Thousands of H-1B Workers Could Face Rapid Deportation Under New Trump Plan

0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. Foreign workers who lose their jobs could soon have far less time to remain legally in the United States under a Trump administration proposal moving closer to public release.

The White House completed its review Thursday of a DHS proposal that would remove a job-loss grace period for H-1B workers and other nonimmigrants.

Publication could begin a rulemaking process that may sharply reduce the time affected workers have to preserve lawful status after employment ends.

The existing protection covers workers in E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1 and TN classifications, along with their dependents.

Federal regulations introduced the safeguard in 2016, with the policy taking effect in early 2017 to soften the immigration consequences of employment ending before a worker’s authorized stay expired.

Removing it could tie a person’s ability to remain in the country even more closely to continued employment and employer sponsorship.

The proposal, identified as RIN 1615-AD22 , was received for White House review on August 6 and cleared by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on August 27.

The government listing classifies it as a proposed rule and records the outcome as “consistent with change,” meaning the review concluded following revisions. No publication date was listed.

Current regulations can give eligible workers up to 60 days after their employment ends, or until their authorized stay expires, whichever comes first.

The protection is discretionary, may be granted once during each authorized petition-validity period, and can apply whether someone resigns or is dismissed.

That window allows a displaced employee to obtain another sponsored position, apply for a different immigration classification, or prepare to leave the country.

H-1B workers cannot simply accept any new job: continued employment normally depends on an employer willing to pursue the required immigration process.

If DHS eliminates the grace period as described, a covered worker whose job ends prematurely would generally stop maintaining lawful nonimmigrant status immediately.

Dependents whose status is connected to that worker could face the same disruption.

Fragomen, an immigration law firm, said USCIS may retain separate discretion to forgive a status lapse and permit an eligible person to change employers or immigration status without first leaving the United States.

That distinction matters because losing status is not the same as being automatically deported.

The proposed change could create an immediate obligation to depart and increase exposure to immigration enforcement, but the sources released so far do not establish that every affected worker would be placed directly into removal proceedings.

The White House review is a procedural milestone rather than final approval.

DHS must next publish the proposed text in the Federal Register, where the public would ordinarily receive 30 or 60 days to submit comments.

Officials would then consider those responses before issuing any final regulation, a process that typically takes several months, according to Fragomen.

The policy is part of a broader administration effort to tighten the H-1B system. Bloomberg Law reported that the grace-period measure is advancing alongside a separate proposal for a $103,265 charge connected to new H-1B hires.

For now, the 60-day provision remains available. Workers do not need to leave merely because the White House completed its review, and employers have no new compliance requirement arising from that action alone.

Publication will provide the first definitive account of whom DHS intends to cover, whether it proposes exceptions, and when a final policy might begin.

The public-comment stage will also allow employers, workers, immigration lawyers, and advocacy organizations to challenge the government’s reasoning or document the practical effects of requiring departure immediately after employment ends. Any eventual final rule could also face litigation.

Contact Newsweek editor on this story: Edward Pearcey.

Indexed and credited by AIPROPX. Originating outlet: Newsweek. Open at source →