Did ESTA I94 Fees Go Up?

 What Are the New Amounts and Who Pays?

By Richard T. Herman, Esq.

 

Overview: Why Travel Fees Are Rising in 2025

Yes — ESTA and I-94 fees increased in 2025, marking the steepest travel-entry fee hike in more than a decade. While fee adjustments have occurred periodically over the past several decades, the 2025 increase is the most significant in recent history. As of September 30, 2025, ESTA costs $40 and I-94 land-entry fees total $30, reflecting new DHS surcharges to support border modernization.

These new fees were implemented on September 30, 2025, coinciding with the start of the new fiscal year.

The changes stem from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” signed July 4, 2025, which raised multiple U.S. immigration and border fees to help fund U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operations.

This move shifts more costs to international travelers while strengthening CBP infrastructure, data systems, and staffing across U.S. ports of entry.

 

What Is the ESTA Fee and Who Must Pay It?

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is an automated screening system for visitors from Visa Waiver Program** (VWP)** countries who travel to the U.S. for tourism or business stays under 90 days. Eligibility for ESTA is defined by the criteria set for Visa Waiver Program countries and the purpose and duration of travel. Eligible travelers must enroll in the ESTA system before travel.

Who must pay the ESTA fee:

• Citizens of the 40 VWP countries entering by air or sea.
• Travelers transiting through the U.S.
• Individuals applying at least 72 hours before travel.

 

Who does not pay:

• Travelers entering by land from Canada or Mexico.
• Holders of valid U.S. visas.

ESTA authorization is valid for two years (or until the passport expires). It is not a visa and does not authorize employment or extended stays.

 

 

What Is the New ESTA Fee Amount in 2025?

Fee Type	Previous	New (as of Sept 30, 2025)	Purpose
ESTA Application	$21	$40	Funds CBP operations, Brand USA tourism promotion, and U.S. Treasury deficit reduction

The increase was published in the Federal Register after DHS approval. The new ESTA fee applies to applications submitted in the 2025 tax year and beyond. ESTA applications submitted before September 30 remain at $21; those filed afterward incur $40. This marks a significant rise from the previous fee of $21, effective September 30, 2025. The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) fee will increase from $21 to $40 starting September 30, 2025.

After payment, travelers are advised to keep a printed copy of their ESTA confirmation or payment receipt for their records.

How to pay:

Only through the official CBP ESTA website using a debit or credit card.
Avoid unofficial “third-party” sites that overcharge or collect traveler data.

The ESTA fee rose to $40 on September 30, 2025, payable only on the official CBP portal.

---

 

 

What Is the I-94 Fee and What Changed in 2025?

The Form I-94 is a record issued by CBP for all aliens who are lawfully admitted or granted parole into the U.S., confirming lawful admission and authorized stay period. Travelers who are admitted or paroled can access and print their electronic I-94 record from the CBP website.

Travelers entering by air or sea automatically receive an electronic I-94.

Those entering by land or manually applying must pay the fee. The I-94 fee increase applies only to travelers crossing at a land border; there is no fee for travelers arriving by air or sea. I-94 filers—those submitting the form for land entry—are directly affected by the new fee structure.

New fee structure:

• Existing I-94 fee – $6
• New surcharge – $24
• Total (land entry) – $30

This increase, up from the previous $6 fee, significantly impacts frequent cross-border travelers. The fee for I-94 land border entries has increased to $30 per trip, up from $6, affecting frequent cross-border travelers.

Air and sea arrivals are not affected by the surcharge at this time.

 

Implementation date:

September 30, 2025.
The surcharge revenue supports land-border operations, staffing, and inspection technology.

The new I-94 land-entry fee totals $30, combining a $6 base fee plus a $24 surcharge.

 

 

Who Pays Each Fee — and When

	ESTA (visa waiver)	I-94 (nonimmigrant land entry)
Who pays	VWP travelers entering by air/sea	Travelers crossing by land needing an I-94
When	Before departure (online)	Upon entry or pre-arrival online
Where	Official ESTA website	I-94 portal or port of entry
Cost 2025	$40	$30 ( $6 + $24 surcharge )

The sum of the base fee and surcharge for I-94 land entry is $30.

These increased fees may have a greater impact on lower-income earners and travelers with modest incomes, as the fixed costs represent a larger share of their travel budget compared to higher earners. This highlights how changes in travel fees can disproportionately affect people across different incomes.

Quick comparison:

ESTA covers short-term visa-waiver visits; I-94 applies to broader nonimmigrant entries and land crossings.

 

 

 

 

Relation of ESTA and I-94 Fees to Taxes

While the ESTA and I-94 fees are not part of the federal income tax system, they do represent an additional cost for individuals seeking entry to the United States. These fees are administrative charges collected through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization and at land border ports, and are separate from any income taxes paid by travelers or U.S. residents.

For travelers using the Visa Waiver Program, the recent ESTA fee increase—from $21 to $40 as of September 30, 2025—means a higher upfront expense for travel authorization. Nearly half of all international travelers to the U.S. use the Visa Waiver Program and are thus subject to the ESTA fee. Although this fee does not affect your income tax liability or how much you pay in federal income taxes, it does add to the overall cost of international travel. This can be especially significant for individuals and families with lower income levels, as the fee represents a larger share of their earnings compared to higher-income travelers. In contrast, the impact on wealthy travelers is relatively minor, as the fixed fee constitutes a much smaller proportion of their income.

Unlike taxes, which are based on income and are part of the broader U.S. tax code, ESTA and I-94 fees are fixed amounts applicable to all eligible travelers, regardless of their income or tax status. These fees are not offset by refundable credits, which are sometimes available for taxes but not for administrative fees like ESTA or I-94. Additionally, unlike some tax systems where high-income earners may pay a lower rate due to deductions or preferences, these fixed fees apply equally to all. These fees do not qualify as tax credits or deductions, and paying them does not impact your tax return or benefits under the U.S. tax system.

In summary, while ESTA and I-94 fees are not taxes, the increase in these costs is a reality that travelers must account for in their budgets. As travel expenses rise, it’s important for individuals to consider how these fees fit into their overall financial planning, especially when evaluating the total cost of visiting or working in the United States. Evidence from recent studies and reports shows that fixed travel fees disproportionately affect lower-income travelers, highlighting the regressive nature of such charges.

Why DHS Raised the Fees

Several factors drove these increases:

1. Border modernization. Upgrading databases, kiosks, and biometric systems.
2. Operational costs. Hiring and training CBP officers amid rising cross-border traffic, supporting the creation of new jobs for border security personnel.
3. Inflation adjustments. Future fees will tie to CPI starting FY 2026.
4. Deficit offset. A portion of each fee now flows directly to the U.S. Treasury. Previous legislative changes, such as the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), have influenced federal funding priorities and contributed to the need for increased travel fees to offset reduced revenue.

Lawmakers enacted these changes as part of broader immigration and border reforms designed to address funding gaps and ensure the sustainability of border operations. The implications of these fee increases extend beyond travelers, affecting the public by influencing access to cross-border movement and the funding of public services. While the travel industry warns that higher fees could dampen tourism, DHS argues they are vital to sustain border technology and security. Employers managing cross-border employees need to budget for higher travel costs due to new I-94 and ESTA fees.

Heavy tax cuts deprive state coffers of adequate revenue for programs and services that build opportunity and improve well-being for families and communities. Most state tax systems are regressive, meaning lower-income people are taxed at higher rates than top-earning taxpayers. In contrast, the U.S. income tax system is designed with some degree of progressivity, while fixed travel fees remain regressive and place a proportionally higher burden on lower-income travelers.

How to Avoid ESTA and I-94 Scams

Every fee increase brings fake websites posing as official CBP pages. Protect yourself:

• Apply only through domains ending in “.cbp.dhs.gov.”
• Never use third-party services that charge “expedite fees.”
• Use secure payment methods and print the receipt for records.
• Verify ESTA or I-94 status directly through the CBP portals.

warning:
The only official ESTA and I-94 sites end with “.cbp.dhs.gov.” Avoid any other websites charging extra.

 

 

Compliance and Penalties for ESTA and I-94

Staying compliant with the requirements of the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) and Form I-94 is essential for all travelers seeking entry to the United States. With the increased fees that took effect in September 2025, it’s more important than ever to understand the rules and ensure that all travel authorization applications are submitted correctly and on time.

To comply with the visa waiver program and the U.S. tax system’s administrative requirements, travelers must pay the applicable fees for ESTA, Form I-94, and, where relevant, the Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) before their journey. These three fees are mandatory for many international visitors and must be paid in advance to avoid any disruptions at the port of entry. Submitting accurate and complete applications through the official electronic system is crucial, as errors or omissions can result in delays, denial of entry, or even future restrictions on travel to the U.S.

The implications of non-compliance are significant. Travelers who fail to pay the required fee or provide accurate information on their ESTA or I-94 application may face penalties such as denial of travel authorization, fines, or being barred from future entry. The U.S. government enforces these requirements to maintain national security and ensure the efficient processing of arrivals at land, air, and sea ports. The fees collected help fund the ongoing maintenance and modernization of these electronic systems, supporting the broader goals of the tax code and border management.

Lawmakers regularly review and update the tax code, visa waiver program, and electronic visa update system to keep pace with changing security needs and technological advancements. As a result, travelers should expect that requirements and fees may continue to evolve in the future. Staying informed about these changes is essential—monitoring official updates and submitting applications through the correct channels will help travelers remain compliant and avoid unnecessary complications.

In summary, compliance with ESTA and I-94 requirements is not just about paying a fee—it’s about ensuring a smooth entry process and avoiding penalties that could impact future travel. By paying the required fees in advance, submitting accurate applications, and keeping up with changes to the tax system and visa requirements, travelers can protect themselves from the implications of non-compliance and enjoy a hassle-free visit to the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions About ESTA and I-94 Fees

When did the new ESTA and I-94 fees take effect?
Both increases took effect September 30, 2025. ESTA applications filed before that date were charged the old rate.

How much is the ESTA fee now?
The ESTA fee is $40 for applications submitted on or after September 30, 2025.

Who must pay the I-94 fee?
Nonimmigrants entering the U.S. by land who require an I-94 form must pay the $30 total fee.

Do Canadians pay the I-94 fee?
Most Canadian citizens are exempt for short visits. Those seeking certain nonimmigrant statuses (e.g., TN, L-1) may be charged the new fee.

Can I reuse an existing ESTA after the increase?
Yes. Valid ESTAs remain usable for up to two years or until passport expiration, whichever comes first. Employees can save costs by applying for ESTA before the increased fee takes effect in September 2025.

Why did the fees increase so much?
DHS and Congress restructured fees to fund border infrastructure, expand staffing, and offset federal costs without raising taxes.

 

 

Traveler Takeaways for 2025

• ESTA: Now $40 for Visa Waiver Program travelers.
• I-94: Now $30 for land border entries ($6 + $24 surcharge).
• Effective Date: September 30, 2025.
• Purpose: Fund border security and technology modernization.
• Apply Safely: Use only official CBP and DHS portals. States without broad-based personal income taxes often rely more heavily on sales and excise taxes that disproportionately impact lower-income families. States that rely heavily on consumption taxes increase the regressivity of their tax systems.

In 2025, the U.S. significantly increased ESTA and I-94 fees to fund border modernization — affecting most foreign travelers entering the United States.

 

 

Author Profile

Richard T. Herman, Esq. is a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with over 30 years of experience representing individuals and businesses worldwide. He is the co-author of the book Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy, and founder of the Herman Legal Group — a multi-state law firm dedicated to immigration law, business immigration, and family visa services.

For media inquiries or case consultations, contact Richard directly through his website at LawFirm4Immigrants.com to schedule a confidential one-on-one consultation by phone or video

The Impact of Trump’s Policies on F1 Visa Holders

Why Are Visa and Green-Card Holders Being Detained and Deported?

Why Visa and Green-Card Holders Are Being Detained and Deported in 2025 — What You Need to Know

By Richard T. Herman, Immigration Lawyer, Author of “Immigrant, Inc.”
(18-minute read – Updated October 2025)

 

Introduction: The New Reality for Legal Immigrants in America

In recent months, reports of lawful immigrants — including green-card holders, H-1B workers, F-1 students, and even U.S. citizen children — being detained, questioned, or deported have risen sharply.

This surge follows the Trump administration’s renewed emphasis on “extreme vetting,” re-entry inspections, and status verification at ports of entry under Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

For many immigrants, this enforcement feels different. It’s no longer limited to those without documentation — it’s targeting people who have lived, studied, and worked legally in the United States for years.

This comprehensive guide explains why visa and green-card holders are being detained, what legal rights apply, and how to protect yourself before you travel or return to the U.S.

 

 

 

Understanding the Legal Landscape

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — particularly sections 212(a) (grounds of inadmissibility) and 237(a) (grounds of deportability) — gives CBP and ICE authority to stop or remove even lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or visa holders who are deemed ineligible or inadmissible.

Key agencies involved include:

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – Oversees CBP, ICE, and USCIS

• CBP – Handles entry inspections and detentions at airports and land borders

• ICE – Conducts interior enforcement and deportations

• USCIS – Adjudicates benefits such as green-card renewals and work permits

• Department of Justice – EOIR – Runs immigration courts

 

 

 

1. Why Are Green-Card Holders Being Detained at U.S. Airports?

Even permanent residents are subject to inspection each time they re-enter the country.
CBP officers may refer you to secondary inspection if they suspect any violation, absence, or criminal record.

Common Triggers for CBP Detention

• Extended Absence from the U.S. – Stays longer than 180 days may cause CBP to question if you abandoned residency.

• Criminal Record – Even dismissed or minor offenses can trigger review.

• Pending Removal Proceedings – Traveling while under proceedings can lead to detention.

• Alleged Immigration Fraud – Officers may suspect marriage or document fraud.

• Violation of Residency Terms – Unauthorized employment abroad or filing taxes as a non-resident can raise red flags.

 

 

2. What To Do If You Are Sent to Secondary Inspection

Secondary inspection means CBP wants to verify your background, immigration history, and intent.
Stay calm and follow these steps carefully.

Step-by-Step Response

1. Stay Polite and Cooperative – Arguments or hostility will worsen your case.

2. Request to Speak with an Attorney – Although CBP is not required to provide one, you can ask to contact your lawyer.

3. Never Sign Form I-407 – This form voluntarily surrenders your green card. Signing it can permanently end your status.

4. Request a Hearing Before an Immigration Judge – You have this right under law.

5. Ask for Documentation – Request copies of any CBP decisions or paperwork related to your case.

 

 

 

3. How CBP Determines ‘Abandonment’ of Residency

CBP officers assess abandonment of LPR status based on multiple factors, not just time abroad.

Key Factors Considered

• Length of Absence – Trips over 6 months invite scrutiny; over 1 year without a Reentry Permit (Form I-131) may be treated as abandonment.

• Ties to the U.S. – Property ownership, tax filings, job continuity, and family connections help prove intent to return.

• Purpose of Travel – Temporary travel for work, study, or medical care is usually permissible if documented.

• Statements and Conduct – Using a foreign address, foreign tax filings, or stating intent to live abroad can hurt your case.

If challenged, do not surrender your status — request a hearing before an immigration judge.

 

 

4. Criminal Grounds That Can Lead to Detention or Removal

Under INA § 212(a) and § 237(a), several criminal offenses can make a lawful permanent resident or visa holder deportable or inadmissible.

 

A. Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT)

Crimes reflecting dishonesty, fraud, or intent to harm others can trigger removal.
Examples:

• Fraud (identity theft, tax fraud)

• Theft or burglary

• Domestic violence

• Perjury

• Assault with intent to cause injury

Legal Thresholds:

• One CIMT within 5 years of obtaining your green card (if punishable by ≥ 1 year imprisonment)

• Two CIMTs at any time, regardless of sentence

 

B. Drug-Related Offenses

Nearly all drug convictions (other than a single possession of ≤ 30 grams marijuana) are deportable.
Examples:

• Possession with intent to distribute

• Trafficking or manufacturing

• Distribution or sale of controlled substances

Even an admission of drug use without conviction can trigger inadmissibility during inspection.

 

C. Aggravated Felonies

Defined broadly under INA § 101(a)(43), these lead to mandatory deportation without relief.
Examples:

• Murder, rape, or sexual abuse

• Drug trafficking

• Firearm offenses

• Fraud over $10,000

• Violent crimes with ≥ 1 year sentence

LPRs convicted of aggravated felonies generally cannot apply for cancellation of removal or other relief.

 

 

5. Non-Criminal Reasons for CBP Detention

Not every detention stems from a criminal case.
CBP can hold a green-card holder or visa holder for administrative or documentary reasons.

A. Abandonment of Permanent Residency

• Absence of > 1 year without reentry permit

• Multiple long absences showing no permanent home

• Filing taxes as a non-resident

• Listing a foreign address

 

B. Immigration Fraud or Misrepresentation

CBP may allege fraud if you:

• Entered through a sham marriage

• Used false documents

• Misrepresented intent on visa applications

Fraud findings can lead to detention, confiscation of your green card, and removal proceedings.

 

C. Security and Terrorism-Related Concerns

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows removal of anyone suspected of supporting terrorism, espionage, or sabotage.
CBP may act on:

• Online or financial links to banned groups

• Suspicious donations

• Electronic data from phone searches

 

D. Smuggling or Transporting Others

Even helping a friend enter illegally can constitute alien smuggling, a deportable offense.

 

E. Violating Green-Card Terms

Actions such as false claims to U.S. citizenship, voting unlawfully, or unauthorized work abroad can trigger removal.

 

 

 

6. What Happens After CBP Detains a Green-Card Holder or Visa Holder

CBP may:

• Send You to Secondary Inspection – Further questioning and file review

• Hold You in a CBP Facility – Short-term detention before transfer to ICE

• Issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) – Starts formal removal proceedings

If detained, you may:

• Contact an attorney (per INA § 292)

• Request bond, unless charged with an aggravated felony

• Appear before an immigration judge to contest charges

 

 

 

7. Real-World Cases Illustrating This Trend

 

Case 1: Dr. Rasha Alawieh — Lebanese Doctor Deported Despite Court Order

• Status: H-1B visa

• Incident: Detained at Boston Logan Airport; deported despite court stay

• Issue: Alleged Hezbollah link from phone data

• Concern: Violation of due-process rights and judicial authority

 

Case 2: Fabian Schmidt — German Engineer Detained Over Old Drug Charge

• Status: Green-card holder

• Incident: Detained returning from Europe

• Issue: 2015 marijuana charge (dismissed)

• Outcome: Hospitalization, ICE detention

• Concern: Retroactive enforcement of outdated offenses

 

Case 3: Ranjani Srinivasan — Indian Scholar Targeted for Activism

• Status: Fulbright F-1 visa

• Incident: Visa revoked after campus protests

• Issue: Political retaliation concerns

• Outcome: Fled to Canada

 

Case 4: Camila Muñoz — Peruvian Newlywed Detained on Honeymoon Return

• Status: Pending Green-Card applicant

• Issue: COVID-related overstay

• Outcome: Held in Louisiana ICE center

 

Case 5: 10-Year-Old U.S. Citizen with Brain Cancer Deported with Parents

• Status: U.S. citizen child; undocumented parents

• Issue: Humanitarian and medical hardship

• Outcome: Family deported despite treatment needs

 

 

 

8. The Bigger Picture: What These Cases Reveal

 

A. Expanding Enforcement Under Trump 2025

The administration’s second-term immigration blueprint emphasizes mass interior enforcement, visa re-screening, and digital-device inspections.
Legal residents are increasingly caught in dragnet operations once reserved for undocumented immigrants.

 

B. Erosion of Due Process

Cases like Dr. Alawieh’s highlight failures to comply with court orders, while others expose denial of counsel and rushed removals.

 

C. Surveillance and Political Policing

Visa revocations linked to social-media activity or political views raise First-Amendment questions.
Digital searches by CBP of travelers’ phones are lawful under CBP Directive 3340-049A, but increasingly controversial.

 

D. Humanitarian Consequences

From family separations to deportations of caregivers and medical patients, enforcement without discretion inflicts deep social harm.

 

 

9. How to Protect Your Green-Card or Visa Status Before Traveling

 

A. Limit Extended Absences

If abroad more than 6 months, file Form I-131 Reentry Permit.
Keep trips short and well-documented.

 

B. Maintain U.S. Ties

• Keep a U.S. address and bank account

• File taxes as a resident

• Maintain employment or community ties

 

C. Prepare Travel Documents

Carry:

• Valid passport and Green Card (Form I-551)

• Reentry Permit (if applicable)

• Proof of U.S. employment or residence

 

D. Avoid Legal Triggers

Resolve any old criminal cases.
Seek advice before international travel if you have pending charges or prior arrests.

 

E. Consult an Immigration Attorney

Before leaving or re-entering, obtain legal counsel familiar with CBP detentions and inadmissibility defenses.

 

 

 

10. CBP and Visa-Holder Issues: Common Questions Answered

What Is CBP and What Do They Do?

CBP is the federal agency managing ports of entry, enforcing customs, immigration, and border laws.

