DHS, 특정 EAD 자동연장 폐지 규칙 최종 확정

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 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 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).

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 IFR162 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. vii. Comment Period 162 See 90 FR 48799, 48808-48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).

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 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 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).

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.

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 164 90 FR 48799–800.

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.

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.

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). 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.

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 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).

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

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

171 See 90 FR 8443, 8446.

this order and the immigration laws.”172 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.

14. Paperwork Reduction Act Comment: A commenter said that eliminating the automatic extension directly affects two OMB-approved information collections: Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification (OMB Control No. 1615-0047) and Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (OMB Control No. 1615-0040/0016). The commenter said the rule does not appear to include Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notices proposing revisions to these collections or revised burden estimates and DHS must either (a) publish PRA notices with revised burden and cost estimates aligned to the rule’s effects, or (b) explain why no change occurs and provide data supporting that assertion. Proceeding without PRA compliance is a defect.

Response: DHS has considered the comment asserting that this rule triggers new information collection requirements under the PRA for Form I-9, Employment Eligibility 172 Id.

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).

Verification (OMB Control No. 1615-0047), and Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (OMB Control No. 1615-0040).

Under the PRA, an agency must obtain OMB approval when it seeks to “collect information” from 10 or more persons, or when it revises an existing collection in a way that changes the information requested, who must respond, how often they must respond, or the estimated burden of responding. This rule does none of those things. The rule does not change the Form I-765 itself, the data elements on the form, the categories of individuals who file it, or the circumstances under which it must be filed. Aliens who seek initial or renewal employment authorization and/or EAD in the affected categories will continue to use the same form, with the same instructions, to request the same benefit. The rule changes only the regulatory consequence that previously flowed automatically from the filing of certain renewal applications, not the information collected on Form I-765 or the obligation to file the form in the first place. This rule also does not amend the requirements that govern employers’ use of Form I-9. Employers are required under section 274A of the INA and 8 CFR 274a.2 to complete Form I-9 for each new hire and to reverify employment authorization when previously presented documentation expires. Those obligations exist independent of this rule. While the elimination of automatic extensions may result in some employers conducting reverification at different times than they would have under the prior automatic-extension framework, the scope and content of the information collected on Form I-9 are unchanged. The rule does not add any new fields to Form I-9, does not create a new reverification requirement, and does not expand the universe of employers subject to the Form I-9 provisions. Accordingly, it does not revise the underlying information collection approved under OMB Control No. 1615-0047.

This rule does not require DHS or employers to collect new categories of information, does not increase the frequency with which individuals must submit information to DHS beyond what is already required to seek or renew an EAD, and does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on employers beyond existing Form I-9 obligations.

Consistent with the IFR’s PRA discussion and the PRA section of this final rule, DHS concludes that this rule does not introduce a new collection of information or revise an existing collection within the meaning of the PRA and that no new or amended OMB approval is required.

15. General Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Comment: A commenter stated that DHS must provide more evidence for why the rule’s implementation is needed despite its likely negative impact on families and must include a Family Policymaking Assessment as required by Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999, 5 U.S.C. 601. The commenter said DHS’s rationale does not comprehensively consider how the loss of discretionary income will impact families and fails to consider that EADs are strongly tied to obtaining forms of identification. Without the ability to drive, many families may be limited or prevented from attending church, medical appointments, buying groceries, or taking children to school. They may also have more difficulty accessing utilities and their bank accounts. The commenter said the rule cannot move forward without an adequate rationale that properly considers these dynamics, which DHS failed to consider.

Another commenter stated that USCIS should prepare and publish a written statement as required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The commenter said even conservative scenarios imply private sector costs approaching or exceeding the threshold for a required UMRA analysis based on lost wages, productivity, and turnover.

A commenter that supports the rule said DHS should add a categorical exclusion to its NEPA procedures to strengthen its position that this rule does not require a NEPA analysis. The commenter stated that, in this IFR, DHS’s NEPA implementation process was lacking though the commenter agreed that this rule does not have a significant environmental impact. The commenter went on to expand on DHS’s conclusion that the rule is “strictly administrative and procedural” and the appropriate use of categorical exclusion A3. The commenter recommended that DHS strengthen the final version of this rule by adopting NEPA procedures that draw a distinction between rules that increase immigration (and therefore do have environmental impacts) and rules that do not (and where the invocation of such categorical exclusions are appropriate).

