and comment procedures. Courts have repeatedly held that such after-the- fact opportunities

cannot substitute for prior notice and comment. Once a rule takes effect, the ability to influence the agency's decision-making is, as a practical matter, diminished. The commenters added that pre- promulgation notice and comment are not optional--they are statutory prerequisites for a legislative rule to be valid, especially in this instance where the IFR will have far reaching effects. A commenter said they were not afforded the customary notice and comment period to conduct a full, data-driven economic or labor market impact analysis prior to implementation, which undermines their ability to provide DHS with the comprehensive, evidence-based assessment that this rule warrants. A different commenter similarly stated that with more time and a comment period that accounts for stakeholder input prior to implementation, they would have submitted more feedback directly relevant to the IFR. A few commenters requested that DHS conduct a full notice and comment process to consider stakeholder input.

Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters that allowing for post- promulgation comments when issuing the IFR may be insufficient for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the rule may be invalid or otherwise procedurally deficient. Unless a statutory exception to notice and comment rulemaking applies, the APA requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register before the rule has legal effect. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The APA requires that the notice of proposed rulemaking contain reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed and either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(2)-(3). DHS has complied with the requirements under the APA. The IFR explained the relevant issues and the Department's rationale why it was ending the automatic extensions of employment authorizations and/or EADs under 8 CFR 274a.13. DHS also demonstrated that it had good cause to bypass standard notice and comment procedures under the APA. With the issuance of the IFR, DHS invited the public to participate in the rulemaking, thus giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide comments on every aspect of this rule, including potential modifications. DHS is now considering all comments received on the IFR and responded to them in this preamble, thereby providing the notice and comment process sought by commenters. DHS thus has met every statutory requisite for the IFR and this final rule to be a properly issued legislative rule under the APA.\163\

\163\ Cf. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. 657, 683-84 (2020) (finding that an IFR satisfied the APA's notice requirements).

Comment: Several commenters expressed that the issuance of the rule as an IFR with immediate effect that same day deprived stakeholders of any meaningful opportunity to review, comment, or prepare for compliance.

Response: As stated in the IFR, DHS issued the IFR without prior notice or public procedures because DHS was invoking the “good cause” exception under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the same reason, DHS found that a delayed effective date of 30-days was not required. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Both provisions allow an agency to publish a measure immediately if acting expeditiously is warranted. DHS further explained in the IFR why it was necessary for the agency to move so expeditiously in promulgating and implementing this rule. With the issuance of the IFR, however, DHS invited the public to participate in the rulemaking, thus giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide comments on every aspect of this rule, including potential modifications. DHS has now considered all comments received on the IFR and responded to them in this preamble, thereby providing the notice and comment process sought by commenters. Furthermore, DHS also explained in the IFR that the regulatory amendment involves a foreign affairs function under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) and that therefore, the agency may forego notice and comment rulemaking and a delayed effective date. Therefore, the IFR and this final rule complied with the process required under the APA for rules that are excepted from notice and comment. viii. Comment Submission Requirements

Comment: A couple of commenters stated that DHS's requirement that comments be submitted in English deprived many asylum seekers and other immigrants of their right to comment on the IFR and to provide input grounded in their own lived experiences. The commenter stated that many asylum seekers come from countries where English is not the primary language and may not have the ability and resources to prepare comments in English.

Response: DHS does not agree that the requirement that comments be submitted in English, or accompanied by an English translation, deprived aliens of the opportunity to comment on the IFR.

As stated in the IFR, comments “must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided.” \164\ That requirement is consistent with longstanding USCIS practice and with E.O. 14224, Designating English as the Official Language of the United States, 90 FR 11363 (Mar. 1, 2025). This requirement does not limit who may submit comments. It only specifies the language in which comments must appear in the rulemaking record so that they can be reviewed and considered on a consistent basis as part of the administrative process.

\164\ 90 FR 48799-800.