Can I Be Denied Entry with a Valid Visa?

Yes. A visa only permits you to seek admission; CBP officers decide admissibility at the port of entry.

What If My Green Card Expired While Abroad?

Apply for a boarding foil (Form I-131A) at a U.S. consulate or seek discretionary entry.

Can CBP Revoke My Green Card?

No, but they can challenge it and refer your case to immigration court. Never sign Form I-407 without counsel.

What If I Am Denied Entry?

Options include:

• Withdrawal of Application for Admission

• Expedited Removal (5-year re-entry bar)

• Deferred Inspection

Can CBP Check My Phone or Laptop?

Yes. CBP may inspect or copy electronic devices without a warrant. Refusal may cause detention or denial of entry.

See CBP Electronic Device Policy for details.

What Rights Do I Have at the Airport?

You may remain silent and request to contact a lawyer.
For a full guide, see ACLU Know Your Rights at the Border.

 

 

 

11. Special Concerns for Non-Immigrant Visa Holders

 

Tourist (B-1/B-2) Visas

Frequent entries may suggest intent to reside.
Do not work, study, or overstay.

 

Student (F-1/J-1) Visas

Carry Form I-20 or DS-2019, maintain full-time enrollment, and avoid unauthorized work.

 

Employment (H-1B, L-1, O-1) Visas

Bring Form I-797 Approval Notice, job letter, and recent paystubs.

 

 

Visa Overstay or Expired Passport

Even short overstays can result in visa cancellation under INA § 222(g).

 

 

 

12. What To Do If Detained by CBP or ICE

1. Stay Silent About Immigration Status Until You Contact Counsel.

2. Do Not Sign Anything Without Legal Advice.

3. Ask for a “Notice to Appear” if placed in removal proceedings.

4. Call an Immigration Attorney Immediately — ideally before making any statement.

5. Contact Your Consulate for assistance.

For free legal-aid directories, visit Immigration Advocates Network or AILA.

 

 

 

13. Policy and Reform Outlook for 2025–2026

Analysts expect further rulemaking by DHS to:

• Expand CBP data-sharing with ICE and USCIS

• Require social-media disclosure on Form DS-160

• Broaden “public-charge” and “security-risk” definitions

• Increase port-of-entry removals of visa holders

Legal challenges are underway, but travelers should prepare for more digital and ideological screening in 2026.

 

 

14. Key Takeaways

• Legal immigrants are not immune from detention.

• Old charges, long absences, or online activity can trigger scrutiny.

• Never sign away your rights without consulting an immigration lawyer.

• Document your ties to the U.S. before every trip.

• Seek experienced counsel if detained or referred for inspection.

 

 

 

MORE FAQs

What does “detention” mean for a green-card holder or visa holder at the U.S. border?
Detention means CBP holds you for additional screening—often in secondary inspection—to decide admissibility. It can be brief questioning, extended holding, or transfer to ICE if removal is pursued.

Why are lawful permanent residents (LPRs) sometimes treated as “applicants for admission”?
LPRs can be treated as applicants for admission if they trigger statutory flags (e.g., long absences, certain criminal grounds, fraud indicators). That status lets CBP review admissibility before letting them in.

What are the most common reasons green-card holders are detained on return?

• Absences of 180+ days or repeated long trips

• Old or recent arrests/convictions (CIMTs, drugs, aggravated felonies)

• Suspected immigration fraud or misrepresentation

• Using a foreign residence, filing nonresident taxes, or weak U.S. ties

• Watchlist/name hits and document discrepancies

What are the most common reasons visa holders are detained or refused entry?

• Suspected immigrant intent on a nonimmigrant visa

• Prior overstay, unauthorized work, or status violations

• Criminal history or security concerns

• Inconsistent answers, inadequate proof of ties, or dubious travel purpose

• Visa data mismatches or revocation notices

What is secondary inspection and how is it different from primary inspection?
Primary is the quick front-line check. Secondary is a deeper review: longer questioning, database checks, and document verification, sometimes with baggage and device searches.

Can CBP check my phone or laptop?
Yes. Border agents have broad authority to inspect electronic devices. Refusal can lead to delays, device seizure, or denial of admission for nonimmigrants.

What is Form I-407 and why should LPRs be careful?
I-407 records voluntary abandonment of LPR status. Signing it can end your green-card rights. Do not sign without legal advice.

What is “abandonment of residency” for LPRs?
It’s a conclusion that you no longer intended to reside permanently in the U.S., based on time abroad, ties to the U.S., tax treatment, and conduct/statements.

If CBP says I abandoned my green card, what should I do?
Decline to sign I-407, request a hearing before an immigration judge, and present strong evidence of U.S. domicile (taxes, home, job, family, bank records).

What criminal issues most often trigger detention for LPRs and visa holders?

• Crimes involving moral turpitude (fraud, theft, certain assaults)

• Drug offenses (even old ones; admissions can matter)

• “Aggravated felonies” (broad category with severe immigration effects)

• Domestic-violence and protection-order violations

• Multiple offenses indicating inadmissibility or deportability

Can dismissed charges still cause problems at the border?
Yes. Records, arrests, and admissions can prompt questions. Dispositions and certified court records help clarify outcomes.

What is expedited removal and who is at risk?
It’s a fast-track removal for certain applicants for admission (mostly nonimmigrants) found inadmissible. It carries multi-year bars and limited review. Most LPRs are not subject to it, but they can be referred to court.

What is “withdrawal of application for admission”?
A discretionary option allowing some nonimmigrants to leave voluntarily the same day instead of being formally removed. It still has consequences but is often better than expedited removal.

What is “deferred inspection”?
CBP may admit you temporarily and ask you to report to a deferred inspection office with documents to resolve a question (identity, status, court records).

Do I have a right to a lawyer in the inspection area?
You can request to contact counsel, but there’s no guaranteed right to have an attorney present during border questioning. Rights expand once formal proceedings begin.

What documents should LPRs carry to reduce detention risk?

• Valid passport and green card

• Reentry permit if away long periods

• Proof of U.S. domicile (lease/deed, utility bills, tax transcripts)

• Employer letter and recent pay stubs

• Certified court dispositions for any arrests/charges

What documents should visa holders carry to reduce detention risk?

• Valid passport/visa and approval notices (if applicable)

• Proof of purpose (itinerary, conference letter, I-20/DS-2019, employment letter)

• Evidence of funds and ties abroad (job letter, property, family responsibilities)

• Prior status compliance (I-94 history, SEVIS status, pay records)

How can I prepare if I have an old criminal record?
Obtain certified dispositions, proof of rehabilitation, and—if necessary—legal analysis of immigration consequences. Consider waivers or risk counseling before travel.

What is INA §222(g) and why does it matter for visa travelers?
If you overstay, your visa can be voided. You’ll need to apply for a new visa in your home country, and you may face bars or deeper scrutiny on future entries.

Can frequent short visits on a tourist visa raise red flags?
Yes. Patterns that look like de facto residence can trigger denial for suspected immigrant intent or unauthorized work.

How do CBP officers assess “immigrant intent” for nonimmigrant visas?
They weigh ties abroad, travel history, purpose, duration, funding, employment, study plans, and credibility of answers and documents.

What is a Notice to Appear (NTA)?
It’s the charging document that starts removal proceedings before an immigration judge, listing factual allegations and legal grounds.

What immediate steps should I take if detained by CBP or ICE?

• Stay calm and factual; don’t guess or volunteer unnecessary details

• Ask to contact counsel and your consulate

• Don’t sign anything you don’t understand

• Keep copies of all paperwork you’re given

How can LPRs legally defend against removal charges?

• Challenge inadmissibility or deportability grounds

• Apply for relief: LPR cancellation of removal, waivers (e.g., §212(h)), adjustment fixes, asylum/withholding/CAT if applicable

• Present equities: long residence, family hardship, employment, rehabilitation

How can visa holders defend against removal charges?

• Contest inadmissibility grounds

• Seek withdrawal of application, prosecutorial discretion, or waivers

• Pursue relief (asylum-related protection, certain inadmissibility waivers) if eligible

What is LPR cancellation of removal and who qualifies?
Relief for some permanent residents who meet residency and good-conduct thresholds and lack disqualifying convictions; it’s discretionary and weighs equities.

What is a §212(h) waiver and when is it used?
A discretionary waiver for certain criminal grounds of inadmissibility, available in specific contexts (often tied to adjustment or returning LPR scenarios). Eligibility is complex.

What is an INA §212(d)(3) nonimmigrant waiver?
A broad, discretionary waiver that can allow a nonimmigrant with certain inadmissibility issues to be admitted temporarily. It requires strong equities and careful preparation.

What is “mandatory detention” under INA §236(c)?
Certain criminal or terrorism-related charges trigger detention without bond. Others may be eligible for bond or parole depending on the case.

How do I seek bond if transferred to ICE custody?
Your attorney can request an ICE bond or ask an immigration judge for a bond hearing (if you’re eligible and not subject to mandatory detention).

Can social-media activity affect admissibility?
Yes. Posts can be used to question intent, affiliations, or security concerns. Expect questions about travel purpose, contacts, and activities.

How can I reduce risk from device searches?
Travel with minimal data, log out of apps, use strong passcodes (not biometrics), and carry only essential devices. Be consistent and truthful about contents and ownership.

How do long absences impact LPRs’ risk profile?
Absences over 6 months invite scrutiny; more than a year without a reentry permit is high-risk for abandonment. Multiple long trips also raise flags.

Should LPRs apply for a reentry permit for extended travel?
Yes, if you plan to be abroad 6–24 months. It signals intent to maintain U.S. residence and smooths reentry, though it’s not a guarantee.

What U.S. domicile evidence is most persuasive for LPRs?

• Filed U.S. resident tax returns

• Mortgage/lease and continuous utilities

• Active employment or business ownership

• Immediate family living in the U.S.

• Medical, school, and community records

What should students (F-1/J-1) carry to avoid detention?

• Valid passport/visa and signed I-20/DS-2019

• Proof of enrollment, SEVIS compliance, funding, and residence plans

• Evidence of authorized work (CPT/OPT) if applicable

What should workers (H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN) carry?

• Approval notices, employment verification, recent pay stubs

• Clear description of role, worksites, and employer contact information

• Proof of continued employment and travel authorization

Can humanitarian factors change outcomes at the border?
They can. Medical emergencies, caregiving needs, and compelling equities may support deferred inspection, parole, or discretion—especially if well-documented.

What is prosecutorial discretion (PD) and when is it useful?
PD allows agencies or trial attorneys to prioritize or pause certain cases. Strong equities, low risk, and humanitarian factors help.

How can I prepare a “border binder” to reduce risk?
Include passport, status proof, approvals, reentry permit, tax transcripts, domicile documents, employer/student letters, certified court records, and counsel contact info.

What is a “pocket letter” and why use one?
A short, lawyer-prepared memo summarizing legal status, purpose of travel, and key evidence. It helps present your case clearly during inspection.

Can I travel if my green-card renewal or extension is pending?
Yes, with proper proof of continued status (e.g., extension notices). Carry the original notices and identity documents; expect questions.

What if my green card is lost or expired while abroad?
You may seek a boarding foil from a U.S. consulate, carry proof of identity and status, and be prepared for detailed inspection.

What if my visa was revoked while I was abroad?
Revocation can appear in systems before you’re notified. Expect secondary inspection. You may need a new visa application or a waiver.

How do prior removals or bars affect reentry?
Prior removals trigger automatic bars. Attempting entry without consent to reapply can cause criminal liability and new bars. Legal consultation is essential.

What are the biggest red flags that lead to denial of admission for visa holders?

• Inconsistent stories or missing documentation

• Frequent, long stays that look like residence

• Evidence of prior unauthorized work or study

• Weak financial support or unclear itinerary

• Risk indicators tied to security or criminality

What should I do immediately after a difficult border encounter that still resulted in admission?
Write a timeline, preserve documents, consult counsel, and consider corrective steps (deferred inspection follow-up, updated documents, FOIA requests).

How can a FOIA request help my case?
It can reveal what the government sees in your record—useful for correcting errors and preparing waivers or defenses.

What long-term strategies reduce detention risk for LPRs?

• Keep continuous U.S. domicile and resident tax filings

• Limit and document foreign trips

• Resolve criminal issues with immigration-savvy counsel

• Maintain strong employment/family/community ties

• Consider naturalization when eligible

What long-term strategies reduce detention risk for visa holders?

• Use the correct visa for purpose and keep status compliant

• Document ties abroad and return plans

• Keep financial proof and clean travel histories

• Avoid frequent or extended U.S. stays that look like residence

• Prepare credible, consistent explanations for travel

What should I never do during inspection?

• Lie or present fake documents

• Guess when you don’t know; say you don’t recall

• Sign forms you don’t understand

• Argue or obstruct; be calm and concise

What should I do if CBP pressures me to withdraw my application or sign something?
Ask to contact an attorney, request time to review documents, and weigh consequences. Withdrawal may be better than expedited removal—but don’t sign blindly.

If I’m placed in removal proceedings, what defenses might apply?

• Contesting inadmissibility/deportability

• LPR cancellation, waivers, adjustment “fixes”

• Asylum/withholding/CAT for protection claims

• PD, bond, and evidentiary challenges

When should I consult an immigration attorney?

• Before travel if you have old arrests, long absences, or status complexities

• Immediately after any detention, referral, or adverse decision

• When considering waivers, relief, or complex filings

What are the top “day-of-travel” tips to avoid problems?

• Arrive prepared with a well-organized document folder

• Answer briefly and truthfully; consistency matters

• Keep devices lean; be ready for inspection

• Have counsel’s contact info accessible

• Remain calm, respectful, and patient

What are the three biggest mistakes that trigger avoidable detentions?

• Signing I-407 without advice (LPRs)

• Traveling with unresolved criminal issues or missing dispositions

• Inconsistent answers that undermine credibility

What are quick risk-reduction wins I can implement this week?

• Pull tax transcripts, update your lease/mortgage folder, and gather pay records

• Order certified court dispositions for any past charges

• Prepare a one-page travel purpose letter and employer/student letter

• Create a document checklist and pack it in your carry-on

What’s the bottom line for lawful travelers in 2025?
Screening is stricter and broader. Preparation, documentation, and strategic counsel make the biggest difference in avoiding detention and defending your rights.

 

 

 

Need Help After an ICE or CBP Detention? Contact Attorney Richard T. Herman Today

If you or someone you love—a green card holder, student, temporary worker, or visitor—has been detained by ICE or CBP, every minute matters. What happens next can determine whether you stay in the United States or face removal. Don’t try to navigate this alone. Immigration detention law is among the most complex and unforgiving areas of federal practice, where small mistakes can have lifelong consequences.

For more than 30 years, Attorney Richard T. Herman has fought to protect immigrants and their families across America. He’s the co-author of Immigrant, Inc., a nationally recognized advocate, and a passionate voice for the economic and community contributions of immigrants. His firm, the Herman Legal Group — known as The Law Firm for Immigrants — offers personalized, multilingual, and results-driven representation for people detained or placed in removal proceedings.

Whether you were stopped at the airport by CBP, held for questioning after a visa overstay, or taken into custody by ICE, Richard Herman and his experienced legal team can:

• Investigate why you were detained and determine if your rights were violated

• File emergency bond or parole requests to seek your release

• Challenge removal charges through cancellation, asylum, or waiver defenses

• Coordinate with your consulate or family to ensure due process

• Prepare comprehensive legal strategies for relief, appeals, and re-entry protection

Your life, your family, and your future in the United States deserve immediate, expert legal attention. The earlier you speak with a lawyer, the stronger your defense becomes.

👉 Schedule a confidential consultation with Attorney Richard T. Herman today to protect your rights and begin your defense.
Visit the Herman Legal Group booking page to schedule your meeting—virtual or in-office—and get direct legal insight from one of America’s most trusted immigration attorneys.

 

 

 

Government Resources (How to Locate, What to Do, Rights & Procedures)

Find and track a detainee / facility

• The ICE Online Detainee Locator allows families, lawyers, and consulates to find people in ICE custody using name, country, or A-number.

• The U.S. Government’s “Locate someone detained by ICE” guide explains how to confirm custody and find detention centers.

• ICE Detention Management & Standards outlines oversight and compliance rules, including the 2025 National Detention Standards PDF.

Check court status, counsel & pro bono

• The EOIR Automated Case Information System (ACIS) lets you look up hearing dates, judges, and case outcomes.

• You can also call the EOIR case information hotline at 1-800-898-7180 (English/Spanish).

• The official EOIR List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers and Full PDF Directory connect you with free or low-cost lawyers nationwide.

Bond, custody & appeals practice

• The Immigration Court Practice Manual includes detailed bond hearing guidance in Chapter 9.

• The BIA Practice Manual governs appeals, motions, and stays.

• For relief filings, access EOIR-42A (LPR Cancellation) and EOIR-42B (Non-LPR Cancellation) directly.

ICE contact & check-ins

• The ICE ERO Field Offices directory lists addresses and phone numbers for local Enforcement & Removal Operations.

• You can schedule or confirm appointments using the ICE Check-In portal.

• The ICE “Court Case Status” handout explains how to verify court dates and file address changes.

At the border / secondary inspection

• Find a nearby crossing on the CBP Ports of Entry map or through the CBP help portal.

• Learn what happens during inspections at CBP’s Ports of Entry overview.

• Review CBP’s Customs Bulletin on LPR re-entry under INA § 101(a)(13)(C) to understand when lawful permanent residents are treated as “seeking admission.”

Consular help if you’re a foreign national

• The Consular Notification & Access portal from the U.S. State Department explains when and how foreign nationals may contact their consulate.

• The detailed Consular Notification Manual (5th Edition) lists mandatory-notification countries and sample language.

If you’re repeatedly stopped or misidentified

• The DHS TRIP portal lets travelers request redress if they are wrongly flagged on watchlists.

• For background, review the DHS TRIP program overview and FAQ page.

---

Why Detention Happens (Official References)

• The USCIS Notice to Appear (NTA) policy alert outlines when removal proceedings and detention are triggered.

• The ICE Enforcement & Removal Operations site and its Detention Management section explain the scope of detention authority.

• For students and exchange visitors, DHS explains border questioning in “What Is Secondary Inspection?”.

 

Best Defense Pathways (Authoritative Rulebooks & How-Tos)

Ask for Bond / Custody Redetermination
Consult the Immigration Court Practice Manual’s Bond Chapter for eligibility, burden of proof, and procedural steps.

Pursue Relief from Removal

• File for Cancellation of Removal for LPRs (EOIR-42A) or Non-LPRs (EOIR-42B).

• Review the BIA Practice Manual for appeals, stays, and motions to reopen.

Coordinate with Consulates
Request assistance under the State Department’s Consular Notification and Access Program.

Fix Travel-Screening or Identity Errors
Submit a redress inquiry through DHS TRIP if repeated airport or border issues occur.

---

Professional Associations (Training, Hotlines & Practice Aids)

• The American Bar Association Commission on Immigration operates a national Detention Information Hotline reachable from ICE facilities.

• The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) provides attorney resources, including its Detention & Bond Library.

• The National Immigration Project (NIPNLG) publishes advisories such as its Guide to Obtaining Release from Immigration Detention and Laken Riley Act Mandatory Detention Advisory (2025).

• The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) offers training on criminal-immigration overlap, including drug-offense consequences and domestic-violence consequences.

• The Federal Bar Association Immigration Law Section hosts continuing-education and litigation resources.

 

Fast-Action Mini-Checklist (Link-Backed)

1. Locate & Contact: Use the ICE Detainee Locator and confirm court details via EOIR ACIS.

2. Get Counsel: Reach out through the EOIR Pro Bono List.

3. Assess Bond: Review the Bond Guidelines in Chapter 9.

4. Identify Relief: File the EOIR-42A, EOIR-42B, or appeal per the BIA Manual.

5. Visa Holders: Request consular help per the Consular Notification Program.

6. Frequent Stops: File a redress via DHS TRIP.

 

 

 

Zach Bryan’s ‘Bad News’ Criticizes Immigration Raids in New Song

Zach Bryan, a country star and prominent country music star, delivers a raw message about fear, family, and freedom in his song “Bad News” amid Trump’s latest immigration raids. As a singer who is proud to have served in the military, Bryan’s background and patriotism add depth to the national debate his song has ignited at the crossroads of music and politics.

What Is Zach Bryan’s “Bad News” About?

In October 2025, acclaimed country artist Zach Bryan released his haunting new track, “Bad News.” The song immediately stirred national attention — not only for its soul-stripped sound and lyrical grit but also for its unflinching criticism of Trump’s renewed immigration raids and the pain they inflict on working-class families across America.

Through its sparse guitar and trembling vocals, “Bad News” tells the story of a family living in constant fear of ICE raids — mothers afraid to drive to work, fathers vanishing in the middle of the night, children left behind to wonder why. Critics describe it as one of Bryan’s most powerful songs yet — a “country elegy for the undocumented.”