Response: DHS recognizes that this rule has the potential to impact families, as described above and in the Interim Final Rule.174 DHS is charged with protecting the national security and public safety of the American people, and so is finalizing this regulation to enhance benefit integrity and better protect public safety and national security by prioritizing the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensuring continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD. DHS urges eligible aliens to timely file renewal EAD applications to mitigate the risk that the applicant may experience a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD validity. Regarding the commenters’ concern that the rule inadequately considered impacts on aliens’ ability to obtain driver’s licenses or other identification cards, DHS emphasizes that the IFR explicitly explained that security concerns outweigh granting automatic extensions of EADs in this context.175 Nevertheless, this rule does not prevent the use of properly issued EADs for identification.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and 174 See 90 FR 48818-19.

175 87 FR 48809. See 90 FR 48809, footnote 112.

Tribal governments.176 Title I of UMRA provides certain exceptions to its requirements and definitions. For example, UMRA does not apply to rules issued with no notice of proposed rulemaking, such as the IFR and this final rule.177 Further, this rule does not impose an enforceable duty on EAD renewal applicants or their employers and is thus not a federal mandate. Accordingly, there is nothing further required for DHS to comply with UMRA.

DHS appreciates the recommendation to reconsider how it approaches NEPA and its categorical exclusions, specifically by differentiating between regulations that would increase immigration or not. However, this suggestion of adding an additional appropriate CATEX goes beyond the scope of this rule.

Please see Section V.J. below for our discussion of this rule’s implementation and NEPA. As stated in the IFR, and below in this final rule, DHS finds that this action falls strictly within CATEX A3 of the DHS Instructions Manual 023-01-001-1, relating to the promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the development and publication of policies, orders, directives and notices procedures, manuals and advisory circulars and other guidance documents that are administrative or procedural in nature, and that interpret or amend and existing regulation without changing its environmental effect. See DHS Instructions Manual 023-01-001-1, CATEX A3.

Comment: A commenter stated that the rule was not listed on the Unified Agenda or the regulatory information dashboard until October 30, 2025. According to RegInfo.gov, the IFR was submitted to the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on October 29 and posted for public inspection the same day. The commenter stated that this timeline not only deprived the regulated public of both notice and an opportunity to comment, but it also marked a “radical departure” from the 176 The term “Federal mandate” means a Federal intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2 U.S.C. 1502(1) and 658(5) and (6).

177 See 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).

traditional process of careful OIRA review and deliberation. The commenter stated that it is impossible to envision meaningful OIRA review, a step that is not only conceptually essential but required under Executive Order 12866, in a single day.

Response: First, Executive Order 12866 establishes procedures for OIRA review of significant regulatory actions, but “does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States” or an agency.178 Accordingly while commenters are correct that there was not advance notice of the rule’s consideration at OIRA prior to publication of the rule, and that commenters accordingly did not have an opportunity for a listening session before OIRA prior to publication, DHS followed all legally required procedures for publication of the rule. Further, DHS emphasizes that commenters had the opportunity to comment under the APA on the IFR, as explained above in previous responses addressing notice and comment procedures.

Second, the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, issued under E.O. 12866, is a planning tool published semiannually to inform the public about upcoming regulatory actions. See, generally, Section 4 of E.O. 12866 (Planning Mechanism); see also OIRA, OMB, “About the Unified Agenda.” There is not a legal requirement that agencies announce rules in the Unified Agenda prior to publication in the Federal Register or taking effect. Accordingly, the omission of a rule in the United Agenda does not invalidate or otherwise render procedurally defective a rule properly promulgated in accordance with applicable law and the APA. Instead, the APA requires agencies to provide notice of a rulemaking via the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).179 Finally, the procedures for review by OIRA at the OMB are not within the 178 See E.O. 12866 at sec. 10; 58 FR 51384.

179 Alternatively, the APA also allows for the provision of notice in other ways if the people subject to the rule “are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice”. 5 U.S.C. 553(b).