Nothing in the IFR prevented non-English-speaking individuals, including asylum seekers and other immigrants, from participating in this rulemaking. Individuals and organizations were free to submit comments translated into English, whether prepared by the commenter or with the assistance of online translation tools or counsel, community organizations, or other representatives. Many of the comments DHS received came from advocacy and legal-services organizations that described, in detail, the lived experiences and concerns of asylum seekers and other non-English-speaking communities.

The English-language requirement for comments in this rulemaking does not restrict who may have their views considered in the development of this final rule.

Comment: A commenter said that the FRN states that the comments must include the agency and docket number, but that requirement is arbitrary and capricious with respect to online submissions. Online submissions are linked to the specific FRN so there is no ambiguity as to which FRN is at issue. The commenter said that any decision to exclude comments from consideration because of these administrative barriers violates the APA and the whole purpose of soliciting comments from the public. Another commenter asked why comments must have USCIS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0271 for DHS to consider them.

One commenter stated that comments should be restricted to U.S. citizens.

Response: DHS considered all comments received in the docket. Accordingly, commenters' concerns about DHS's requirements for labeling comments are moot.

Finally, the APA requires that a rule be published in the Federal Register

and, unless an exception to the notice and comment procedures applies, to give interested people an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The APA does not restrict public participation in rules to U.S. citizens, and DHS would not have a legal basis to do so. 12. Regulatory Impact Analysis i. Methodology

Comment: Many commenters stated that the IFR fails to provide any substantive economic impact analysis of eliminating automatic EAD extensions and did not reconcile its position with DHS's recent finding that automatic extensions yield substantial economic benefits.

Multiple commenters stated that the IFR failed to meet the standards required by E.O. 12866 for economically significant rules. They stated that such rules must be supported by a clear statement of need, a thorough examination of alternative approaches, and a detailed benefit-cost analysis.

Several commenters remarked that USCIS relies on “conjectural concerns” such as a remittance-based theory that are inconsistent with DHS's own statistics.

One commenter stated that the rule declined to quantify productivity losses or turnover costs, elements that were addressed in the 2024 rule with detailed estimates of economic impact. The commenter noted that DHS speculated that renewal filings would decrease but did not account for the number of current EAD holders who would need to renew or the implications of shortened validity periods, which might require more frequent renewals.

One commenter provided a conservative scenario analysis to demonstrate that the economic impact would exceed the $100 million threshold for economically significant rules under Executive Order 12866.

Multiple commenters expressed concern that eliminating automatic extensions would disrupt a significant portion of the U.S. labor force. They cited DHS's acknowledgment that foreign-born workers constitute roughly 20% of the U.S. civilian workforce and argued that eliminating automatic extensions would not simply affect individual households or hypothetical outflows abroad but would disrupt up to one-fifth of the U.S. labor force and the U.S. employers, tax revenues, and economic activity tied to that workforce.

One commenter specifically noted that the impact would be significantly more severe in New York City, where the foreign-born workforce comprises approximately 1.8 million people, about 44.3 percent of the city's total labor force.

Another commenter stated that California alone is home to over 10.5 million immigrants, comprising 27.3 percent of the state's population, and that in California, immigrants have contributed $168.1 billion in taxes and have $404.4 billion in spending power. The commenter stated that California relies on the contribution of working immigrants to stimulate the economy.

Response: DHS believes it conducted an analysis in full compliance with E.O. 12866, and DHS described that this rule would affect those aliens who would no longer receive an automatic EAD extension. DHS did designate the IFR as a “significant regulatory action” and economically significant as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects on the economy may exceed $100 million in any year of the analysis. Although there is likely to be variation and uncertainty in populations and filing behavior, DHS estimated in this final rule the number of EADs that are expected to lapse, and the estimated duration of the lapse, for a specific 18-month window based on some specific assumptions. See Section V.B.1 of this preamble for more information.