The song’s controversial ice lyrics paint a vivid picture of ICE agents ready to bust down your door, with lines like “ICE is gonna come,” “gonna come bust,” and “heard the cops came.” Bryan references how kids are all scared, scared and all alone, and got a telephone kids, highlighting the emotional toll on families. He contrasts the desire to build a house with the house no one builds, and the struggle to try to build amid fear. The lyrics evoke the fading of the red, white and blue, reflecting on American identity, generational story, and the hope that, despite division, we are still one bird. These themes have sparked debate about patriotism, national unity, and the impact of immigration enforcement.

Bryan doesn’t name Trump directly, but the references are unmistakable: “Sirens on the county road / blue lights under the cottonwood,” he sings. The lyrics mirror images emerging from real-world immigration raids that have dominated headlines throughout Trump’s second term.

Immigration Attorney Richard Herman*: “Bryan’s haunting verses narrate the perspective of families caught between loyalty and loss in the shadow of federal enforcement.”*

How Trump’s Immigration Raids Inspired the Song

To understand “Bad News,” it helps to see what inspired it. In 2025, the Trump administration intensified its nationwide worksite raids under Operation Safeguard — a sweeping initiative led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The operation targeted factories, warehouses, and food-processing plants, arresting thousands of undocumented workers and detaining many U.S. citizens in the chaos.

Human-rights advocates condemned these tactics as cruel and chaotic, while administration officials defended them as “necessary deterrence.” News outlets from Rolling Stone to Billboard covered the raids alongside Bryan’s song release, framing the track as an “unofficial anthem of resistance” against Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called Bryan’s song ‘completely disrespectful’ to law enforcement and the country. Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin issued an official statement claiming that Bryan had condemned heroic ICE officers in his lyrics, further fueling the debate over the portrayal of heroic ICE officers in the media.

In interviews, Bryan hinted that the song came from “seeing good people live in fear for doing honest work.” The juxtaposition of ordinary life and government intrusion forms the emotional backbone of “Bad News.” This controversy has proven how devastatingly divided the country is, with the song emerging in a divided space marked by intense political and social polarization.

Richard T. Herman, Esq.:“The song emerged amid expanded ICE operations targeting undocumented workers, sparking a nationwide dialogue about justice and humanity.”

Fan and Public Reactions to “Bad News”

Within hours of its release, “Bad News” exploded across streaming platforms. On Spotify, it debuted in the top 10 of the Americana charts; on YouTube Music, it racked up millions of views within a week.

A song snippet from the song Bryan posted on his Instagram story months ago began circulating, fueling the viral reaction and sparking heated debate. Over the last few months, Bryan shared his perspective in response to criticism, using Instagram stories to clarify his intentions and address the controversy. As the backlash intensified, Bryan was accosted on the internet, with some fans and critics threatening getting doxed or accosted, highlighting the dangers of throats through social media and the risks public figures face when discussing sensitive topics. Through it all, Bryan sings about these issues in his music, using his platform to express his views and connect with listeners.

Fans’ reactions were polarized.

• Supporters hailed Bryan’s courage, praising him for giving voice to communities often overlooked in country music.
• Critics — particularly Trump loyalists — accused him of “going woke” and “politicizing” his art. Some conservative fans accused Bryan of being anti-American and suggested that the backlash could end his career. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson criticized Bryan for allegedly wanting to ‘Open The Gates to criminal illegal aliens.’
• Immigrant-rights advocates flooded social media with clips of the song, calling it a “ballad for the brokenhearted.”

Americans disagree on the song’s message, and it hits on both sides of the political spectrum, resonating with people from both sides of the aisle. Bryan has made it clear he’s on neither of these radical sides, stating “clear I’m on neither” the left wing or right, and emphasizing unity beyond left wing and right wing divisions.

On TikTok, users paired snippets of the song with footage of ICE arrests and immigrant families reuniting at airports. On Reddit and X, threads debated whether Bryan’s stance would alienate his conservative fan base. The controversy surrounding “Bad News” reflects the polarized nature of public discourse around immigration issues.

Fans are divided — some praise Bryan for courage, others accuse him of politicizing music.

The Tradition of Protest in Country and Americana Music

Though country music is often associated with patriotism and conservative values, its roots also run deep in protest and populism. Artists like Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Steve Earle, and The Chicks have long used their platforms to challenge authority and speak for the working class.

As a country singer, Bryan values the ability to speak freely and converse amongst others, reflecting the genre’s tradition of open dialogue and protest. The freedom to speak freely and converse is central to country music’s history, allowing artists to address societal issues without fear of censorship.

Bryan’s “Bad News” fits neatly into that lineage — the modern heir to Cash’s “Man in Black” and Nelson’s “Living in the Promised Land.”

His approach echoes the Americana revival, where authenticity and empathy matter more than political party lines. Like Jason Isbell and Tyler Childers, Bryan’s songwriting centers on moral storytelling — a lens that naturally intersects with social justice themes.

As music historian Dana Gerber told Rolling Stone, “Country protest songs aren’t about left or right — they’re about right and wrong. Zach Bryan understands that lineage.”

Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman:“Bryan joins a long list of country artists who’ve used music to challenge power and defend compassion.”

Why “Bad News” Resonates With Immigrant Advocates

For immigrant-rights groups, “Bad News” arrived at a critical time. As Trump’s second-term immigration policies expanded detention quotas and workplace raids, songs like Bryan’s became emotional counterweights to fear and despair.

Organizations such as United We Dream, Faith in Action, and the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project praised the track’s empathy. Social media campaigns under hashtags like #BadNewsForHate and #ZachBryanForJustice helped propel the song into broader social movements.

In a statement, a coalition of immigrant families in Kansas wrote: “This song tells our story — not as statistics, but as people. When he sings, ‘I still pray for mercy even when I’m scared to kneel,’ it feels like he’s praying for us.” The song resonates with all those who have experienced fear and uncertainty due to immigration enforcement.

Musically, Bryan keeps the focus on narrative realism — subtle acoustic strumming, restrained percussion, and lyrics that ache with emotional honesty. The effect is haunting, reflective, and politically charged without slogans.

Immigrant-rights groups hail the song as a rare voice of empathy from mainstream country.

The Broader Meaning — Is Zach Bryan Becoming Political?

Zach Bryan’s career has largely avoided overt political statements. Known for hits like “Something in the Orange” and “Oklahoma Smokeshow,” he built his reputation on emotional authenticity rather than activism. Yet with “Bad News,” that seems to be changing. Bryan served in the U.S. Navy and has touched on political issues in his music before.

The song marks a turning point — not toward partisanship, but toward moral commentary. Bryan doesn’t preach policy; he tells stories that reveal pain, dignity, and the contradictions of American life. Bryan expressed concern about the divisive response to his song and said it shows how divided the U.S. is.

To understand the full context and get the full context that hits, listeners need to hear the rest or the rest of the song. Only when you hear the rest will the song you will understand Bryan’s true message about unity and love for the country. Bryan has said he is as confused as everyone else about how much s the controversy has caused, emphasizing the importance of understanding the full context before making judgments.

Critics from Billboard and NPR note that Bryan’s growing influence gives his words cultural weight far beyond the music charts. “He’s not a protest singer in the traditional sense,” one reviewer wrote, “but his humanity is protest enough.”

Compared to his earlier work, “Bad News” introduces a sharper social awareness — one that mirrors the rising tension between patriotism and protest in America’s cultural landscape.

While never overtly partisan, Bryan’s lyrics increasingly reflect the pain of ordinary Americans.

What “Bad News” Says About America in 2025

“Bad News” does more than criticize raids — it captures the emotional geography of fear that defines life under heightened enforcement.

In Trump’s 2025 America, immigration has once again become a political flashpoint. The administration’s renewed focus on workplace raids and border detentions has triggered public anxiety and community unrest. Families across the Midwest and South — many of them mixed-status households — find themselves living in constant uncertainty.

Bryan’s song channels this tension through its refrain, “Ain’t it hard to be proud when the good die quiet?” That line alone has become a viral quote across fan accounts, resonating with listeners from all walks of life.

Culturally, the song serves as a mirror — reflecting a divided nation where compassion and enforcement collide daily. Politically, it underscores how deeply immigration touches the heart of the American story. Ultimately, the song calls for national unity, emphasizing that all Americans are “one bird and American,” and Bryan’s lyrics express his deep love for this country.

“Bad News” captures the tension between patriotism and empathy in today’s America.

Where to Listen to “Bad News”

Fans can stream “Bad News” on Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube Music. The official lyric video on Bryan’s YouTube channel includes haunting imagery — fields, flashing lights, and the outline of a lone figure walking into dawn.

Tip: For deeper context, listeners can explore Zach Bryan’s official site for tour dates and upcoming interviews discussing the song’s meaning and inspiration.

The Cultural Impact of “Bad News”

Beyond streaming numbers, “Bad News” has sparked discussion about the role of musicians in moral commentary. Country radio hosts debated whether politics belong in music, while podcasters drew parallels between Bryan and Bob Dylan’s folk-era activism. Progressives praised Bryan for addressing politically charged topics, considering it a bold move for a mainstream country artist.

This reaction underscores a broader cultural shift: artists once hesitant to touch politics now recognize their influence in shaping public empathy. As Bryan told Billboard, “I just write what I see. And what I see right now hurts.” Bryan identifies as a “total libertarian” and refrains from taking sides in political battles, expressing concern over national division.

When zach bryan performs both “Bad News” and earlier hits like “Pink Skies,” some critics respond by telling him to “stick to Pink Skies” or referencing “Pink Skies, dude,” highlighting the contrast between his nostalgic, patriotic themes and his new, more controversial political direction.

Scholars of popular culture note that “Bad News” bridges the rural-urban divide, translating political pain into human emotion. It’s not a campaign slogan — it’s a lamentation of conscience.

Final Takeaway

Zach Bryan’s “Bad News” is more than a song — it’s a moral statement wrapped in melody. It forces America to look inward at the human cost of enforcement and the enduring power of empathy.

As immigration enforcement data show an ongoing rise in workplace raids and detentions, “Bad News” stands as an anthem of compassion — one that challenges silence and complacency.

In an era when political divides threaten the fabric of the nation, Bryan’s song reminds us of the humanity that connects us all.

As immigration enforcement intensifies, songs like “Bad News” remind us that music still tells the nation’s conscience what it needs to hear.

Next Trump H1B Rule: Beyond the Fee — Inside the Structural Re-Engineering of America’s High-Skill Visa Program

The 2025 Trump administration’s new H-1B proposal goes far beyond the headline fee. President Trump issued a proclamation introducing the new rule and a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications. The White House has played a central role in advancing these H-1B visa program reforms, with administration officials actively working to revise regulations and enforce stricter oversight. The proposal introduces a wage-weighted lottery, stricter “specialty occupation” tests, expanded site-visit powers, and tighter cap-exempt criteria that could reshape how U.S. employers hire global talent.

Additionally, the Trump administration plans to publish a new H-1B rule expected to propose additional immigration restrictions. Domestic law enforcement agencies have identified visa fraud and other illicit activities related to the H-1B program, further justifying the administration’s push for stricter oversight. H-1B visas have a long legislative and policy history, with ongoing debates about their impact on U.S. workers and industries. To bolster these efforts, the Department of Labor has launched “Project Firewall” to strengthen enforcement of the H-1B program.

 

1. The Regulatory Context and Why It Matters

The H-1B program remains the primary channel for foreign professionals to work long-term in the United States and eventually obtain a green card. The H-1B nonimmigrant visa program was created to bring temporary workers into the U.S. to perform high-skilled functions. Each year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) manages an annual cap of 85,000 new visas (65,000 regular + 20,000 U.S. master’s degree exemption). However, the program has been alleged to be exploited to replace American workers with lower-paid foreign workers, raising concerns about its impact on the domestic workforce. The program requirements, including the specialty occupation definition, are central to determining which jobs and applicants qualify for H-1B visas and are frequently scrutinized in reform efforts. American IT workers have faced layoffs while companies hired H-1B workers, suggesting displacement of American jobs. The information technology sector, in particular, relies heavily on high skilled labor, making it a focal point in debates over the H-1B program.

The Trump administration’s proposed rule, Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0040, RIN 1615-AD01, 90 FR 45986), was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2025. It proposes a fundamental shift from random lottery to wage-based selection, rewarding higher salary offers and deterring bulk low-wage registrations. The new system is intended to protect workers wages by prioritizing higher-paying positions and discouraging the use of H-1B visas to undercut U.S. labor standards. A new $100,000 fee will apply to many H-1B petitions filed after September 21, 2025, significantly impacting the process of filing an H-1B petition.

The proposal builds on the December 2024 final rule titled Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program and Program Improvements (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2023-0005, 89 FR 54311) on the Federal Register and docketed on Regulations.gov. That final rule modernized definitions of “specialty occupation,” codified site-visit authority, and revised employer control standards.

2. Wage-Weighted Selection Replaces the Random Lottery

Under the proposal, each H-1B registration would receive a weight based on the offered prevailing wage level as defined by the Department of Labor (DOL Foreign Labor Certification).

Wage Level	Relative Weight	Typical Role
Level 4	4× entries	Senior architect / data scientist
Level 3	3× entries	Project lead / mid-senior engineer
Level 2	2× entries	Junior engineer / analyst
Level 1	1× entry	Entry-level trainee

Employers set these levels through DOL’s OFLC Online Wage Library. Weighted selection ties odds to wages rather than luck, intended to “protect U.S. workers and prioritize high-skilled employment.” The H-1B program was originally designed to attract the best temporary foreign workers to fill specialized roles that could not be filled by the domestic workforce.

Critics warn that it could sideline startups, rural employers, and entry-level STEM graduates who cannot command top wages. Still, DHS argues it will reduce fraudulent mass registrations and restore program integrity. The new $100,000 fee is anticipated to deter many companies, particularly startups and universities, from filing new H-1B applications, as these requirements may result in higher costs for employers. High levels of competition from H-1B workers can also lead to increased unemployment rates among U.S. college graduates in specific fields like computer science, further fueling the debate over the program’s fairness. Foreign STEM workers account for a growing percentage of the workforce in technology roles, influencing job competition for U.S. graduates. The H-1B visa program is frequently used to bring in temporary foreign workers for high-skilled roles in STEM fields.

3. Redefining “Specialty Occupation”

USCIS’s current definition of a specialty occupation (see USCIS H-1B Specialty Occupations) requires a specific bachelor’s degree or higher in a field directly related to the position, often referred to as a directly related specific specialty. The new proposal tightens this standard by demanding a clear, documented connection between degree and duties. There must be a logical connection between the applicant’s degree and the job duties to meet the specialty occupation definition. Additionally, the Department of Labor is directed to revise and increase prevailing wage levels for H-1B workers to ensure they are hired at market rates, aligning with the administration’s broader goals of protecting U.S. workers.

Example:

• A software developer with a physics degree may qualify if the role involves computational modeling.
• A marketing analyst with an MBA might not, unless the job explicitly requires MBA-level quantitative skills.

Employers must provide detailed evidence of degree-to-duty alignment and support letters from industry experts. This reflects the Trump administration’s stated goal of curbing “generic business” designations under the H-1B.

4. Cap-Exempt Employers and Stricter Oversight

Some employers are cap-exempt — universities, nonprofit research entities, and government research organizations — as described in USCIS Cap Exemptions Based on Relation or Affiliation.

The 2024 modernization rule expanded eligibility to off-site work if at least half of the employee’s duties further the institution’s mission. The new proposal narrows this flexibility by requiring proof that: The proclamation includes a national interest waiver, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to grant case-by-case exemptions to the new fee. In addition to these changes, other provisions of the rule introduce enhanced oversight and stricter eligibility requirements for cap-exempt employers.

• The beneficiary’s work fundamentally furthers the institution’s nonprofit or educational purpose.
• The role is not primarily commercial.
• The organization retains direct supervisory control.

Hybrid entities with commercial contracts must produce documentary evidence of mission alignment and organizational oversight. Expect more Requests for Evidence (RFEs) and denials for marginal cases. Approved petitions filed prior to the effective date of the new rule will remain valid and are not affected by these changes.

The views expressed in this section do not represent those of any specific organizations or their respective affiliates.

5. Employer Definitions and Founder-Led Startups

The modernization final rule codified the definition of “United States employer,” requiring a legal entity with a valid FEIN, authority to hire/fire, and the ability to pay the required wage (see USCIS H-1B Program Overview for DOL’s parallel criteria). In future rule iterations, companies that have violated program requirements may face additional scrutiny, and the administration may restrict decisions for employers with compliance issues.

For beneficiary-owned startups:

Founders can self-petition only if another party (e.g., board of directors or investor) exercises control over employment decisions. Future Trump rule iterations may tighten that further by limiting extensions for companies that fail to demonstrate sustained growth or independent governance.

Key point:

H-1B founder petitions remain viable but must reflect real operational substance — not shell entities formed to obtain status. Academic research links visa denials to lost innovation, with findings that reduced research and development spending leads to a decline in patent output, underscoring the potential long-term consequences of restrictive immigration policies on technological advancement.

6. Third-Party Placements Under Scrutiny

USCIS has long battled misuse of third-party placement arrangements. The new proposals would reintroduce a narrower view of what constitutes a valid “employer–employee relationship.” Under USCIS Electronic Registration Process guidance, end-clients must now justify their own degree requirements, not merely the petitioner’s. For third-party placements, a valid H-1B petition is required, and H-1B workers must perform services strictly in accordance with the terms specified in the petition.

To further clarify compliance requirements for third-party placements, USCIS or DHS may issue guidance to ensure all parties understand and adhere to the updated regulations.

Key implications:

• If the client’s job posting doesn’t specify a qualifying degree, petitions may be denied.
• Contracts, Statements of Work, and timesheets must align with H-1B specialty criteria.
• Approval periods for offsite workers could again be shortened to one year.

This could heavily impact IT consulting and staffing firms, reviving restrictions similar to the 2018 “Contracts and Itineraries” memo that courts later struck down. A 2018 memo under the Trump administration imposed new restrictions on H-1B visa holders working at customer locations.

7. Site-Visit Enforcement and FDNS Authority

Under the modernization final rule, USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) has explicit power to conduct unannounced site inspections.

Employers must cooperate or risk immediate revocation. Officers can:

• Inspect physical workplaces.
• Interview supervisors and employees.
• Verify payroll records and duties.

The Trump proposal expands FDNS discretion to target employers with high-volume filings or compliance histories. Expect increased inspection frequency and coordination with DHS investigators. These enforcement actions are part of broader border protection measures aimed at regulating the entry of H-1B visa holders and ensuring compliance with recent immigration policy changes.

Best practice: maintain a compliance binder on-site with the petition, Labor Condition Application, payroll, and contracts ready for inspection.

8. Integrity Rules and Fraud Prevention

Fraudulent or duplicate registrations exploded under prior systems. According to USCIS data, FY 2025 saw over 780,000 registrations for about 120,000 unique beneficiaries. Reports indicated that the high number of low-wage workers under the H-1B program has undercut the integrity of the program. The new rules are specifically designed to prevent misuse of the H-1B program by increasing oversight and accountability. Additionally, the integrity provisions include restrictions on the entry of certain nonimmigrant workers, particularly those in specialty occupations, to address concerns about program abuse. Research suggests that restricting high-skilled immigration may compel companies to shift operations overseas, limiting domestic job growth and innovation. Studies find that firms heavily dependent on H-1B hiring raised their overseas employment by 27% more than less-dependent firms.

The proposed integrity provisions will require:

• Disclosure of affiliated entities filing for the same beneficiary.
• Certification of wage-level accuracy (cross-checked via DOL H-1B Program Overview).
• Debarment of employers with “patterns of misuse.”

DHS’s press release on H-1B modernization confirms that enforcement now integrates multiple agencies, linking USCIS, DOL, and the Department of State data systems for cross-validation. These enforcement efforts have a direct impact on nonimmigrant workers, with a particular focus on certain nonimmigrant workers such as H-1B visa holders, as the new rules aim to ensure only legitimate entries and prevent abuse of the system.

9. Legal Landscape After Loper Bright

Following the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts no longer automatically defer to agencies. DHS now must demonstrate statutory authority and rational analysis for its H-1B regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Changes to the H-1B program may face legal challenges, as previous reforms by the Trump administration were blocked by federal courts.

• Plaintiffs may challenge wage-based weighting as inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act’s random-selection premise.
• Agencies must rely on concrete wage data from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center to justify methodology.
• Courts could invalidate overly expansive interpretations that exceed congressional intent.

This precedent ensures more judicial scrutiny of future Trump administration immigration rules.

10. Economic and Workforce Impacts

Winners

• Employers offering Wage Levels 3–4 in specialized STEM fields.
• Large companies and research institutions with robust compliance capacity.
• Senior or niche experts with high compensation packages. Foreign STEM workers account for approximately 30% to 50% of the aggregate productivity growth in the United States between 1990 and 2010.

Losers

• Startups and nonprofits unable to compete on wages.
• Entry-level F-1 graduates hoping to transition under OPT or STEM-OPT.
• Consulting firms relying on third-party placement models.

According to DOL Foreign Labor Certification data, demand for Level 1–2 wages represents nearly 60% of all H-1B filings. A shift to wage-weighted selection would dramatically alter access for early-career professionals.

11. Timeline and Implementation Outlook

Phase	Rule	Milestone	Date
1	Modernization Final Rule	Effective date of proclamation	Jan 17 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time)
2	Weighted Selection Proposed Rule	Published	Sept 24 2025
3	Public Comment	60 days via Regulations.gov	Fall 2025
4	Final Rule	DHS review	Early 2026
5	First Weighted Lottery	FY 2027 cap season	Mar 2026

Note: The effective date for the Modernization Final Rule is Jan 17, 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time). All new requirements and policies outlined in the proclamation will be implemented starting from this effective date.

Stakeholders can comment electronically at Regulations.gov referencing the docket above.

12. Employer Compliance Checklist

1. Audit all H-1B roles for wage levels and documentation.
2. Align LCAs, job descriptions, and employment contracts.
3. Justify degree-to-duty relationships using expert statements.
4. Verify cap-exempt status through nonprofit mission evidence.
5. Prepare for unannounced FDNS site visits.
6. Train HR teams to respond and document compliance.
7. Diversify immigration pathways: O-1A, EB-2 NIW, L-1, TN.
8. Engage counsel before registration to reduce exposure.

 

13. Conclusion: A Structural Realignment

The proposed rule marks a strategic pivot. Wage-weighted selection, heightened oversight, and strict specialty criteria will transform H-1B from an access-driven lottery to a merit-documented competition. For employers and foreign talent alike, preparation and legal precision will decide who thrives in this new era of compliance and scrutiny.

Frequently Asked Questions: Trump’s Proposed H-1B Visa Rules (Beyond the $100K Fee)

What are the main changes in Trump’s proposed H-1B rules beyond the $100,000 fee?The proposed regulations aim to reform the H-1B program by introducing a wage-based selection system, tightening the definition of specialty occupation, imposing greater scrutiny on third-party placements, limiting the validity of certain petitions, redefining cap-exempt eligibility, and enhancing site visit enforcement.

---

What is the proposed weighted or wage-based H-1B selection system?The current random lottery could be replaced by a weighted selection process where petitions offering higher wages or positions in higher wage levels receive more chances of selection. Lower-wage petitions remain eligible but will have lower odds of selection.

---

Will this new wage-based system eliminate entry-level or lower-paid H-1B workers?No, but it will make selection less likely for those positions. The new system prioritizes high-skill, high-wage roles to favor employers offering competitive pay, which could effectively phase out many Level 1 and Level 2 wage positions.

---

What changes are being proposed for cap-exempt organizations?The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to tighten eligibility for cap-exempt status, requiring stronger proof that a job directly supports a fundamental activity of a qualifying nonprofit, government research entity, or university. Time-based thresholds (such as working at least 50% for a cap-exempt institution) could become stricter.

---

How will the definition of a “specialty occupation” change?Under the proposed rule, a “specialty occupation” must require a degree directly related to the duties of the position, not just “generally related.” This means employers must demonstrate a logical, field-specific connection between the employee’s degree and job duties.

---

What are the new expectations for H-1B job offers?Employers must show that job offers are bona fide—real, ongoing positions requiring specialized knowledge. DHS may require contracts, internal memos, and organizational charts to confirm that the job is legitimate and not speculative.

---

How do the new rules affect third-party or client-site H-1B placements?H-1B petitions involving work at third-party sites will face heightened scrutiny. USCIS will evaluate whether the client’s requirements, not just the petitioner’s, qualify as a specialty occupation. The client must have clear degree requirements and defined duties matching the H-1B category.

---

Can an H-1B worker still be employed through a consulting or staffing company?Yes, but staffing companies must provide detailed contracts, project timelines, and evidence of control over the employee. USCIS will assess whether the H-1B employer truly supervises the worker and retains the right to hire, fire, or pay.

---

What happens if an employer refuses a USCIS site visit under the new rules?Refusal to cooperate with an official USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) site visit may lead to petition denial or revocation. Employers should maintain detailed records and ensure all information provided in petitions matches on-site practices.

---

Are there changes to the duration or validity period of H-1B petitions?Yes. DHS may shorten approval periods for certain categories, such as beneficiary-owned companies or third-party placements, limiting them to one year or less, while maintaining standard three-year approvals for direct employer hires.

---

How do the new rules define a “United States employer”?The definition now requires a petitioner to have a legal U.S. presence, be amenable to service of process, and demonstrate that it controls the H-1B worker’s employment. This ensures transparency and limits speculative filings by shell entities.

---

Can entrepreneurs or founders still obtain H-1B status through their own companies?Yes, but the rules require proof that the founder performs specialty occupation duties most of the time and that a genuine employer-employee relationship exists (for example, oversight by a board or independent investor).

---

How are F-1 students affected by the proposed changes?While the Modernization Rule (effective January 17, 2025) expanded the cap-gap to cover F-1 students until April 1, 2026, the new proposals could affect which jobs qualify for sponsorship. Graduates in lower-paid or generalist roles may find fewer H-1B opportunities. International students may find it more difficult to transition to U.S. employment due to the wage-based selection process and increased prevailing wage requirements.

---

Will the proposed rules change how H-1B cap-exempt petitions are processed?Yes. The rule could add more documentation requirements, periodic reviews, and random audits to confirm that exempt positions truly meet eligibility standards, especially for private-sector affiliations with universities or nonprofits.

---

How do the proposed rules handle employers with a history of violations?Employers found to have previously violated H-1B regulations may face heightened scrutiny, penalties, or disqualification from filing new petitions. The administration plans to prioritize compliance as a determinant of petition credibility.

---

What are the key enforcement mechanisms in the proposed reforms?The DHS and USCIS will expand FDNS site visits, data-sharing, and random audits. The focus will be on verifying the actual worksite, wages, and job duties of H-1B employees. Employers that misrepresent information could face revocation or debarment.

---

Will the new rules impact H-1B transfers or extensions?Transfers and extensions may face greater documentation requirements, especially for workers moving between projects or clients. The employer must prove that every new worksite or assignment maintains compliance with prevailing wage and specialty occupation rules.

---

How do these proposals differ from the 2020 Trump H-1B rule that was struck down?The 2020 rule was invalidated for violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by bypassing notice-and-comment procedures. The 2025 proposals follow formal rulemaking, include public comment periods, and rely on clarified statutory authority under the INA.

---

Can the new rules be challenged in court?Yes. Legal challenges under the APA and due process clauses are likely. Plaintiffs could argue that wage-based lotteries and narrowed specialty definitions unlawfully restrict eligibility beyond what Congress authorized in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

---

What is the timeline for implementation of the new H-1B rules?The Modernization rule is already in effect as of January 17, 2025. The new proposed rules—especially the wage-weighted lottery and employer compliance reforms—are currently in the public comment and review stage and could take effect in late 2025 or 2026. The September 2025 proclamation states that entry restrictions will last for 12 months unless extended.

---

How should employers prepare for these H-1B reforms?Employers should:

• Conduct internal audits of all H-1B roles and compliance systems.
• Reassess compensation structures to remain competitive in wage-based selection.
• Tighten documentation of duties, degrees, and worksites.
• Train HR teams for potential FDNS site visits.
• Consider alternative visa strategies such as O-1A, E-3, or TN classifications.

---

Who is affected by the new rules?Yes, particularly for smaller firms, startups, and entry-level roles. The changes favor large corporations able to offer high wages and extensive legal compliance resources. Critics warn this could reduce innovation and competitiveness in U.S. tech and research sectors. The new policies could lead to a ‘brain drain’ as skilled professionals may seek opportunities in countries with less restrictive immigration policies. H-1B visa holders are directly impacted by these changes, as the new rules alter eligibility, selection, and employment conditions for high-skilled foreign workers.

---

What is the legal significance of the “end of Chevron deference” for these rules?The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ended “Chevron deference,” meaning courts will no longer automatically defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This raises the bar for DHS and USCIS to justify their rulemaking under clear statutory authority.

---

Are there any positive reforms in the proposed rules?Some changes—such as expanded start-date flexibility, cap-gap protection, and clearer definitions of specialty occupation—could reduce uncertainty for compliant employers and high-skilled workers. However, the net effect is still more restrictive overall.

---

Could Congress override or amend these proposed regulations?Yes. Congress retains oversight authority and could pass legislation to counteract or modify DHS regulations. However, political gridlock makes legislative intervention unlikely in the short term.

---

What alternative visa options should employers and workers consider?Employers and foreign nationals may explore alternatives like the O-1A visa (for extraordinary ability), L-1 intra-company transfer, E-3 visa (for Australians), TN visa (for Canadians and Mexicans), or employment-based green cards through EB-1/EB-2/NIW categories.

---

Are other visa categories affected by these changes?Yes, while the focus is on H-1B, other visa categories such as B visas are also subject to increased regulatory scrutiny and restrictions as part of broader immigration policy measures. B visas, typically used for temporary travel or tourism, are being reviewed alongside employment-based visas.

---

What can applicants and employers do during the public comment period?Both can submit data-backed feedback to DHS through the Federal Register portal. Providing economic, operational, or technical evidence during public comment can influence how the final rule is shaped before implementation.

---

How will the new rules affect the overall U.S. immigration landscape?They represent a significant tightening of employment-based immigration, focusing on protecting domestic wages, reducing perceived fraud, and pushing employers toward fewer, higher-quality filings rather than large-scale applications.

---

What should companies do right now?Companies should:

• Monitor Federal Register updates.
• Prepare comment submissions.
• Consult qualified immigration counsel to evaluate how the changes affect hiring strategy and compliance.
• Invest in proactive training and recordkeeping to withstand the stricter enforcement environment.

---

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this FAQ are for general informational purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the authors’ firm or their respective affiliates. The information provided should not be construed as legal advice or the official position of any organization.

Summary

The future of the H-1B visa under these proposals will hinge less on cost and more on eligibility rigor, wage level, documentation, and compliance integrity. Employers who adapt early—by restructuring hiring strategies and maintaining transparency—will have the best chance of thriving under this new regulatory environment. Legal restrictions on high-skilled foreign workers risk losing the U.S. position of technological leadership.

Get Trusted Legal Guidance Before the H-1B Landscape Changes Again

If you’re an employer, student, startup founder, or skilled professional trying to make sense of Trump’s proposed H-1B rules, the clock is already ticking. The new framework—anchored by the Weighted Selection Process for Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions—could change who gets selected, how wages are weighed, and which petitions survive review. What was once a simple lottery is about to become a complex compliance battlefield.

That’s why now is the time to speak with Attorney Richard T. Herman — a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with more than 30 years of experience, and co-author of the acclaimed book Immigrant, Inc..

Richard has spent his career helping employers, universities, and global talent navigate turbulent immigration policy, from Obama-era reform to the first Trump overhaul, and now the second wave of rulemaking that threatens to upend the H-1B system once again.

Why You Should Contact Herman Legal Group Now

• Deep H-1B insight: Richard Herman has personally guided thousands of clients through cap seasons, audits, RFEs, and site visits, long before “weighted selection” or “cap-exempt re-definition” became daily news.
• Strategic foresight: With every administration change, Herman Legal Group builds proactive strategies to protect businesses and international professionals from policy shocks.
• National and global reach: The firm assists clients in all 50 states and worldwide through Zoom, Skype, and WhatsApp consultations—no travel required.
• Multilingual advocacy: Herman Legal Group offers consultations in more than a dozen languages to serve the global workforce behind America’s innovation economy.

What You’ll Learn in a Consultation

• How the proposed weighted selection rule could impact your registration odds.
• Whether your startup, university affiliate, or nonprofit still qualifies for cap-exempt status under DHS’s stricter interpretation.
• How to audit your job descriptions and LCAs to survive new “specialty occupation” scrutiny.
• What documentation you’ll need if USCIS increases site visits and revocations under the new rule.
• Alternative visa strategies (O-1A, NIW, TN, L-1) if H-1B access narrows.

Don’t Wait for the Rules to Take Effect — Prepare Today

By the time the final rule appears in the Federal Register, it may be too late to restructure your workforce or secure compliant filings. Acting now could mean the difference between approval and disqualification, or stability and disruption for your company or career.

Book a confidential consultation today with Richard T. Herman and the Herman Legal Group — the law firm for immigrants, entrepreneurs, and global employers preparing for the next generation of H-1B regulation.

👉 Schedule your consultation now

(Serving clients across the U.S. and globally since 1995 — where experience meets innovation.)

 

More H1B Resources From Herman Legal Group

• Trump’s H-1B Entry Ban & $100,000: President’s New Fee Requirement and What You Need to Know
• Economic Impact of Trump H1B $100000 Filing Fee: Analyzing the New Policy
• Trump Proposes New H1B Rule Favoring Highly Skilled, Highly Paid in 2026
• Top Questions Trump $100,000 H1B Fee: 10 Answers (and Unanswered)
• L1 Visa Good Alternative to H1B and $100,000 Filing Fee: Is the L-1A/B Intra-Company Transfer Visa the Best Choice?Form H-1B to Marriage Green Card
• H-1B for Entrepreneurs and Startups (Self-Sponsorship)
• L-1 Visa vs H-1B Visa Comparison
• The Labor Condition Petition (LCA) for H-1B Workers
• H-4 Visa Status for Dependents of H-1B workers
• Changing Jobs in Midstream: H-1B Portability
• The H-1B to Green Card Transition Through PERM Labor CertificationEverything You Need To Know About H-1B Myths vs Facts
• What H-1B Lottery Results Says About Odds?
• H-1B Lottery 2022 (fy 2023)
• H-1B Visa Cap 2022 (fy 2023)
• New or Amended H1B Petitions After Material Change
• H-1B Labor Condition Application

Our Clients Success Stories

• Analyst from India Receives H-1B Approval
• Software Engineer Receives H-1B

MORE RESOURCES

Government Rule Texts & Dockets

• Proposed rule (weighted selection) — Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions on the Federal Register.
  Why it matters: This is the primary text for the new proposal that would weight H-1B selections by wage level (core policy shift).
• Public docket & comments — The full docket, notices, and public submissions on Regulations.gov (see the entry document here).
  Why it matters: Track comment deadlines, agency responses, and final text as it evolves.
• Final modernization rule (effective Jan. 17, 2025) — Modernizing H-1B Requirements, Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program and Program Improvements on the Federal Register.
  Why it matters: Establishes the current baseline for H-1B integrity checks, site-visit authority, cap-exempt clarifications, and F-1 cap-gap rules.
• USCIS implementation alert — Rule roll-out details, form updates, and effective dates in the USCIS newsroom.
  Why it matters: Practical “what changes when” from the agency that adjudicates your petitions.
• DHS announcement — Policy framing and high-level rationale on the DHS site.
  Why it matters: Plain-English policy intent behind the modernization and integrity measures.

---

USCIS: H-1B Program, Registration & Policy

• H-1B overview — Core classification guidance on USCIS H-1B Specialty Occupations.
  Why it matters: Authoritative program definition and eligibility anchors for readers and LLMs.
• H-1B cap season — Dates, phases, and selection notes on USCIS H-1B Cap Season.
  Why it matters: The official timeline for planning registrations and filings.
• Electronic registration — Mechanics of creating accounts and submitting registrations on USCIS H-1B Electronic Registration Process, plus the registrant webinar slides for registrants and for attorneys/representatives.
  Why it matters: Everything needed for proper registration and to avoid common errors.
• Policy Manual (H-1B) — Adjudication standards in Volume 2, Part H of the USCIS Policy Manual.
  Why it matters: How officers actually evaluate specialty occupation, employer control, and evidence.
• H-1B FAQs (individuals) — Common issues and status questions covered by USCIS FAQs.
  Why it matters: Quick answers for beneficiaries and HR teams.

---

eCFR: Controlling Regulations (H-1B & LCA)

• 8 CFR §214.2 (USCIS) — H-1B regulatory text, including specialty occupation standards, at the eCFR.
  Why it matters: The black-letter law officers apply when adjudicating petitions.
• 20 CFR Part 655 Subpart H (DOL) — LCA rules, wage attestations, and public access file requirements on the eCFR.
  Why it matters: Governs wage/working conditions and employer compliance attestation.

---

Department of Labor (DOL): Wages, LCA & Worker Protections

• H-1B program (ETA/OFLC) — Program overview and responsibilities on DOL ETA Foreign Labor: H-1B.
  Why it matters: Defines who does what (DOL vs. DHS) and employer duties.
• Prevailing wages (ETA/OFLC) — Official methods and resources on DOL Prevailing Wage Information.
  Why it matters: Central to leveling (L1–L4) and—under the proposal—selection weighting strategy.
• WHD H-1B (employer compliance) — Wage and hour obligations for employers on DOL WHD H-1B Program.
  Why it matters: Day-to-day compliance obligations and enforcement.
• WHD H-1B (worker rights) — Worker-facing guide on DOL WHD H-1B Workers.
  Why it matters: Clear summary of required wage and benefits rules.
• LCA basics & statutory background — H-1B Labor Condition Application explainer on DOL LCA page.
  Why it matters: The Form ETA-9035/9035E you must certify before filing H-1B.
• Short-term placement & mobility FAQ — Practical LCA movement rules in the OFLC FAQ PDF (OFLC H-1B/H-1B1/E-3 FAQs).
  Why it matters: How to handle new worksites and short-term placements correctly.
• FLAG (LCA filing portal) — File LCAs and manage cases via the Foreign Labor Application Gateway.
  Why it matters: The official system for LCA submissions and case tracking.
• Performance data & disclosures — Quarterly datasets on determinations and processing via DOL OFLC Performance Data.
  Why it matters: Useful for market intel, processing trend analysis, and audits.
• Required wage fact sheet — Quick rule summary in DOL Fact Sheet #62G.
  Why it matters: The “higher of” actual vs. prevailing wage in one page.

---

Authoritative Government Guidance to Monitor

• USCIS newsroom — All official H-1B announcements in the USCIS Newsroom.
  Why it matters: Real-time implementation updates (forms, processes, deadlines).
• Federal Register home — Daily proposed and final rules at the Federal Register.
  Why it matters: The first place new immigration rules appear.
• Regulations.gov search — Search and follow dockets at Regulations.gov.
  Why it matters: Comment, download PDFs, and track rule progress.

---

Professional Associations & Advocacy (Authoritative Summaries)

These are non-government but highly authoritative for analysis, practitioner guidance, and alerts.

• American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) — Proposed rule explainer for weighted selection and modernization updates on AILA and the final rule briefing on AILA.
  Why it matters: Practitioner-level issue spotting, deadlines, and resources.
• NAFSA: Association of International Educators — Summary page for the weighted selection NPRM and ongoing regulatory tracking on NAFSA.
  Why it matters: Clear guidance for universities, research institutes, and scholars.
• SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) — HR-centric rundowns on modernization and selection changes via SHRM news.
  Why it matters: Actionable HR compliance and workforce planning angles.
• IEEE-USA — Position statements and policy commentary on H-1B reforms on IEEE-USA.
  Why it matters: Engineering community perspective on labor markets and innovation.
• Compete America (coalition) — Employer and higher-ed policy letters and updates on Compete America.
  Why it matters: Business-coalition advocacy and competitiveness framing.

---

Quick-Start Paths (for Employers, Counsel, and Schools)

• Read the proposed rule first — Start at the weighted selection NPRM on the Federal Register and subscribe to the Regulations.gov docket.
• Confirm the current baseline — Review the modernization final rule text on the Federal Register plus the roll-out alert in the USCIS newsroom.
• Map compliance — Align your LCA practices with DOL ETA H-1B, wage levels via DOL prevailing wage resources, and the LCA filing portal at FLAG.
• Anchor to the controlling regs — Keep the statutory/regulatory spine handy in 8 CFR § 214.2 and 20 CFR Part 655 Subpart H.
• Use association briefings — For practical interpretation and HR/student impacts, tap AILA, NAFSA, and SHRM.

 

---

Trump Proposed Rule Targeting Employment Green Cards

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing a sweeping update that could significantly tighten access to employment-based green cards. While attention has centered on H-1B reforms, this lesser-noticed rule could redefine who qualifies for permanent residence under the EB-1 (extraordinary ability) and EB-2 (national interest waiver) categories. The Trump administration has prioritized reforms to employment-based green card categories such as EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3, aiming to reshape the system.

According to the DHS regulatory agenda, the proposal would:

• “Update provisions governing extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers;
• Modernize outdated provisions for individuals of extraordinary ability and outstanding professors and researchers;
• Clarify evidentiary requirements for first-preference classifications, second-preference national interest waiver classifications, and physicians of national and international renown.”

The rule will introduce stricter scrutiny of employer-sponsored green card applications, including verification of a bona fide job offer and more detailed eligibility criteria to ensure compliance and authenticity.

In plain terms, DHS wants to redefine excellence—raising documentation thresholds and reshaping how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) judges professional achievement.