In previous rules, DHS attempted to stabilize aliens' earnings and avoid labor turnover costs of employers. DHS also continues to work to improve processing times and reduce backlogs. However, the Department has shifted focus to prioritizing public safety, national security and benefit integrity. Due to this shift, DHS acknowledges that there will be impacts to EAD renewal applicants for the classes covered in the previous extension actions and their employers. DHS disagrees with the comment that this rule would destabilize up to one-fifth of the national labor force and the employers, tax revenues, and economic activity that depend on that workforce or that the discussion about remittances in the IFR is inconsistent with DHS statistics. The reference in the IFR to the total percentage of foreign-born workers in the United States was in the context of the foreign affairs exception and a broader discussion about the significance of remittances, including by aliens affected by this rule, on foreign affairs. This rule applies directly to certain categories of renewal applications that were previously provided automatic extensions and not, as the commenter suggests, to every foreign-born worker in the U.S. economy. ii. Impact on Individuals

Comment: One commenter remarked that the IFR would severely harm Colorado's economy and businesses and that the automatic extension that come from the temporary final rules of 2022 and 2024 resulted in wage stabilization worth $10 billion to employment authorized aliens and average cost savings of $3.5 billion to U.S. employers over that period.

Another commenter stated that recent and proposed immigration policies will raise the cost of goods and services for U.S. families.

Response: In previous rules providing for the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs based on the timely filing of a renewal EAD application, DHS attempted to stabilize aliens' earnings and avoid labor turnover costs of employers; however, the Department has shifted focus to prioritizing public safety, national security and benefit integrity. Due to this shift, DHS acknowledges that there will be impacts on a portion of the U.S. labor force. DHS disagrees that this specific immigration policy alone is going to be the sole reason for the costs of goods and services to increase. iii. Impact on the U.S. Economy, Employers, and Labor Force

Comment: Multiple commenters provided input on the RIA's assessment of impacts on the economy. One submission expressed concern that USCIS recognized the negative impacts of removing the automatic extension period on aliens and employers but declined to conduct any economic analysis during the rulemaking. The commenter said that such an approach disregarded an estimated $4 billion in turnover costs and additional burdens on employers and Form I-9 vendors to update systems and policies. By omitting quantification of significant costs, the commenter reasoned that DHS cannot credibly claim it weighed the IFR's benefits against its costs, as the IFR provided no numeric estimates despite prior rules showing costs in the billions of dollars. Furthermore, the commenter said that the immediate effect of the IFR would place significant burdens on employers and vendors. The commenter concluded that DHS's justification for immediate implementation--to prevent a surge in renewal applications--would not outweigh the operational and economic strain imposed on employers and industry.

Likewise, another commenter expressed concern that the IFR offered

no new economic analysis and did not reconcile its approach with DHS's recent determination that automatic extensions provide substantial economic benefits. The commenter said that although DHS conducted detailed modeling less than a year earlier, the IFR stated the agency could not quantify the impact of eliminating extensions while bypassing notice and comment procedures. The commenter remarked that DHS previously found extensions stabilize billions in earnings, reduce turnover costs, and increase tax revenue, yet the IFR relied on speculative concerns instead of updated data. Moreover, the commenter said DHS's own figures, removing extensions could destabilize up to one-fifth of the labor force, creating systemic risks to employers, tax revenues, and economic activity that the 2024 Final Rule had acknowledged but the IFR failed to address.

Similarly, one commenter stated that DHS had not estimated or considered the economic value and workforce impact of EADs in the IFR. The commenter remarked that existing research had shown that work authorization allowed migrants with temporary protections to make significant economic contributions. For example, when the TPS population was about 354,000 in 2021, estimates indicated billions in tax contributions and spending power, and other studies suggested large contributions to GDP. Similar findings were reported for DACA recipients, including tax payments, household spending power, and wage increases after receiving EADs. Additional research has shown that EADs were associated with higher employment rates and wage gains for TPS holders and asylum seekers. The commenter said that such studies suggested that work authorization had positive effects on earnings, job quality, and economic stability. The commenter concluded that if DHS had conducted an economic analysis, it could have accounted for these impacts before finalizing the rule.