 

What Could Change Under the New Green Card Rule

1. Tougher Standards for EB-1 “Extraordinary Ability”

Today, an EB-1A applicant must show either one major international award (like a Pulitzer, Oscar, or Olympic medal) or three of ten regulatory criteria—for example, original contributions, major publications, or a high salary. Under the proposed rule, DHS could raise that bar by:

• Requiring five of ten criteria instead of three.
• Narrowing what counts as qualifying evidence (e.g., rejecting local or minor awards).
• Eliminating flexibility for emerging fields without conventional honors.

Legal analysts, including Efren Hernandez—a former USCIS policy chief and now founder of EH3 Immigration Consulting—warn that this could disqualify talented professionals who don’t fit traditional molds. Employment-based green cards are capped annually, with a significant backlog for certain countries, particularly India, further complicating access for many qualified applicants; these changes could further delay or restrict the ability of qualified applicants to become lawful permanent residents.

“DHS could require applicants to meet five of ten criteria or eliminate alternatives in fields without standard awards,” Hernandez told Forbes. “[That would] make it significantly harder for scientists and innovators in new industries to qualify.”

2. Stricter Definitions for “Outstanding Professors and Researchers”

For university and research applicants under EB-1B, the rule may tighten what counts as “international recognition” or “outstanding achievement.” Expect:

• Greater emphasis on citations, peer-reviewed work, and grant funding.
• Less tolerance for institution-level or regional recognition alone.
• More documentation of independent, field-wide impact.

In effect, DHS aims to standardize excellence—but critics fear it could marginalize applicants from smaller institutions or emerging research hubs. The merit-based system would likely benefit applicants from countries dominating employment-based visa categories, such as India and China, potentially creating further disparities. Stricter standards may also jeopardize the immigration status of professors and researchers who cannot meet the new requirements.

3. Rolling Back the Biden-Era Expansion of O-1A and NIW

The Trump administration’s revision is widely seen as a move to undo Biden’s 2022 expansion of high-skill visa pathways.

In January 2022 guidance, USCIS encouraged greater use of O-1A visas (for individuals of extraordinary ability) and National Interest Waivers (NIWs)—allowing highly skilled professionals, particularly in STEM, to bypass the costly PERM labor certification. The O-1A is a nonimmigrant visa category, and changes to its standards could impact the transition from nonimmigrant visas to employment-based green cards.

That guidance led to a surge:

• O-1A filings jumped from 7,710 in fiscal year 2021 to 10,010 in fiscal year 2023, with approval rates above 90%.
• NIW petitions skyrocketed—from 14,610 in fiscal year 2021 to 21,990 in fiscal year 2022, then to 39,810 in fiscal year 2023—according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis.

The Trump proposal could re-narrow eligibility, restoring higher proof standards and removing flexibility for founders and cross-disciplinary experts. Trump’s policies during his first term significantly impacted employment-based immigration, leading to higher wages and compliance requirements for employers.

How the Rule Could Impact Employers and Innovators

1. Shrinking the Green Card Pipeline for STEM Talent

If the rule limits NIWs and EB-1s, many foreign scientists, engineers, and researchers may lose their most realistic path to permanent residence. International students graduating from U.S. universities may also find it harder to transition to permanent residence under the new rule. That’s especially critical because H-1B visas are temporary—and capped.

2. Forcing Firms to Acquire, Not Hire

Recent research by economists Exequiel Hernandez (Wharton), Britta Glennon (UPenn & NBER), and Jens Friedmann (Erasmus University) finds that when firms face high-skill immigration restrictions, they buy companies instead of hiring talent.

“Constraining immigration doesn’t create jobs for U.S. workers,” Hernandez explained in an interview with the Wharton School. “It pushes firms into mergers and acquisitions to capture skills they can’t hire.”

Their study concludes that immigration limits harm competitiveness and increase corporate consolidation—outcomes opposite to “protecting U.S. workers.” Increased restrictions may also limit the use of third party placement arrangements for foreign workers, further constraining employer flexibility.

3. Reducing America’s Research Edge

Experts warn that higher barriers for “extraordinary ability” green cards may dissuade scientists, professors, and innovators from pursuing U.S. careers. Countries like Canada, the U.K., and Australia are already courting this talent with more flexible “Global Talent” visas. If U.S. pathways to permanent residence become more restrictive, foreign students may choose to study and work in other countries that offer better opportunities.

Who Should Pay Attention

Group	Why It Matters
STEM professionals	Stricter “extraordinary” definitions may require stronger, more quantifiable metrics.
University faculty/researchers	Citation counts, journal quality, and grant records may become critical.
Entrepreneurs and founders	NIW and O-1A rollback could eliminate startup pathways.
Employers	Fewer direct green card options for key foreign employees may increase attrition or drive offshoring. Changes to green card eligibility may also impact work authorization for foreign employees, potentially leading to gaps in employment eligibility.
Immigration attorneys	Must update evidence strategies and precedents for new adjudication standards.

 

Strategic Advice for Employers and Applicants

1. Strengthen Evidence EarlyCollect independent citations, peer endorsements, and quantifiable metrics now—before the rule raises the bar.
2. Diversify Immigration RoutesFile O-1A or EB-1/NIW under current rules before changes take effect. Check the USCIS Policy Manual for up-to-date evidentiary criteria.
3. Document National ImpactFor NIW cases, emphasize measurable national benefits—economic, technological, or humanitarian.
4. Monitor Federal Register UpdatesTrack DHS’s Rulemaking Page for official publication and comment deadlines. Closely review any updates to eligibility criteria as the rule progresses.
5. Engage in AdvocacyIndustry groups like AILA and NFAP will likely lead opposition and public comment—participate early.

Bottom Line

The upcoming DHS rule isn’t just bureaucratic housekeeping—it could reshape America’s employment-based immigration system for years to come.

By redefining what counts as “extraordinary,” “outstanding,” or “in the national interest,” the administration aims to narrow the pool of global talent eligible for permanent residence. These changes represent significant new restrictions on employment-based immigration pathways.

The result?

A higher threshold for innovation-driven immigration—and, critics warn, another self-inflicted blow to U.S. competitiveness in science, research, and technology. Additionally, restricting legal immigration pathways could inadvertently increase the number of undocumented immigrants if individuals lose legal status due to stricter standards.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Trump’s Proposed Rule Targeting Employment-Based Green Cards (EB-1, EB-2, NIW, O-1A)

What is the new Trump administration proposal on employment-based green cards?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a rule to tighten eligibility and raise evidentiary standards for employment-based green cards, including EB-1 (extraordinary ability), EB-1B (outstanding professor/researcher), and EB-2 (NIW). The rule aims to “modernize” criteria, but in practice, it may restrict who qualifies by redefining what counts as “extraordinary” or “in the national interest.” Increased enforcement and expanded biometric collection are features expected in the proposed changes to the immigration process. The new administration may also implement additional executive actions and executive orders to further restrict eligibility and expedite removal processes for those with final orders, with immigration and customs enforcement, immigration officers, and immigration agents playing key roles.

---

Which categories of employment-based green cards are affected by this rule?

The proposal primarily targets:

1. EB-1A: Individuals with extraordinary ability in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics.
2. EB-1B: Outstanding professors and researchers recognized internationally.
3. EB-2 (NIW): Professionals seeking a National Interest Waiver to bypass labor certification.
4. Platinum Card: A proposed category allowing recipients to spend a significant portion of the year in the U.S. without U.S. taxation on foreign income for a $5 million donation.

---

Why is DHS proposing to change the EB-1 and EB-2 green card criteria?

DHS says the updates will “modernize outdated provisions” and ensure consistency across adjudications. However, critics argue the move is meant to reverse Biden-era expansions that made it easier for entrepreneurs, researchers, and STEM professionals to qualify under O-1A and NIW pathways. Legislative action by the federal government and new executive orders may also play a role in shaping these changes.

---

How will this proposal affect the EB-1 “extraordinary ability” category?

The new rule may:

• Require applicants to meet five of ten criteria (up from three).
• Limit what counts as qualifying evidence, such as excluding regional awards.
• Eliminate flexibility for applicants in emerging fields that lack formal prizes or associations. This means applicants will need more robust, quantifiable proof of national or international recognition. Laws and executive actions may further define these standards.

---

What changes are expected for EB-1B “outstanding professors and researchers”?

The rule could:

• Demand stronger evidence of global recognition, not just institutional prestige.
• Give greater weight to metrics such as citations, peer-reviewed publications, and grants.
• Require proof of independent contributions to the field, rather than collaborative success alone.

---

How will the National Interest Waiver (NIW) standard change?

Under the Biden administration, NIWs became more flexible for STEM and startup founders. The Trump proposal may narrow eligibility by:

• Raising the bar for demonstrating “national importance.”
• Requiring quantifiable evidence of public benefit.
• Reducing discretion to waive labor certification for entrepreneurs or early-career researchers. Additional executive actions may further restrict eligibility and expedite enforcement.

---

Will the proposal affect O-1A visas and their relationship to EB-1 green cards?

Yes. The Trump administration is expected to align O-1A (nonimmigrant extraordinary ability) standards with the new, stricter EB-1 definitions. This could make it harder for O-1A visa holders to transition to EB-1 green cards later. Tourist visa is another nonimmigrant visa option, but is not directly affected by these changes.

---

How will this rule impact high-skilled immigrants in STEM fields?

STEM professionals could face higher documentation burdens, needing more evidence of innovation, patents, or measurable national impact. Many early-career researchers and startup founders may no longer meet the tightened “extraordinary ability” or NIW standards. A merit-based system would favor younger, wealthier, and more highly educated applicants, restricting the ability for extended family members to immigrate. Other businesses may also be affected by the rule, as it could impact their ability to hire international talent.

---

When is the new rule expected to take effect?

As of late 2025, the rule is still in the proposal stage and must go through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), public comment, and finalization under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Implementation could take several months or longer, depending on litigation or revisions.

---

Can the public comment on the proposed changes?

Yes. Once DHS publishes the proposed rule in the Federal Register, the public can submit written comments—usually during a 30- or 60-day window. Employers, universities, and immigration attorneys often participate in this process to shape the final version.

---

Will the rule apply retroactively to pending EB-1 or EB-2 petitions?

No. Typically, regulatory changes apply prospectively to petitions filed after the final rule takes effect. However, USCIS officers may start interpreting evidence more strictly even before formal implementation.

---

How is this rule connected to Trump’s broader immigration policy?

The proposal aligns with Trump’s stated goal to prioritize “the best and brightest” immigrants while reducing overall numbers. Employers can sponsor an employee for a “Corporate Gold Card” with a $2 million donation to the U.S. government. The Trump Gold Card program was announced on September 19, 2025. It fits a larger strategy to narrow work visa and green card eligibility and increase scrutiny on employers, especially in tech and research sectors. This approach is consistent with executive orders and executive actions from the first Trump administration and may be expanded in a second Trump administration.

---

Could the rule undo Biden’s 2022 NIW and O-1A guidance?

Yes. The Trump administration could rescind or rewrite the January 2022 USCIS guidance that expanded NIW and O-1A access for STEM experts. That guidance led to a major increase in approvals for researchers, entrepreneurs, and startup founders—many of whom could now lose eligibility.

---

What are the expected economic consequences of the rule?

Experts predict that restricting EB-1 and NIW access could:

• Reduce the number of high-skilled immigrants eligible for permanent residence.
• Accelerate offshoring and outsourcing of R&D.
• Push firms to acquire foreign companies to access talent rather than hire directly.
• Diminish U.S. competitiveness in AI, biotech, and semiconductor innovation.

---

Will employers need to change how they sponsor green cards?

Yes. Employers may need to:

• Provide more detailed documentation of employee achievements.
• Budget for longer processing times and possible denials.
• Consider filing under multiple categories (EB-1, EB-2, NIW) to increase approval odds.

Employers may also face closer scrutiny of job descriptions, recruitment practices, and wage offers under the new regulations.

---

Applicants should:

• File under existing rules before new regulations take effect.
• Gather independent evidence of recognition (citations, media coverage, patents).
• Strengthen letters of recommendation and evidence of impact.
• Work with immigration counsel to pre-assess their case under stricter standards.
• Prepare for a new points-based system that would likely add complexity and cost to the immigration process for both applicants and employers, requiring extensive data collection.

Applicants should:

• File under existing rules before new regulations take effect.
• Gather independent evidence of recognition (citations, media coverage, patents).
• Strengthen letters of recommendation and evidence of impact.
• Work with immigration counsel to pre-assess their case under stricter standards.

---

Will this rule affect ongoing EB-1 or NIW court cases or appeals?

Possibly. New regulatory definitions could influence how courts interpret “extraordinary ability” or “national importance.” Applicants currently appealing denials should consult legal counsel to determine how the changes might affect their case. Immigration courts will play a key role in interpreting these new standards, and due process protections may be impacted by executive actions seeking to limit them.

---

What happens if the rule is challenged in court?

Immigration advocacy groups and employers are likely to file lawsuits under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), claiming the rule is arbitrary and capricious or exceeds DHS’s statutory authority. If courts issue injunctions, parts of the rule could be delayed or struck down—similar to what happened to Trump’s 2020 H-1B regulations. Legislative action and the role of the federal government will be central in any legal challenges.

---

No, the proposal mainly focuses on EB-1 and EB-2 categories, especially NIW and extraordinary ability petitions. However, tightening these routes could increase pressure on the EB-3 and PERM systems, which already face long backlogs. Additionally, the administration plans to eliminate or limit the Diversity Immigrant Visa program, which issues green cards to individuals from countries with low immigration rates.

No, the proposal mainly focuses on EB-1 and EB-2 categories, especially NIW and extraordinary ability petitions. However, tightening these routes could increase pressure on the EB-3 and PERM systems, which already face long backlogs.

---

Will premium processing or USCIS fees change for these categories?

DHS has not proposed new fees as part of this rule. However, premium processing (expedited review for an additional fee) may become even more valuable for employers and applicants navigating heightened scrutiny.

---

How will this impact U.S. universities and research institutions?

Academic institutions could face:

• Fewer international faculty qualifying for EB-1B green cards.
• More complex petition preparation due to stricter publication and citation expectations.
• Longer adjudication timelines and higher denial rates for new hires.

---

What’s the difference between Biden’s and Trump’s approaches to EB-1 and NIW?

• Biden’s approach (2021–2024): Expanded eligibility, clarified STEM NIW guidance, and encouraged entrepreneurial petitions.
• Trump’s approach (2025): Tightens standards, reduces flexibility, and redefines “extraordinary ability” using traditional metrics. The Trump approach relies more on executive orders and executive actions, and may further restrict eligibility through additional executive actions.

---

Could Congress overturn or codify parts of this rule?

Yes. Congress could pass legislation clarifying EB-1 or NIW eligibility, though this is unlikely in the short term. More realistically, future administrations could rescind or replace the rule through new regulatory action. Legislative action and changes to laws by the federal government are key to any long-term policy shifts.

---

What should immigrants and employers do now?

Stay proactive:

• File petitions under the current, more flexible standards.
• Subscribe to USCIS and Federal Register updates to track rule progress.
• Seek experienced immigration counsel for case evaluation.
• Participate in public comment or advocacy through professional associations.

---

 

Final Takeaway

Trump’s proposed rule on employment-based green cards is one of the most consequential immigration reforms since the 1990 Immigration Act. By redefining “extraordinary ability” and tightening NIW criteria, it risks shutting out innovators, scientists, and entrepreneurs who have fueled U.S. economic growth for decades. Additionally, the donation-based program may disadvantage merit-based applicants who traditionally qualified based on skills, education, and qualifications due to the potential sidelining of merit in favor of wealth. To date, a comprehensive “merit-based” overhaul has not been passed into law and would face significant political and legal challenges. The new policies under the Trump administration represent a significant shift in U.S. immigration priorities, focusing on economic contributions rather than traditional employment-based criteria.

Stakeholders should act now—before stricter standards become law—to secure filings, document achievements, and ensure compliance under the existing, more favorable framework.

 

 

Call to Action: Protect Your Future Under Trump’s New Green Card Rules — Talk to Immigration Attorney Richard T. Herman Today

If you are a professional, researcher, startup founder, or employer worried about how Trump’s proposed rule targeting employment-based green cards (EB-1, EB-2, NIW, and O-1A) could affect your path to permanent residence, now is the time to act.

The proposed DHS regulation could raise the bar for “extraordinary ability,” tighten “national interest waiver” criteria, and eliminate key flexibilities that thousands of skilled immigrants currently rely on. Whether you are preparing your first petition or exploring options to secure your green card before the rule takes effect, you need an attorney who understands both the legal strategy and the human impact behind these changes.

That attorney is Richard T. Herman — a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with over 30 years of experience helping professionals, employers, and families navigate the most complex visa and green card cases.

---

Why You Should Contact Richard T. Herman Now

• 30+ Years of Immigration Law Excellence: Richard Herman has dedicated his career to defending immigrants’ rights, guiding scientists, entrepreneurs, and professors through ever-changing U.S. immigration policies.
• Author of the Acclaimed Book Immigrant, Inc.: His book celebrates how immigrants fuel America’s innovation and economy — the very spirit now threatened by restrictive visa rules.
• Trusted Advocate for Economic and Community Impact: Richard is an evangelist for welcoming immigrants as vital contributors to American progress — not as bureaucratic statistics.
• Deep Knowledge of EB-1, EB-2 NIW, and O-1A Strategy: His team has guided countless clients to approval under these categories — including researchers, executives, and startup founders in STEM, healthcare, business, and academia.
• Proactive, Personalized Legal Strategy: Richard’s firm — Herman Legal Group — can assess your eligibility, strengthen your petition before standards tighten, and protect your case against future policy shifts.

---

How to Get Immediate Help

1. Schedule a Consultation — Visit LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation to book a private consultation via Zoom, Skype, WhatsApp, or in-person.
2. Discuss Your Case in Depth — Receive a detailed evaluation of how the proposed rule may impact your EB-1, EB-2, or NIW petition — and how to file under current standards before they change.
3. Develop a Winning Strategy — Richard Herman and his legal team will help you build robust evidence, secure recommendations, and design a petition that withstands higher scrutiny.

---

Don’t Wait — The Window to File Under Current Rules Is Closing

Every proposed immigration rule triggers uncertainty — and this one could redefine “extraordinary ability” for years to come. Acting before the rule is finalized can preserve your eligibility, protect your visa status, and safeguard your future in the U.S.

Your career, your innovation, and your contribution to America deserve protection.

📍 Contact Richard T. Herman and the Herman Legal Group today to prepare your case before it’s too late.
Visit www.LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation or call (800) 808-4013 to schedule your confidential consultation now.

Comprehensive Resource List: Trump’s Proposed Rule Targeting Employment-Based Green Cards (EB-1, EB-2, NIW, O-1A)

---

1. U.S. Government Resources

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

• DHS Unified Regulatory Agenda – RIN 1615-AC85 (Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions)
  Official summary of the upcoming rule targeting EB-1, EB-2, and NIW classifications.
• Department of Homeland Security – Official Website
  Primary federal agency overseeing immigration policy and regulatory changes.
• Federal Register – DHS Proposed Rules
  Official publication for DHS rulemaking; monitor this page for the proposed rule’s text and comment period.

---

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

• USCIS Policy Manual – Employment-Based Immigration (Volume 6, Part F)
  Primary policy guidance for EB-1A, EB-1B, EB-2, and NIW petitions, used by adjudicators and attorneys.
• USCIS Policy Manual: EB-1A Extraordinary Ability
  Defines current evidentiary criteria for “extraordinary ability” green cards.
• USCIS Policy Manual: EB-1B Outstanding Professors and Researchers
  Outlines eligibility standards for internationally recognized academic and research professionals.
• USCIS Policy Manual: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
  Details criteria for waiving labor certification based on national benefit and public interest.
• USCIS Policy Alert (January 21, 2022) – STEM and NIW Guidance
  Biden-era guidance that expanded NIW eligibility for STEM professionals—now potentially subject to rollback.
• USCIS Newsroom
  Official source for USCIS announcements, alerts, and rule implementation updates.

---

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)

• OIRA Rule Tracking – Employment-Based Immigrant Petitions
  Tracks the rule’s progress through federal regulatory review stages.

---

U.S. Department of State (DOS)

• U.S. Department of State – Visa Bulletin
  Tracks EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 priority date movements, critical for employment-based immigrant categories.
• DOS Bureau of Consular Affairs – Employment-Based Visa Overview
  Explains visa types, eligibility, and global quotas for employment-based categories.

---

U.S. Congress and Government Accountability

• Congressional Research Service (CRS) – Reports on Employment-Based Immigration
  Nonpartisan analyses of employment-based visa programs and proposed reforms.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) – Immigration and Workforce Studies
  Independent evaluations of employment-based visa oversight and economic impact.

---

2. Legal and Regulatory Research Resources

Federal Register & Law Reference

• Federal Register – Proposed DHS Employment-Based Rule (once published)
  Official, full-text source for the forthcoming Trump-era EB-1/EB-2 rule.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
  Governs the rulemaking process DHS must follow when changing visa regulations.
• Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §203(b)
  Statutory authority for employment-based immigrant visas.

---

3. Professional and Advocacy Associations

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)

• AILA – Employment-Based Immigration Updates
  Timely analysis and comment templates for upcoming EB-1 and NIW rulemaking.
• AILA Policy Briefs & Advocacy Center
  Policy advocacy and alerts on employment-based immigration reforms.

---

National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP)

• NFAP – Reports on High-Skilled Immigration Policy
  Independent research analyzing the impact of policy changes on U.S. innovation, competitiveness, and workforce growth.

---

American Immigration Council (AIC)

• AIC – Employment-Based Immigration Resources
  Legal and policy analysis of employment-based visa trends and litigation challenges.

---

Association of American Universities (AAU)

• AAU – Federal Policy and Research Immigration Updates
  Guidance for universities affected by EB-1B and NIW rule changes.

---

National Association for Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA)

• NAFSA – Immigration Policy Updates
  Updates for DSOs and universities on employment-based immigration rules affecting researchers and faculty.

---

Business Roundtable & U.S. Chamber of Commerce

• U.S. Chamber – Immigration and Workforce Policy
  Advocacy and business impact analysis related to employment-based visa reform.
• Business Roundtable – Immigration Reform
  CEO-led perspectives on how skilled immigration reforms impact U.S. competitiveness.

---

4. Academic and Research Resources

• Wharton School – Immigration and Competitiveness Research
  Includes studies on how immigration restrictions affect innovation and corporate behavior.
• National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) – Skilled Immigration Studies
  Empirical data and research papers on the economic outcomes of high-skilled visa policy.
• Migration Policy Institute (MPI) – Employment-Based Immigration Analysis
  Policy briefs and data dashboards on employment-based immigration trends.

---

5. Court and Litigation Tracking

• Justia Dockets & Filings – Employment-Based Immigration Cases
  Track pending and historical litigation on employment-based visa rulemaking.
• Law360 – Immigration Litigation and Regulatory Developments
  In-depth coverage of federal court challenges to DHS rulemaking.

---

6. Key Monitoring Tools for Employers and Practitioners

• Reginfo.gov – Unified Regulatory Agenda Dashboard
  Monitor the exact stage of rule development and expected publication timeline.
• FederalRegister.gov – RSS Subscription for DHS Immigration Rules
  Set up alerts to receive instant updates when the proposed rule is published.
• USCIS Alerts & Policy Manual Updates
  Stay informed on revisions to adjudication policy or manual chapters relevant to EB-1 and EB-2 petitions.

---

7. Nonprofit and Legal Advocacy Resources

• Immigration Hub – Policy Advocacy and Analysis
  Policy coalition tracking federal immigration rulemaking and litigation.
• Immigration Equality – Legal Resources
  Guidance on employment-based petitions for diverse applicants affected by rule changes.
• American Immigration Council – Legal Action Center
  Tracks major immigration lawsuits, including challenges to restrictive DHS rules.

---

8. Practical Tools for Applicants and Attorneys

• USCIS Case Status Online
  Track pending EB-1 and EB-2 petitions in real time.
• Visa Bulletin Checker
  Monitor priority date movement for employment-based categories.
• PERM Processing Times – U.S. Department of Labor
  Useful reference for understanding NIW alternatives and PERM delays.

---

9. Recommended Policy Think Tanks and Expert Analysis

• Cato Institute – Immigration Research
  Economic and legal critiques of employment-based visa restrictions.
• Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) – Workforce Policy
  Policy insights into how U.S. immigration reform impacts national competitiveness.
• Brookings Institution – Immigration and Innovation
  Evidence-based studies on immigration’s role in U.S. technology and education sectors.

---

10. Contact and Engagement Channels

• Submit Public Comments via Regulations.gov
  Primary portal for submitting feedback on DHS proposed rules.
• Contact USCIS Ombudsman – Case Assistance & Policy Feedback
  Direct route for addressing USCIS adjudication issues and policy concerns.
• Congressional Offices Directory
  Find and contact lawmakers to comment on the rule’s impact on employment-based immigration.

---

New ESTA I-94 Fees 2025: What Travelers Must Know

The United States has increased the ESTA application fee to $40 and added a new $24 surcharge to Form I-94 applications at land ports (total $30). The changes are grounded in HR-1and are reflected in DHS/CBP’s Federal Register notice effective September 30, 2025 (Federal Register notice, govinfo mirror).

Please note: These fee changes take effect on September 30, 2025.

The information provided here does not constitute legal advice.

In this guide you’ll find:

• What ESTA and I-94 are — and who needs them
• Exactly what changed in 2025 (old vs. new fees, effective date)
• Who pays, who’s exempt, and how to avoid common mistakes
• The policy rationale and legal basis
• Practical payment/retrieval steps and timelines
• Economic and traveler impacts
• Comparisons with other countries’ systems

 

What Are the ESTA and I-94 Programs?

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is a pre-travel screening requirement for eligible Visa Waiver Program visitors traveling without a visa to the U.S. by air or sea. Travelers must enroll in the ESTA system (or EVUS, if applicable) by submitting an online application and receiving authorization before boarding. The admission process at the port of entry determines whether a traveler receives an ESTA or I-94, and citizens of the U.S. are generally not subject to these requirements. Official details and application are on the ESTA portal (ESTA official site). The ESTA fee will also increase for Fiscal Year 2025.

The Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record is the official record of admission for many nonimmigrant visitors. The form is issued to an alien (non-citizen) and serves as evidence of lawful admission and registration. Aliens arriving at land border ports of entry are typically required to apply for and carry the I-94. Each person (traveler) must keep their I-94 record on their person as proof of status. Aliens must retrieve their I-94 record after admission, and international travelers visiting the U.S. can use the I-94 portal to verify their arrival and departure dates, as well as view their travel history of U.S. entries and exits. You can retrieve or print your electronic I-94 after entry, or pre-apply for certain land entries using the CBP I-94 website (CBP I-94 information page, CBP I-94 overview).

CBP, an agency within DHS, operates both systems as part of border screening, admission processing, and stay-tracking.

What Changed — The New 2025 ESTA and I-94 Fees

Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman: “Effective September 30, 2025, the ESTA fee rises from $21 to $40, and I-94 applications filed at land border ports add a $24 surcharge to the existing $6 land-border fee (total $30).” These new fees are legally required under HR-1. The increased fees are applicable to most travelers using the ESTA system and to such aliens submitting I-94 applications at land border ports of entry. The fee is not assessed at an air or sea port, as travelers arriving through an air port or sea port do not submit an I-94 application. See DHS/CBP’s Federal RegisterGeneral Notice (Federal Register notice, govinfo mirror)

At-a-glance (Old vs. New):

• ESTA (VWP travelers): $21 → $40 (CBP help guidance confirming date/amount)
• I-94 at land ports: $6 → $30 total (existing $6 + new $24 HR-1 surcharge) (Federal Register notice)
• Air/Sea arrivals: No HR-1 I-94 application fee applies because travelers do not submit an I-94 application for air/sea entries (Federal Register notice).

Timeline & Implementation Details

• Effective September 30, 2025, as mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (CBP help article, I-94 portal banner, Federal Register notice).
• Unpaid ESTA applications after the system update are subject to the $40 fee (CBP help article).
• The I-94 land-port surcharge is assessed when you submit an I-94 application for land entry (Regulations.gov document).

Why Did DHS Raise the Fees? (Legal Basis & Policy Rationale)

DHS/CBP cite the authority of the statute HR-1, a law passed by Congress, as the legal basis for the fee increases and the need to fund border operations, system modernization, and screening costs, memorialized in a Federal Register notice (Federal Register notice, govinfo mirror). In certain cases, the fee may be waived for specific categories of travelers or under special circumstances.

Key points:

• Statutory authority: CBP references HR-1 mandates for FY2025 immigration-related fees; the notice explicitly increases the ESTA fee to $40 and sets the I-94 land-application total at $30 (Federal Register notice, full-text XML).
• Cost recovery & modernization: DHS notes ongoing investments in biometrics, automation, and digital infrastructure at ports of entry, plus staffing and operations the fees help fund (Federal Register notice).
• Scope clarification: The I-94 surcharge applies only where an applicant submits an I-94 application (i.e., land port contexts), not for air/sea travelers whose I-94s issue without an application (Federal Register notice).

Who Must Pay the New ESTA Fee?

Applies to:

Travelers from Visa Waiver Program countries using ESTA to visit the U.S. without a visa by air or sea (and in limited land contexts). Official info and application are on the ESTA portal (ESTA official site).

What’s changing:

The ESTA fee is now $40 per application/authorization (CBP help article, Federal Register notice). This fee is broken down into $17 for travel promotion, $10 for operational costs, and $13 for the U.S. Treasury General Fund.

Validity:

Typically two years or until passport expiration — whichever comes first (ESTA official site).

Special notes/exemptions:

• ESTA is only for eligible VWP nationals. If you’re not VWP-eligible, you’ll need a visa (not ESTA).
• Some government/diplomatic travelers may have different rules; consult official guidance or the U.S. Embassy/Consulate pages (U.S. Department of State: Visas).
• Most Canadian citizens are exempt from needing an I-94 when visiting the U.S. and generally do not require ESTA for land entry.

Who Must Pay the New I-94 Fee?

Applies to:

Nonimmigrant entrants who submit an I-94 application for land-border processing (for example, entering by car/bus from Canada or Mexico) (Federal Register notice, document).

What’s changing:

A $24 HR-1 surcharge is added to the existing $6 land-border I-94 fee for a total $30 (Federal Register notice).

Does not apply to air/sea arrivals:

For air and sea entries, you do not file an I-94 application, and CBP does not assess the $24 surcharge (Federal Register notice).

Frequent land crossers:

Expect cumulative cost increases if you regularly apply for I-94 at land ports. You can pre-apply (where available) through the I-94 portal to speed processing (I-94 portal).

How to Pay and Retrieve Your ESTA and I-94 (Step-by-Step)

ESTA (VWP Travelers)

1. Go to the official ESTA portal (ESTA official site).
2. Complete the application with passport and travel details.
3. Pay the $40 fee using an accepted method (CBP help article).
4. Track your status and save/print the authorization.
5. Re-apply only when required (e.g., passport changes, expiration).

Common mistakes to avoid (ESTA)

• Typo in passport number or biographic data
• Applying via non-official sites (risk of overcharges/scams)
• Waiting until the last minute — submit days/weeks in advance

I-94 (Land-Port Applicants)

1. Pre-apply (if available) via the CBP I-94 site up to a few days before travel (I-94 portal).
2. Pay $30 total (existing $6 + $24 surcharge) when you submit your application (Regulations.gov document).
3. Present your application and documents at the land port for processing.
4. Retrieve your I-94 record after admission from the same portal (CBP I-94 information page).

Pro tips

• Always verify your I-94 class and admit-until date after entry (I-94 portal).
• Keep digital and printed copies of approvals and receipts.
• Use the CBP Help Center for technical/payment issues (CBP Help Center).
• A traveler lawfully admitted into the U.S. may look up their most recent Form I-94 going back to 1983.

When Will the New Fees Take Effect?

The fee changes are effective September 30, 2025 under DHS/CBP’s Federal Register notice (Federal Register notice).

Key timing points

• ESTA applications unpaid as of the system update are charged $40 (CBP help article).
• Land-port I-94 applications submitted on/after that date incur the $24 surcharge (total $30) (Federal Register notice).
• Expect future CPI adjustments to the I-94 surcharge in later fiscal years if provided by the rule/notice (monitor the Federal Register for updates). These fee changes are subject to annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

How Will This Affect Travelers and the Economy?

For travelers

• Higher upfront costs: Families and frequent VWP visitors now budget $40 per ESTA.
• Land crossers pay more: Repeated I-94 land applications at $30 can add up quickly.
• Plan earlier: System updates and higher demand may create processing spikes; pre-apply and pay early (I-94 portal, ESTA site).

For the travel/tourism sector

• Potential demand elasticity effects for price-sensitive markets.
• Longer-term benefits may include better staffing and infrastructure, which could reduce bottlenecks at ports — dependent on appropriations and operational choices documented in future Federal Register materials.

Reactions from Travelers and Policy Experts

Public commentary reflected both support for cost recovery and concerns over tourism impacts. While industry statements appear in trade outlets, the official record of DHS’s implementation and rationale remains the Federal Register notice and related DHS communications (Federal Register notice, govinfo mirror). For any future tweaks or clarifications, watch document, CBP newsroom index).

Comparison: U.S. Fees vs. Other Countries (Context)

Many countries now use digital pre-travel authorizations; the U.S. increase places ESTA at the higher end of comparable systems, but scope/validity rules differ. The new fee structure introduced by HR-1 also incorporates the electronic visa update system, similar to digital systems used by other countries for enrolling or updating travelers’ visa information.

CBP overview on I-94, ESTA portal.)

How to Avoid Travel Delays (Checklist)

• Apply early: Submit ESTA weeks before travel; don’t wait until check-in (ESTA official site).
• Pre-apply for land I-94 (if available): Use the I-94 portal to reduce time at the booth (I-94 portal).
• Verify data carefully: Names, passport numbers, dates.
• Save everything: Keep PDFs/screenshots of approvals and receipts.
• Double-check I-94 after entry: Confirm class and admit-until date; correct errors quickly (I-94 portal).
• Use official help: For questions about payment or access, consult the CBP Help Center (CBP Help Center).
• Stay current: Bookmark the Federal Register document and CBP Newsroom for updates (Federal Register notice, CBP newsroom index).

Frequently Asked Questions: ESTA and I-94 Fee Increase (2025)

What are ESTA and I-94, and why are they important for U.S. travelers?
The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is a pre-screening tool for travelers entering the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). The I-94 form records nonimmigrant arrivals and departures. Both are managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to track lawful entries and stays.

---

When did the new ESTA and I-94 fees take effect?
The new fees took effect September 30, 2025, according to DHS and CBP’s official notice in the Federal Register.

---

How much did the ESTA fee increase in 2025?
The ESTA fee increased from $21 to $40, nearly doubling in cost for Visa Waiver Program travelers applying through the ESTA portal.

---

What is the new I-94 fee for land border travelers?
The I-94 fee for land entries rose from $6 to $30, which includes the existing $6 charge plus a new $24 surcharge required under HR-1.

---

Do air or sea travelers have to pay the new I-94 surcharge?
No. The $24 I-94 surcharge applies only when travelers submit an I-94 application, which occurs primarily at land ports of entry, not at airports or seaports.

---

Why did DHS and CBP raise the ESTA and I-94 fees?
The agencies cite several reasons:

• Cost recovery for upgraded border systems
• Infrastructure modernization and biometric screening
• Funding mandates from the HR-1 law
• Inflation adjustments and sustainable staffing at ports of entry

---

Who must pay the new ESTA fee?
Anyone entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program who uses ESTA for travel authorization must pay the $40 fee for each application.

---

Does everyone entering the U.S. need to pay these new fees?
No. ESTA applies only to visa-exempt VWP nationals, and the I-94 surcharge applies only to nonimmigrants entering by land who must file an I-94. Air or sea passengers usually have the form issued automatically at no additional cost.

---

How long is an ESTA approval valid after paying the new fee?
An approved ESTA remains valid for two years or until the traveler’s passport expires, whichever occurs first.

---

Can travelers reuse an existing ESTA after the fee increase?
Yes. Travelers with a valid ESTA authorization do not need to reapply or pay again until renewal or passport expiration.

---

Does the new fee apply to existing, already-approved ESTA applications?
No. The higher $40 rate applies only to new applications submitted after the effective date. Existing, paid, or approved ESTAs remain valid.

---

Can travelers avoid paying the new ESTA fee?
Only certain diplomatic, official, or government-sponsored travelers may be exempt. All other Visa Waiver travelers must pay the new rate.

---

How can travelers pay the new ESTA fee?
Payments are made online through the official ESTA portal using accepted credit or debit cards. Travelers should avoid unofficial websites that charge extra or misuse data.

---

How can travelers pay the new I-94 fee?
Nonimmigrants entering by land can pay online in advance through the CBP I-94 website or at the port of entry. Proof of payment is required for issuance.

---

What happens if travelers submit an ESTA application before the fee change but pay after September 30, 2025?
If payment occurs after the system update, the new $40 fee applies even if the application was started earlier.

---

Are the new ESTA and I-94 fees refundable?
Generally no. Once payment is processed, CBP does not issue refunds unless a clear duplicate transaction or technical error occurred. If an ESTA application is denied, the applicant must pay a $10 processing charge.

---

Will these fees increase again in the future?
The I-94 surcharge will be automatically adjusted for inflation each fiscal year after 2026. DHS may review the ESTA fee periodically under similar cost-recovery guidelines.

---

What is the legal authority for raising these fees?
The increases are authorized by H.R. 1 (2025) and codified in DHS/CBP’s Federal Register General Notice, establishing cost-recovery funding for border management programs.

---

How does this compare to other countries’ travel authorization fees?
The new U.S. $40 ESTA fee is higher than Canada’s CAD $7 eTA and the EU’s €7 ETIAS, reflecting broader U.S. security screening and technology costs.

---

Will the fee increase slow down travel processing?
CBP says no — the funds will help enhance automation and expand staffing, improving overall processing times at ports of entry.

---

How much revenue does DHS expect to collect from the new fees?
Estimates vary, but the combined changes could generate hundreds of millions annually to fund CBP operations, border technology, and system upgrades.

---

Do these fees fund border wall construction or enforcement operations?
No. The revenue is primarily earmarked for CBP processing infrastructure, inspection systems, and entry/exit modernization, not physical barriers or deportation initiatives.

---

Will frequent land travelers from Canada or Mexico be affected most?
Yes. Cross-border commuters and visitors who regularly file new I-94s will experience the greatest cost impact, as each new land-port application triggers the $30 fee.

---

Can a traveler pre-apply for I-94 to save time?
Yes. Travelers entering by land can pre-apply online up to seven days before travel to speed up inspection and reduce wait times.

---

What should travelers do if they make an error in their I-94 or ESTA submission?
They should contact CBP promptly through the official Help Center and provide supporting documents. Errors can delay entry or invalidate authorization.

---

What happens if a traveler is denied ESTA after paying the new fee?
The fee is non-refundable, even if authorization is denied. Applicants may instead pursue a visitor visa through a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

---

Are there any discounts for families or groups applying together?
No. Each traveler must submit a separate application and pay the full fee individually, even in a group or family itinerary.

---

How can travelers verify their ESTA or I-94 record after paying?

• ESTA applicants can log back into the ESTA portal to confirm status.
• I-94 applicants can retrieve their record from the CBP I-94 website after entry.

---

Will fee increases affect business travelers or short-term visitors?
Yes. While the amounts are modest for one-time trips, they add cost for frequent business travelers, cross-border professionals, and international students.

---

What can travelers do to minimize travel disruptions after the fee change?
Apply early, verify payment confirmation, use only official DHS/CBP portals, and keep printed proof of approval before traveling.

---

Can an immigration lawyer help with ESTA or I-94 issues?
Yes. An immigration attorney can help travelers understand eligibility, resolve I-94 errors, appeal denials, and ensure compliance with all U.S. entry requirements.

---

Where can travelers find official updates about these fees?
Travelers should check the Federal Register, CBP Newsroom, and official DHS.gov announcements for verified updates, policy adjustments, or future fee reviews.

---

Summary for Snippet Optimization

• ESTA fee = $40 as of Sept 30 2025
• I-94 land-port fee = $30 total ($6 + $24 surcharge)
• Authorized by H.R. 1 (2025)
• Collected by CBP / DHS for modernization and system upgrades
• Applies to new applications only
• No refunds except for technical errors

Have Questions About the New ESTA and I-94 Fees in 2025? Talk to an Immigration Lawyer Who Can Give You Straight Answers.

The Department of Homeland Security’s 2025 increases to ESTA and I-94 fees have left millions of travelers, employers, and cross-border professionals confused about who pays, when it applies, and what it means for future travel. Whether you’re planning a short visit under the Visa Waiver Program, crossing a land border for work, or managing compliance for international staff, understanding these new rules is critical. A single mistake—paying the wrong fee, missing a deadline, or misunderstanding your I-94 record—can delay travel, trigger denials, or cause compliance headaches.

That’s where Attorney Richard T. Herman comes in.

For over 30 years, Richard has helped individuals, families, and businesses navigate the shifting landscape of U.S. immigration law. He is the co-author of the nationally acclaimed book Immigrant, Inc.—a powerful testament to how welcoming immigrants fuels innovation and economic growth. Recognized as an evangelist for the economic and community benefits of immigration, Richard and his team at the Herman Legal Group have guided clients across every visa, border, and compliance issue imaginable.

If you’re unsure how the new ESTA and I-94 fee changes affect you or your organization, don’t rely on rumors or outdated blogs. Get trusted, attorney-level insight into:

·        Whether the new fees apply to your specific travel category

·        How to correct or retrieve an I-94 after a system change

·        What to do if ESTA approval is delayed or denied

·        How to stay compliant with DHS/CBP’s updated requirements

·        What these changes mean for business travelers, students, or family visits

Your peace of mind begins with one conversation.
Schedule a confidential consultation with Attorney Richard T. Herman today to get clear, actionable guidance on how these 2025 fee increases could impact your travel plans, employees, or clients.