One commenter said that DHS's own figures indicated that eliminating automatic EAD extensions could disrupt a significant portion of the U.S. workforce and impose substantial economic costs. The commenter reasoned that such figures underscore the need for DHS to complete a thorough economic analysis before finalizing the IFR. Therefore, the commenter requested that DHS provide a comprehensive economic analysis.

A commenter stated that DHS's prior analysis projected 293,000- 449,000 timely EAD renewal applicants would face work authorization lapses, and USCIS data showed backlogs were already increasing before the IFR, making lapses inevitable. The commenter further stated even short lapses could cause thousands of dollars in lost wages per worker and major operational disruptions. Lastly, the commenter stated that DHS acknowledged the IFR would cause lost wages, productivity, payroll tax contributions, as well as turnover costs, but failed to quantify the aggregate impact.

Response: DHS agrees that this rule reverses some of the impacts described in the prior automatic extension rules. As DHS acknowledged in the IFR, temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity could result in cost and transfer impacts such as lost compensation to workers, transfers between workers losing their employment authorizations to replacement workers, employers' lost productivity when they are not able to quickly replace employees with lapses, and turnover costs for employers to find replacement employees.

DHS's 2024 final rule analysis projected that automatic extensions would prevent a significant number of future lapses, but anticipated that lapses would generally cease beginning in April 2026, even without the 540-day extension.\165\ DHS acknowledges that the December 2025 reduction in EAD validity periods may lead to more frequent renewal applications, potentially affecting this projection.\166\ However, recent declines in the affected population and changes in filing behavior make it nearly impossible to reliably estimate the number and duration of lapses.

\165\ See 89 FR 101251 (Dec. 13, 2024), Table 12 (Population Projections by Month, Rounded to Thousands).

\166\ The 2024 final rule analysis projection starting in April 2026 was based on the 5-year validity period in place at the time of the 2024 final rule. In December 2025, USCIS shortened the validity period to maximum of 18 months for certain categories. The reduced validity period could impact the frequency of future renewal filings See https://www.uscis.gov/save/current-user-agencies/news-alerts/reduced-validity-periods-for-newly-issued-employment-authorization-documents (last updated Jan. 12, 2026).

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. The prior automatic extension framework allowed aliens to continue working for up to 540 days based solely on a pending renewal application, during which time USCIS might identify, but not yet resolve, derogatory information bearing on eligibility or security concerns. DHS has determined that extending this benefit without updated adjudication and screening 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 aliens in the United States are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.\167\ DHS disagrees with the comment that this rule would destabilize up to one-fifth of the national labor force and the employers, tax revenues, and economic activity that depend on that workforce. This rule applies directly to certain categories of renewal applications that were previously eligible for automatic extensions.

\167\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 20, 2025); E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 20, 2025).

iv. Other Comments on the RIA

Comment: A commenter asked that USCIS suspend further action with the rule until it prepares and publishes a full RIA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and reopen the comment period for 60 days following the publishing of those materials.

Response: DHS published an RIA in the IFR providing a qualitative assessment of benefits, transfers, and costs. In that analysis, DHS acknowledged the possibility that some renewal applicants could experience EAD lapses. However, due to factors such as population changes, reduced filings, shorter validity periods for certain EADs, DHS determined that the conditions are too uncertain to accurately estimate the number or duration of lapses. Additionally, lower filing volumes may allow DHS to address the backlog more rapidly.

While many renewal applicants covered by the two TFRs who received automatic extensions may have eventually obtained five-year EADs, projecting how many new and renewal EADs will be subject to the 18- month validity period is highly speculative. As a result, DHS cannot reliably estimate processing times, which are essential for calculating lapses and their duration.