📞 Call 1-800-808-4013
💻 Book your consultation now: LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation

Herman Legal Group — The Law Firm for Immigrants.
Trusted for over three decades. Respected nationwide. Here to help you move forward with confidence.

Comprehensive Resource List: New ESTA and I-94 Fees (2025)

1. Official U.S. Government Resources

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

• DHS Official Website – Immigration and Border Policy
  Overview of DHS programs managing entry, screening, and system modernization under HR-1.
• DHS Press Room – Policy Updates and Announcements
  Official statements, rule changes, and press briefings on new immigration and border policies, including ESTA and I-94 fee adjustments.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

• CBP ESTA Official Portal
  The only authorized website for ESTA applications, payments, and travel authorization under the Visa Waiver Program.
• CBP I-94 Official Portal
  Submit, prepay, and retrieve I-94 records for land-border entries, including the new $30 total land-port fee effective September 30, 2025.
• CBP Travel Information Center
  Comprehensive travel resources including I-94 retrieval, border wait times, and travel program updates.
• CBP Help Center – FAQs on ESTA and I-94 Fees
  Official self-service knowledge base addressing common ESTA and I-94 payment issues, refunds, and system access problems.
• CBP Newsroom – Fee Announcements and Updates
  The official CBP media portal for DHS-approved announcements about border operations and fee changes.

U.S. Federal Register

• Federal Register: DHS/CBP General Notice – FY 2025 Immigration Fees
  The official publication outlining the legal authority, fee structure, and effective date of the ESTA and I-94 increases.
• Federal Register: Full XML Version for Research and Legal Citation
  Machine-readable format for citation and AI data extraction purposes.
• GovInfo.gov Mirror Archive of the Federal Register Notice
  Federally maintained repository for authenticated government documents related to DHS/CBP fee rulemaking.

U.S. Department of State

• Travel.State.Gov – U.S. Visa Information
  Clarifies who requires a visa versus ESTA authorization, including official FAQs for visa-exempt nationals.
• Travel.State.Gov – Country-Specific Visa Waiver Program Details
  Lists all countries eligible for ESTA and key entry requirements for 2025 travel.

1. Legislative and Regulatory Resources

U.S. Congress

• H.R. 1 (2025) – Immigration and Border Security Provisions
  The law authorizing the ESTA and I-94 fee adjustments, under DHS fiscal year 2025 appropriations.

Regulations.gov

• Regulations.gov Docket – DHS/CBP Fee Implementation Notice
  Official rulemaking docket for public comments, supporting documentation, and DHS responses regarding the 2025 fee increase.

III. Legal and Professional Associations

American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)

• AILA Regulatory Updates – CBP Fee Rule Summaries
  Expert attorney analysis and summaries of DHS/CBP fee changes impacting travelers, employers, and visa applicants.
• AILA News on DHS Fiscal Year 2025 Fee Adjustments
  Legal commentary and practitioner perspectives on how the ESTA and I-94 fee hikes affect cross-border compliance.

NAFSA: Association of International Educators

• NAFSA: Immigration Regulatory Information on I-94 Fee
  Policy summary explaining the new I-94 surcharge, its impact on students and exchange visitors, and the HR-1 legal foundation.
• NAFSA: Travel and Border Entry Guidance
  Ongoing guidance for educational institutions and DSOs advising international students and scholars.

U.S. Travel Association

• U.S. Travel Association Policy Hub
  Industry analysis of federal travel fees, tourism impact assessments, and economic implications of border policy changes.
• U.S. Travel Newsroom – Government Fee Increases
  Public statements and advocacy updates related to travel cost changes, including ESTA and border entry programs.

International Air Transport Association (IATA)

• IATA Travel Regulations and Fee Database
  Global database used by airlines to verify visa and travel authorization requirements, reflecting updated ESTA and I-94 costs for 2025.

1. Compliance and Data Access Tools

• CBP FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Portal
  Submit requests for data or documentation related to ESTA and I-94 program costs, audits, or fee assessments.
• DHS Data Hub – Entry/Exit and Screening Statistics
  DHS’s official repository for data on admissions, border inspections, and program compliance rates.
• GAO Reports – DHS Fee Oversight and Program Audits
  Independent analyses and audits on DHS financial management and fee-based service programs.

1. Traveler and Institutional Guidance

• CBP Border Wait Times and Traveler Alerts
  Real-time updates on land border crossing delays, helping I-94 applicants plan around new processing fees and times.
• DHS Study Abroad & Student Entry Portal
  DHS guidance for students and exchange visitors subject to I-94 entry procedures.
• U.S. Embassy & Consulate Directory
  Official directory for consular contact and support for ESTA or entry-related questions abroad.

1. Monitoring and Policy Watch Resources

• Federal Register – DHS Subscription for New Rules
  Sign up to receive email updates on all new DHS/CBP rules, including future fee adjustments or procedural changes.
• Regulations.gov – Subscribe to DHS/CBP Dockets
  Set alerts for public comment periods or notices involving immigration, travel, and border fees.
• CBP Media and Social Updates
  Official CBP channels announcing system updates, outages, or portal maintenance affecting ESTA or I-94 users.

VII. Legal Help and Compliance Support

• Herman Legal Group – Immigration Law Services
  Nationwide immigration law firm assisting travelers, employers, and cross-border professionals in navigating ESTA, I-94, and related compliance challenges.
• FindLaw: Immigration and Travel Law Overview
  General reference on federal entry documentation and visa categories impacted by fee rule changes.

 

---

Mass Worksite Enforcement Immigration Surges in 2025

Introduction: A Turning Point in Worksite Enforcement (Harming Economy & Communities)

On September 4, 2025, federal agents carried out the largest single-site worksite immigration raid in U.S. history, detaining about 475 workers—most of them South Korean nationals—at a Hyundai battery-plant construction site in Ellabell, Georgia, near Savannah (Associated Press). The operation, widely covered for its scale and diplomatic fallout, signaled a deliberate shift toward mass worksite enforcement that now reverberates across industries, supply chains, and immigrant communities (Reuters). Mass worksite immigration enforcement has increased significantly since early 2025, marking a return to large-scale mass worksite enforcement actions after being halted in 2021. Since 2024, there has been a sharp increase in mass worksite immigration enforcement, reversing the halt on large-scale raids instituted by the Biden administration in 2021. These mass raids have had a negative impact on the local economy, leading to reduced business activity and job losses in affected communities.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and other advocates warn that such tactics instill fear rather than promote lawful compliance, eroding trust between employers, workers, and government institutions (AILA – Policy Briefs).

**Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman: “**The Georgia Hyundai raid is the largest single-site worksite raid on record, with about 475 detentions, most of them South Korean nationals—an unprecedented flashpoint with foreign-relations implications as well as local economic shock”

What Is Worksite Enforcement — and Why It’s Escalating

Worksite enforcement comprises several tools the government uses to deter unauthorized employment:

• Mass raids and arrests at factories, farms, and construction sites (ICE – Worksite Enforcement Investigations)
• I-9 audits and inspections to check employer verification practices (USCIS – Form I-9)
• Employers can correct minor violations within 10 days to avoid fines after an I-9 audit.
• E-Verify enrollment and checks comparing I-9 data to government records (USCIS – E-Verify)
• Criminal probes and civil fines targeting suspected employer violations (ICE – Worksite Enforcement Feature Page)

ICE raids primarily target unauthorized workers and enforce immigration laws. The Department of Homeland Security states that enforcement of immigration laws is critical for national security and public safety.

Employers are required to complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire. They must also verify the authenticity and validity of employment documents and the documents workers present as proof of identity and work authorization. Reviewing these employment documents is essential for legal compliance, but in some cases, employers conduct only a cursory review, which can lead to compliance issues and facilitate the use of false documents.

Historically, interior enforcement was handled by the former INS, later reorganized into DHS/ICE in 2003. Over time, highly visible raids—such as the 2006 Swift raids—set a template for large, public operations. Today’s approach amplifies those tactics with sustained media promotion and deterrence messaging (Migration Policy Institute – Worksite Enforcement Topic). Expanded enforcement is focusing on larger companies in key sectors, including retail and healthcare, in addition to traditional targets like construction and agriculture. Expanded enforcement actions have resulted in a documented decrease in total workforce participation, including among non-citizens.

2025 Surge: A Nationwide Escalation

Key Worksite Immigration Raids & Patterns

• Georgia (Hyundai site): ~475 detentions at a battery-plant construction site, making it the largest known single-site raid.
• Alabama: 53 workers arrested at an automotive parts facility.
• Florida: Two simultaneous raids with 33 and over 100 arrests, respectively.
• Louisiana: 15 arrested at a construction project.
• Massachusetts: 11 workers at a roofing business detained.
• Other states (Texas, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota) also saw elevated enforcement.
• Tallahassee, Florida: In May 2025, over 100 workers were detained during a raid at a construction site.

In the Southeast alone, six immigration raids were reported within a three-month period, underscoring the intensity and frequency of these enforcement actions.

ICE’s own statements indicate that worksite enforcement investigations have already doubled year-over-year.

These operations are increasingly coordinated and resourced by the expanded ICE budget authorized under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

Economic and Labor Impact

1. Labor Shortages, Undocumented Workers & Absenteeism

In the wake of massive raids, employers across sectors report dramatic absenteeism. In agriculture, some operations saw up to 70% of workers stop showing up after threats or rumor of raids. California farmers have expressed that immigration raids interfere with food production and create instability. Attempts to address labor shortages through the guest worker visa program have faced criticism for being insufficient and overly complex, leaving many farms unable to meet their workforce needs. Immigration enforcement actions can lead to job turnover without significant changes in the employment rate. When workers vanish:

• Crops spoil in fields
• Food processing lines shut down
• Restaurants and services lose staff
• Farms increasingly rely on contracted workers and contracted workers plant arrangements to fill gaps left by enforcement pressures

The loss of essential farm employees threatens the stability of food production, as these workers are crucial to maintaining agricultural operations.

In Oxnard, California, a 2025 econometric study estimated a 20–40% reduction in agricultural labor, contributing to $3–7 billion in crop losses and 5–12% produce price inflation. The fear created by worksite enforcement has led to increased rates of low birth weight among infants born to Hispanic mothers in affected communities.

(CalMatters – What Really Happens After Raids).

2. Price Inflation & Downstream Effects

The Agriculture sector, operating on tight margins, is acutely vulnerable to workforce disruptions. As production drops, costs are passed on to consumers via price hikes. When enforcement actions target food processing plants, shutdowns of processing lines can cause significant supply chain disruptions, leading to further price inflation.

Additionally, immigrant households—facing fear and instability—pull back on spending, further reducing local economic demand.

(Economic Policy Institute – Immigration & Workplace Enforcement).

3. Business Instability & Compliance Costs

Even fully lawful employers now face:

• Legal and HR costs to respond to raids or audits
• Confusion over shifting policy signals
• Potential investigations of H-1B visa usage under new enforcement priorities

ICE has stepped up scrutiny on employers using H-1B workers—potentially chilling vital innovation and growth in sectors reliant on global talent.

(Brookings-style assessment often cited; see EPI’s broader economic analysis). Additionally, studies and commentary from the federal reserve bank have highlighted how mass worksite enforcement can disrupt local economies, increase compliance costs, and impact employment trends.

The Spread of Fear: Enforcement Beyond the Worksite

Outside Worksite Tactics

Reports from legal advocates document federal agents arresting people:

• At parking lots
• At bus stops
• At transit hubs
• On the way to or from work

In addition to these locations, there have been instances where border patrol conducted operations in agricultural areas and local communities, demonstrating that enforcement extends well beyond the immediate workplace.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in U.S. v. Los Angeles County expanded federal power to detain individuals “commuting to or from employment,” effectively sanctioning broader detentions.

Even legally present workers or those with asylum claims report avoiding transit, hearings, or everyday travel. After a raid, people in affected communities may refrain from driving and going to school, leading to economic hardship.

(SCOTUS Order (Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo), Sept. 8, 2025). The ACLU of Southern California summarized the effect of the Court’s stay as removing a temporary block that had limited such operations in LA County (ACLU SoCal – Press Release).

Psychological and Community Trauma

Raids disrupt households. Immigrant families, including children and spouses, are directly impacted by these actions, often experiencing significant disruption and trauma. Some children come home to find a parent missing. Schools often deal with the aftermath of raids, as children may return home to find their parents detained. Community institutions—churches, clinics, schools—report steep declines in participation. Social workers describe collective trauma: anxiety, depression, and deteriorated trust. Some families compare the fear and aftermath of immigration raids to the impacts of hurricanes or war. Absences, suspensions, expulsions and rates of substance abuse increased among Latino students in a town that was raided, even among students whose families were not directly impacted.

Victims of abuse or wage theft increasingly avoid law enforcement, fearing immigration consequences.

Policy Contradictions, Confusion & Legal Risk

1. Mixed Messaging & Enforcement Reversals

Under political pressure, the administration has at times announced enforcement “pauses” in agriculture or hospitality, only to reverse those directives within days. Businesses and workers are left guessing whether any sector is truly safe.

These mixed signals follow the precedent set by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, which was marked by aggressive worksite raids and shifting enforcement priorities, leading to ongoing policy confusion.

(ICE – Release Highlighting Sector Focus).

2. Work Authorization Chaos

In 2025, DHS terminated or failed to timely renew Temporary Protected Status** (TPS)** for nations including Haiti, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Cameroon, and Syria.

Statutorily, such designations should be renewed 60 days in advance, but many notices came after that deadline, creating confusion about the validity of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).

Simultaneously, the revocation of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan (CHNV) parole in March 2025 immediately stripped authorized status from thousands.

This regulatory whiplash forces employers and workers to interpret ambiguous legal standing with no reliable guidance. The instability highlights the limitations of the current immigration program in providing a stable and effective long-term solution for both workers and employers.

3. Constitutional and Legal Risk

Many raids rest on administrative warrants rather than judicial oversight. Agents sometimes use “knock-and-talk” coercion or “hot pursuit” entries, bypassing established protections under the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent (e.g. INS v. Delgado).

Thousands of complaints allege overreach, abuse, and misidentification (including U.S. citizens). Oversight mechanisms such as ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) exist, but critics argue they lack sufficient independence or enforcement authority.

Data Snapshot: Enforcement Trends

Year	Worksite Raids (approx.)	Arrests	ICE Enforcement Budget (USD billions)
2021	~50	~2,500	~7.2
2022	~60	~3,200	~7.8
2023	~85	~4,900	~8.4
2024	~110	~6,200	~8.9
2025	~210 (proj.)	12,000+	~26.5 (post-OBBBA)

These figures are drawn from ICE and DHS reports, and analyses by the Economic Policy Institute. The sharp increase in recent years reflects a trend toward large-scale immigration raids, which have had significant social and economic impacts on affected communities.

Community, Trust & Public Safety Consequences

Erosion of Community Trust

Immigrant communities increasingly avoid contact with law enforcement, even to report serious crimes — fear of arrest outweighs safety needs.

Local police across states such as Georgia and Florida report surges in unreported crime and declining cooperation. While some studies found that property crime dropped in certain communities following large-scale immigration raids, these outcomes are complex, as other categories like violent crime sometimes increased, reflecting the nuanced social impacts of such enforcement actions.

Economic Displacement & Fiscal Loss

Detained workers mean lost income, reduced consumption, and shrinking tax bases. When immigration enforcement actions raid employees, those workers often experience sudden job loss and economic hardship, which further contributes to the broader fiscal impact on the community. A recent study from the Center for American Progress estimates mass deportations may cost the U.S. economy up to $9.2 billion annually in lost GDP.

Small rural towns relying on immigrant labor are especially vulnerable to such shocks.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

Advocates and scholars warn that heavy reliance on administrative warrants, “knock-and-talk” entries, and warrantless incursions into non-public areas risks Fourth Amendment violations. The Supreme Court’s stay in the LA case demonstrates how quickly enforcement parameters can expand when injunctions are lifted, reshaping everyday risk for workers and bystanders (SCOTUS – Stay Order, Sept. 8, 2025). In official and political discourse, the term ‘illegal aliens’ is frequently used to frame these enforcement actions, often emphasizing the perceived societal and economic consequences.

At the same time, empirical assessments show worksite raids rarely result in significant employer punishment, raising doubts about whether spectacle is substituting for accountability (Economic Policy Institute – Enforcement & the Workplace).

Community Safety and Public Trust

Local law-enforcement agencies and community groups report declines in crime reporting and cooperation in enforcement-heavy regions. People forgo contacting authorities—even when they are victims of wage theft or violence—out of fear of immigration consequences, a pattern documented across multiple states during enforcement spikes (CalMatters – Community Impact Analysis). Raids create a climate of fear that discourages workers from asserting their legal rights, leading to mental health consequences such as depression and anxiety. The experiences of workers during these raids highlight tensions between enforcement priorities and the needs of local communities, as workers highlight tensions between strict immigration enforcement and the economic and social well-being of the areas where they live and work.

Recommendations: Restore Law, Fairness, and Stability

1) Re-center Due Process and Transparency

• Require judicial warrants for entry into non-public workplace areas (USCIS – I-9 Rules Frame Employer/Employee Rights).
• Publish clear SOPs on planning, executing, and reviewing operations (ICE – Worksite Enforcement Overview).
• Ensure customs enforcement agencies play an active role in verifying compliance and conducting workplace inspections to uphold lawful and transparent operations.
• Provide counsel access and public after-action reports to improve accountability (ICE – HSI Investigative Mission).

2) Minimize Collateral Harm

• Avoid operations near schools, hospitals, and places of worship; coordinate with local agencies to protect dependents during actions (ACLU SoCal – LA Raids Case Summary).
• Establish humanitarian protocols for family care and rapid status-checking to prevent wrongful detentions (USCIS – I-9 Central).

3) Target Genuine Bad Actors

• Prioritize cases involving trafficking, wage theft, or egregious employer fraud, shifting resources from mass roundups to data-driven investigations (ICE – Targets Employment Law Violators). Employers who knowingly hire workers without proper authorization should be held accountable to deter illegal employment practices.
• Coordinate with labor agencies and prosecutors to ensure labor-standards enforcement happens alongside immigration enforcement (EPI – Threatening Migrants, Shortchanging Workers).

4) Simplify Employer Compliance

• Provide timely public guidance on TPS, parole, and EAD validity when policy or litigation changes affect authorization (USCIS – Form I-9).
• Address the use of false social security numbers in the hiring process, as these fraudulent documents present significant challenges for employer compliance during I-9 audits and document verification.
• Expand IMAGE participation and training as a cooperative path to compliance (ICE – IMAGE Program).

5) Strengthen Oversight and Accountability

• Resource oversight functions (e.g., OIG/CRCL) to audit worksite operations and conditions; lapses during shutdowns illustrate why oversight matters (Washington Post – Oversight Furlough & Surge).
• Require annual public reporting on outcomes (employer sanctions vs. worker arrests) to measure effectiveness and civil-rights impact (DHS – Budget in Brief Portal). For example, during major enforcement actions, federal agents ultimately arrested hundreds of individuals, highlighting the significant impact of these operations on workers and communities.

Role of HSI in Worksite Investigations

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) plays a pivotal role in the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration laws at the workplace. As the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, HSI leads worksite enforcement investigations designed to identify and apprehend undocumented immigrants and to hold employers accountable for hiring unauthorized workers. In recent years, especially under the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, HSI has ramped up its focus on conducting immigration raids and targeting businesses suspected of employing undocumented workers.

HSI’s strategy involves a combination of high-profile immigration raids, detailed audits of employment records, and undercover operations to uncover illegal hiring practices. By investigating employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers, HSI aims to disrupt the networks that enable undocumented labor and to deter future violations. These efforts are not only about apprehending undocumented immigrants but also about protecting the integrity of the nation’s immigration system and ensuring that lawful workforce opportunities are preserved for authorized employees. Through these actions, HSI seeks to reduce the demand for illegal employment and reinforce the message that compliance with immigration laws is essential for all businesses.

Employer Preparation and Compliance

Employers facing the possibility of worksite immigration enforcement must take proactive steps to ensure they are fully compliant with federal immigration laws. The foundation of compliance is verifying the employment eligibility of every worker, which means accurately completing and maintaining Form I-9 records for all employees. Utilizing federal immigration verification tools such as E-Verify can provide an additional layer of assurance that your workforce is authorized to work in the United States.

Regular internal audits of I-9 forms and employment records are essential to identify and correct any discrepancies before they become enforcement issues. Employers should also develop a comprehensive worksite enforcement plan, which includes designating a response team, training staff on how to interact with immigration agents, and establishing clear procedures for handling document requests and employee questioning during enforcement actions. By preparing in advance and fostering a culture of compliance, employers can minimize the risk of costly enforcement actions and demonstrate good-faith efforts to follow immigration laws and regulations.