Within the IFR, DHS referenced prior analyses from the TFRs and 2024 final rule to demonstrate that it is aware of the past situations of large lapses, but could not use prior historical data to

forecast the IFR's impact. Assuming prior spikes in EAD filings would continue is inconsistent with recent data. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble. Therefore, at the time of the IFR and the issuance of this final rule, DHS could not reliably estimate the number or duration of lapsed EADs.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires agencies to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis when issuing a notice and comment rulemaking. DHS disagrees with the claims that a proper regulatory flexibility analysis was not conducted. The RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to those rules for which an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law. DHS did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action. Accordingly, DHS is not required to either certify that this IFR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities nor conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis. DHS acknowledged that this interim final rule directly regulates individuals, and individuals are not defined as “small entities” by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The rule indirectly impacts certain employers if, in the future, processing times exceed the expiration dates of EADs.

DHS used the IFR, in part, to address prior policy decisions that resulted in the filing of an overwhelming and unmanageable number of EAD applications making it more important than ever to conduct complete and thorough vetting of applicants, including those filing for renewal EADs, to mitigate potential risks to public safety and national security. DHS understands that the IFR and this final rule, and any resulting gaps in continued employment authorization, may have adverse impacts on employers and applicants. However, as DHS noted in the IFR, DHS expects that overall EAD filing rates (initials and renewals) are likely to substantially decline given actions DHS has taken in support of presidential directives, freeing up adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD processing times and the need for renewal EAD applicants in the longer term to rely on an automatic extension of their EAD to avoid lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD validity due to processing delays.

In addition, proper planning by an applicant, and monitoring of EAD processing times, may allow the alien to mitigate the risk for the alien, the alien's family, as well as the alien's employer that the alien will experience prolonged lapses in their employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Proper planning may ameliorate the risk of losing valid employment authorization, as well as the disruption and associated instability with business continuity or other financial harm for employers and the community. Ultimately, granting benefits without proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to the DHS mission to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security.\168\ DHS believes that this concern justifies potential backlogs and operational challenges that may result in a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD validity.

\168\ 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.”) (last visited May 26, 2026).

As explained, DHS has complied with the requirements of the APA and RFA. Therefore, DHS will not adopt the commenters' suggestions to withdraw the IFR, delay the implementation of the IFR or this final rule, and provide an additional comment period. 13. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Comment: A few commenters remarked that small businesses may be unfairly burdened with additional costs associated with administering a more complex I-9 program in their workplace or may be burdened by disruptions caused by lapses in employment authorization. Another commenter said that the IFR will have a chilling effect on the hiring of otherwise eligible non-citizen workers.

Commenters called for USCIS to conduct a complete RFA assessment. A commenter said the RFA requires an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 603-605), and an adequate certification must be supported by a factual basis. The commenter went on to detail impacts to small entities. The commenter stated that, if DHS has certified no significant impact without disaggregated data by sector and firm size, empirical estimates of affected headcount, and a monetized impact range, the certification is unsupported and unlawful. The commenter concluded that DHS must publish an IRFA, evaluate alternatives that minimize small-entity impacts, and seek small-entity input before proceeding.

Response: DHS disagrees with the claims that a proper regulatory flexibility analysis was not conducted. The RFA's regulatory flexibility analysis requirements apply only to those rules for which an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law.\169\ DHS did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this action. Accordingly, DHS is not required to either certify that this IFR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities nor conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis. DHS acknowledged that this interim final rule directly regulates individuals, and individuals are not defined as “small entities” by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.\170\ The rule indirectly impacts certain employers if, in the future, processing times exceed the expiration dates of EADs.

\169\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

\170\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).

USCIS does take actions to address reducing burden and complexity for employers. As DHS discussed previously, USCIS periodically updates the M-274, offers guidance on the agency website, hosts several monthly I-9 webinars, and has a Form I-9 Contact Center. Further, E-Verify is a service that allows employers to electronically confirm employment eligibility of newly hired workers.

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.” \171\ 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.” \172\

\171\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.

\172\ Id.

DHS has already taken a number of actions in support of the directives described earlier in this final rule.\173\

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. DHS anticipates that these may reduce processing time and lapses. However, DHS cautions that various factors make it difficult to estimate the number of lapses and when they will occur. Applicants may also apply earlier to reduce the chances of lapses.

\173\ 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).