Best Practices for Navigating Worksite Enforcement

When faced with worksite enforcement actions, preparation and knowledge are key to minimizing disruption and protecting both your business and your employees. Employers should have a clear plan in place, including a designated response team trained to handle interactions with immigration agents. It’s crucial to remain calm and professional during any encounter, and to ensure that all staff understand their rights and obligations.

Upon the arrival of immigration agents, employers should verify the agents’ identities and credentials, and request to see a valid judicial warrant before granting access to non-public areas of the workplace. Employees should be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to request legal representation. Employers must also take care to protect employee rights, ensuring that no one is coerced or intimidated into providing information. By following these best practices and maintaining open communication, employers can navigate worksite enforcement actions more effectively, safeguard their workforce, and reduce the risk of business disruption.

Conclusion: Enforcement Should Uphold—Not Undermine—Justice

Mass worksite raids do not advance public safety. They destabilize industries, shatter families, and erode constitutional norms. Evidence indicates they seldom deliver meaningful employer accountability, but they do generate fear that drives workers—and abuses—underground (EPI – Enforcement & the Workplace). Recent enforcement actions are approaching the scale of the largest mass deportation event in U.S. history, raising concerns about repeating past harms.

A smarter model is available: target the real bad actors, support cooperative compliance, and rebuild trust through due process and transparency

Frequently Asked Questions about Mass Immigration Worksite Raids

 

1. What is a “mass worksite raid,” and why has this tactic increased under DHS?

A mass worksite raid refers to large-scale enforcement operations where federal agents enter a workplace (factory, farm, warehouse, etc.) to detain or arrest multiple employees suspected of lacking legal work authorization.
These operations have surged under recent DHS policy shifts prioritizing interior enforcement, largely fueled by increases in ICE funding and directives emphasizing deterrence over selective targeting.

2. What legal authority supports worksite raids?

DHS and ICE rely on statutes under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that prohibit unauthorized employment (e.g. INA § 274A) and allow interior enforcement.
They often execute administrative or judicial warrants, carry out I-9 inspections, and coordinate with local law enforcement. The ICE Mutual Agreement Program (IMAGE) is also used to promote voluntary employer compliance.

3. How do worksite raids affect workers, both authorized and unauthorized?

• Unauthorized workers face detention and potential deportation.
• Even lawful or visa-holding employees may avoid work out of fear.
• Outside-site detentions (e.g. in parking lots or transit) have been reported, undermining mobility and safety.
• Many families suffer trauma from separation, fear, and economic disruption.

4. Which sectors are most commonly targeted in raids?

Industries heavily reliant on immigrant labor are frequent targets, including:

• Agriculture and food processing
• Construction and manufacturing
• Hospitality and retail
• Warehousing and logistics

Some raids also impact high-visibility manufacturing plants, especially when foreign nationals are involved.

5. Do raids free up jobs for U.S. citizens?

No. Evidence shows that raids lead to labor shortages, not job vacancies filled by citizens. In many affected communities, productivity declines and operations slow or shut down. Economic analyses have found that raids often depress rather than reallocate employment.

6. What are common tactics used by enforcement agents during raids?

Common methods include:

• Sealing exits, cornering workers, and sweeping arresting in groups
• Presentation in tactical gear to intimidate
• Seizing records, computers, and employee files
• “Knock-and-talk” entries and use of administrative warrants
  These tactics heighten fear and amplify deterrence beyond actual arrests.

7. How do raids impact local economies and communities?

• Decreases in consumption and business revenue
• Reduced tax receipts for local government
• Disrupted supply chains and production loss
• Flight of workers and community instability
  In farming regions, labor loss can translate into billions in lost crop value and price increases for consumers.

8. Are employers held accountable in raids?

Employers may face civil fines, loss of eligibility for contracts, or criminal charges if fraud or willful violations are found. However, in many raids, focus remains on detaining workers, not pursuing employer liability. Compliance tools such as IMAGE are also used to incentivize voluntary cooperation.

9. What rights do workers have during a raid?

• The right to remain silent
• The right to refuse entry without a warrant
• The right to inspect any warrant offered by agents
• The right to legal representation
• The right not to sign documents without understanding them

Some states also limit cooperation by local police with federal immigration enforcement.

10. Can DHS conduct raids at private property near workplaces—e.g. streets or parking lots?

Yes, under recent court interpretations, DHS claims authority to detain individuals commuting to or from workplaces. This effectively expands the reach of enforcement beyond the worksite itself, increasing risk for workers even off premises.

11. Does DHS notify state or local authorities before a raid?

Sometimes, DHS notifies state or local agencies for coordination, especially concerning security or public disruption. But often, operations are executed without prior public notice to maximize surprise and minimize avoidance.

12. How do status changes (e.g. ending Temporary Protected Status) relate to raids?

When DHS revokes or lets expire status programs (e.g. TPS or humanitarian parole), many employees lose work authorization. These shifts create legal uncertainty, and some authorities use them to justify increased enforcement pressures, including raids.

13. Are there limits on enforcement near sensitive locations?

Prior guidelines discouraged raids at schools, hospitals, places of worship, but enforcement priorities have shifted. Some new policies no longer treat these as protected zones, consequently increasing the risk in sensitive areas.

14. How do mass raids challenge constitutional protections?

• Fourth Amendment: warrantless entries and seizures
• Fifth Amendment: due process (lack of individualized assessments)
• Equal protection: potential bias in targeting communities of color
• Administrative warrants and coercive tactics often skirt judicial oversight.

15. What is the deterrent logic behind mass raids—does it work?

The enforcement theory assumes punitive spectacle deters unauthorized employment. But real-world results show limited compliance benefit and substantial collateral harm: economic drag, traumatized communities, and loss of trust in institutions.

16. What enforcement metrics or quotas drive raids?

Internal DHS documents suggest field offices may be evaluated by number of arrests or removals rather than severity of violations. This can incentivize indiscriminate actions rather than targeted, high-impact cases.

17. How do raids influence reporting of labor abuses or crimes?

Fear of deportation discourages victims from reporting wage theft, assault, or labor violations. Workers may avoid police or government agencies, reducing accountability and increasing exploitation.

18. Are large-scale raids a recent phenomenon or have parallels in U.S. history?

No. Historical precedents include:

• Swift raids (2006) — a coordinated sweep of meatpacking plants
• 2018 Southeastern Provisions raid — a meat processing plant sweep
  These earlier raids foreshadow current patterns of using workplaces as enforcement fronts.

19. What can employers do to prepare or respond to a raid?

Best practices include:

• Ensuring I-9 compliance and document audits
• Training HR staff on “Know Your Rights” protocols
• Having legal counsel ready for rapid response
• Avoiding voluntary collaboration before due legal review
  Preparedness minimizes disruption and legal exposure.

20. What policy reforms are proposed to counter excessive raids?

Advocacy groups often propose:

• Requiring judicial warrants for entries
• Restricting enforcement near sensitive locations
• Prioritizing serious employer fraud over mass saturation raids
• Clear guidance and transition periods for status changes
• Enhanced oversight, transparency, and accountability
• Safe-harbor protections for good-faith compliance

 

Need Answers About DHS Worksite Raids? Don’t Face It Alone — Call Richard T. Herman Today.

If your workplace, employees, or family have been affected by mass immigration worksite raids by DHS or ICE, time is critical. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the primary agency responsible for conducting workplace raids, enforcing immigration laws, and ensuring compliance with employment eligibility verification. These enforcement actions can lead to arrests, detention, heavy fines, and devastating community disruption — even for employers who believe they have complied with the law.

For more than 30 years, Attorney Richard T. Herman has represented individuals, families, and businesses facing the most complex immigration enforcement cases in America. He is the co-author of Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (available on Amazon) and a passionate advocate for the economic and social benefits of welcoming immigrants.

Through the Herman Legal Group – The Law Firm for Immigrants, Richard and his nationwide team provide legal defense and strategic guidance in:

·        ICE worksite investigations and raids

·        I-9 audits and employer compliance

·        Detention defense and bond hearings

·        Family reunification and humanitarian relief

Employers should conduct regular internal I-9 audits to ensure ongoing compliance with immigration laws.

·        I-9 audits and employer compliance

·        Detention defense and bond hearings

·        Family reunification and humanitarian relief

They know how to protect your rights, your workforce, and your business reputation while helping you navigate federal agencies effectively and safely. Maintaining a communication plan informs employees of their rights and prevents discrimination based on immigration status.

If you’ve been targeted — or fear you could be — don’t wait until agents arrive. Contact an experienced immigration attorney now.

📞 Call the Herman Legal Group at (800) 808-4013💻 Or schedule a confidential consultation at LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation

Herman Legal Group – The Law Firm for ImmigrantsTrusted for 30 years. Nationally recognized. Dedicated to defending your future and America’s immigrant communities.

MORE RESOURCES

---

 

Federal Enforcement, Oversight & Official Guidance

• ICE — Worksite Enforcement Program (overview of workplace investigations, audits, and raids) — ICE
• ICE — HSI Worksite Enforcement Investigations (how Homeland Security Investigations builds cases) — ICE
• ICE — IMAGE (Mutual Agreement Between Government and Employers) (voluntary employer compliance program) — ICE
• USCIS — I-9 Central (official hub for Form I-9 completion and verification) — USCIS
• USCIS — Handbook for Employers (M-274) (authoritative I-9 manual) — USCIS
• E-Verify (employment eligibility verification for participating employers) — E-Verify
• DOJ — Immigrant and Employee Rights (IER) Section (anti-discrimination in hiring, document abuse, retaliation) — DOJ
• DOL — Wage and Hour Division (Immigration-Related Protections) (pay, retaliation, H-1B/H-2 programs) — DOL
• OSHA — Worker Rights (safety/retaliation protections including for immigrant workers) — OSHA
• DHS — Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) (complaints about civil rights/civil liberties violations) — DHS
• DHS — Office of Inspector General (OIG) (independent oversight; report misconduct) — DHS OIG
• DHS — Budget & Performance (enforcement spending trends and priorities) — DHS
• ICE — Budget & Planning (program and operations funding detail) — ICE

Employer Rights, Compliance & Rapid-Response Guides

• NILC — “What to Do if Immigration Comes to Your Workplace” (practical employer response guide) — NILC
• SHRM — Worksite Immigration Enforcement: Employer Readiness (HR-focused steps for audits/raids) — SHRM
• Littler — I-9 Compliance & Employer Strategy (legal analysis and preparedness checklists) — Littler
• Jackson Lewis — Immigration Compliance & Audits (policy updates and employer tools) — Jackson Lewis
• Morgan Lewis — ICE Enforcement Actions: Employer Rights & Obligations (what to do when agents arrive) — Morgan Lewis
• Ogletree Deakins — Employer I-9 & Worksite Enforcement Resources (risk mitigation guides) — Ogletree
• Fragomen — Preparing for ICE Worksite Enforcement (alerts and readiness guidance) — Fragomen
• Norton Rose Fulbright — Employer Guidance on ICE Actions (legal triage and planning) — Norton Rose Fulbright
• Harter Secrest & Emery — Employer Rights During Raids (entry warrants, consent, scope) — HSE Law

Employee & Worker Rights (Know-Your-Rights)

• NILC — Workplace Raids: Know Your Rights (workers’ rights during enforcement) — NILC
• ACLU — Immigration Enforcement: Know Your Rights (what to do if approached by agents) — ACLU
• United We Dream — Know Your Rights Toolkit (multilingual guides/cards for communities) — United We Dream
• NLRB — Employee Rights Under the NLRA (organizing, concerted activity protections) — NLRB
• EEOC — Immigrants and EEO Law (discrimination protections regardless of status) — EEOC
• OSHA — Whistleblower Protection (retaliation complaints for safety issues) — OSHA Whistleblower
• U.S. DOL — Retaliation & Wage Protections for Vulnerable Workers (complaints irrespective of status) — DOL

Economic, Labor Market & Immigration Data Hubs

• Migration Policy Institute — Migration Data Hub (deportations, workforce, demographics) — MPI
• MPI — Employment & the Economy (research on immigrant labor market outcomes) — MPI
• Economic Policy Institute — Immigration Research (labor, wages, enforcement impacts) — EPI
• Bureau of Labor Statistics — Foreign-Born Workers (annual workforce report and tables) — BLS
• USDA ERS — Farm Labor (agricultural labor supply, wages, and trends) — USDA ERS
• Congressional Budget Office — Immigration Topic (macroeconomic effects, fiscal impacts) — CBO
• DHS — Enforcement & Removal Statistics (arrests, removals, detention data) — DHS
• ICE — Enforcement & Removal Operations Data (program activity and outcomes) — ICE
• TRAC Immigration (Syracuse University) (court backlogs, prosecutions, detention) — TRAC
• Pew Research Center — Immigration & Migration (public opinion, demographics, trends) — Pew Research

Professional Associations, Policy Research & Advocacy

• AILA — American Immigration Lawyers Association (policy briefs, practice resources, attorney finder) — AILA
• American Immigration Council (legal research, impact litigation, data) — American Immigration Council
• Migration Policy Institute (nonpartisan analysis on immigration policy) — MPI
• Economic Policy Institute (labor-focused immigration research) — EPI
• National Immigration Law Center (low-income immigrant rights; policy & litigation) — NILC
• National Immigration Forum (workforce needs, integration, bipartisan policy) — National Immigration Forum
• New American Economy / American Immigration Council Research (economic contributions) — Research
• Brookings — Immigration (economic, legal, and policy analysis) — Brookings

Media Reporting Hubs (Enforcement & Worksite Coverage)

• Reuters — U.S. Immigration (national enforcement and policy developments) — Reuters
• Associated Press — Immigration (breaking news and investigations) — AP News
• NPR — Immigration (policy explainers and on-the-ground reporting) — NPR
• The New York Times — Immigration & Emigration (policy and enterprise reporting) — NYT
• The Wall Street Journal — Immigration (business impacts, enforcement) — WSJ

Pro Bono, Hotlines & Lawyer Locators

• AILA — Find an Immigration Lawyer (national directory of vetted attorneys) — AILA Lawyer Search
• ImmigrationLawHelp.org (nationwide directory of nonprofit immigration legal services) — ImmigrationLawHelp
• Freedom for Immigrants — National Immigration Detention Hotline (support for people in detention) — Freedom for Immigrants
• Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) — Legal Services Directory (community-based legal aid providers) — CLINIC

State & Local Worker Protections (Examples to Model)

• California Labor Commissioner — Immigration Status Protections (retaliation and wage protections irrespective of status) — CA DIR
• New York State DOL — Immigrant Worker Protections (language access, retaliation protections) — NY DOL
• Illinois — Worker Protection Unit (AG) (labor exploitation and workplace rights) — Illinois AG
• Washington State L&I — Workplace Rights (wage, safety, retaliation resources) — WA L&I

---

 

Will Trump Deport Green Card Holders?

A Legal Analysis

While green card holders (lawful permanent residents) enjoy long-term U.S. residency, their status is not immune from deportation. Under Donald Trump’s 2025 immigration agenda, enforcement could expand to include more lawful permanent residents — even those with no recent criminal activity.

The current political landscape, marked by a shift from the Biden administration’s approach to the possibility of a new Trump term, has heightened concerns about green card holder deportations.

The question of whether Donald Trump would deport green card holders was a big fear and topic of speculation during his presidency. Green card holders (also known as lawful permanent residents or LPRs) have generally stable immigration status. But their status is not immune to legal challenges or policy changes.

In this post I’ll break down whether green card holders were deported under Trump, the legal framework for green card holder removals, the policies that caused fear and what green card holders can do to protect their status.

 

Understanding the Legal Rights of Green Card Holders

A lawful permanent resident (LPR) — commonly known as a green card holder — has the legal right to live and work permanently in the United States. LPRs may travel internationally, own property, and eventually apply for citizenship after a qualifying period. However, a green card does not grant the same level of protection as U.S. citizenship.

Key Legal Definition

Under INA Section 101(a)(20), a lawful permanent resident is defined as a person lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the U.S. as an immigrant, in accordance with immigration laws.

Main Protections

• Right to live and work indefinitely in the U.S.
• Eligibility to sponsor certain family members for visas.
• Path to citizenship after typically five years of residence.
• Access to due process before removal under INA §240.

Limitations

• Subject to removal if they violate immigration or criminal laws.
• Must maintain residence in the U.S. and avoid long absences abroad.
• Must renew their green card every 10 years.

Relevant Agencies

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): Handles applications for green cards, renewals, and naturalization.
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Enforces immigration laws and oversees deportation.
• Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): Manages immigration courts and appeals.

These agencies operate under the authority of the federal government, which is responsible for setting and enforcing immigration policy.

Can Green Card Holders Be Deported Under U.S. Law?

Yes. Green card holders can be deported under INA Section 237 for certain criminal offenses, fraud, or violations of immigration law. Permanent residency provides stability — not immunity.

Deportation, formally called “removal,” is the legal process of expelling a non-citizen from the United States. Even lawful permanent residents are subject to deportation under specific conditions, with enforcement efforts often prioritizing those convicted of serious crimes or violent crimes, rather than minor offenses.

Key Grounds for Deportability

According toINA §237, LPRs can be removed for:

• Criminal convictions, including aggravated felonies, crimes involving moral turpitude, or drug-related offenses.
• Fraud or misrepresentation when obtaining immigration benefits.
• Failure to maintain status or abandonment of residence by prolonged absence abroad.
• Security or terrorism-related concerns, including support for prohibited organizations.
• Public charge violations (rarely enforced, but revived periodically under certain administrations).

Recent policy proposals have discussed deporting millions of immigrants, which would require broad application of these grounds.

Examples of Deportable Situations

• A permanent resident convicted of domestic violence or theft within five years of entry.
• Fraudulently obtaining a green card through a sham marriage.
• Living abroad for more than one year without reentry permission.

Trump’s 2025 Deportation Agenda: What’s Changing

Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman: “Trump’s 2025 enforcement strategy marks an aggressive return to “zero-tolerance” immigration policies — expanding deportation priorities to include lawful permanent residents flagged for old or minor infractions.”

President Trump and his advisors, including key Trump officials, are planning a mass deportation effort as a central part of his immigration policy for the new Trump term. The scale Trump envisions involves mobilizing a new deportation force, potentially including the military, federal agents, and local police, to carry out mass deportations at a scale not seen before in U.S. history. This unprecedented expansion of Trump’s immigration policies would require extensive resources and coordination, representing a significant shift from previous administrations.

Trump’s second-term immigration blueprint outlines a sweeping expansion of enforcement authority, including:

New Executive Orders and Policies (2025 Context)

• A renewed “America First Enforcement Initiative,” directing ICE and USCIS to reexamine prior immigration records for potential revocations.
• Expansion of “Operation Safeguard,” focusing on identity and background audits of current LPRs.
• Mandated coordination between state and local police and federal immigration authorities for joint removal operations, with state and local police potentially deputized or otherwise involved in executing immigration arrests and participating in raids.
• Revival of mass-deportation task forces under the Department of Homeland Security.

Comparison with Trump’s First Term (2017–2021)

During Trump’s first term, deportations increased sharply among non-criminal immigrants. Enforcement shifted from targeted actions to broad raids — often encompassing people with no recent offenses.

Policies like the 2017 Executive Order on Interior Enforcement and programs such as Operation Janus targeted not only undocumented individuals but also naturalized citizens and green card holders with technical irregularities.

Trump officials also targeted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders for increased scrutiny and potential removal, a trend that may continue or expand in a second term.

Projected Impact on Lawful Permanent Residents

The 2025 agenda may expand data-sharing among USCIS, ICE, CBP, and the FBI to identify inconsistencies in past applications — even decades old.
Increased surveillance and audit programs could subject more long-term residents to review.

Historical Context — How Trump Targeted Green Card Holders Before

Trump’s first term established the framework for re-examining old immigration files — paving the way for possible revocation of green cards and citizenship years later.

Many of the current protections for refugees and asylum seekers were established in the aftermath of World War II, shaping the modern U.S. immigration system.

Between 2017 and 2021, multiple programs scrutinized legal immigrants’ prior applications:

Operation Janus (2018)

Launched to identify individuals who obtained naturalization after concealing prior deportation orders. This operation led to hundreds of denaturalization cases and reviews of thousands of green cards.

Operation Second Look (2019)

Focused on detecting misrepresentations or omissions in immigration filings. It directed USCIS officers to reopen closed cases if fraud indicators were discovered through data cross-matching.

DOJ Denaturalization Section (2020)

The Department of Justice created a specialized unit dedicated to revoking citizenships obtained through fraud — sometimes decades earlier.

These initiatives collectively blurred the distinction between undocumented enforcement and lawful immigration review, creating a foundation for 2025 expansions.

Case Study Example

An LPR from India who pled guilty to a misdemeanor theft in 2005 was later placed in removal proceedings in 2019 under expanded enforcement rules — despite completing probation long ago.

How Green Card Holders Can Lose Their Status

Richard Herman, Immigration Attorney: “Even without criminal conduct, lawful permanent residents can lose their green cards through extended absence, misrepresentation, or abandonment of U.S. residency.”

Common Non-Criminal Grounds for Losing Green Card Status

1. Abandonment of Residency: Staying outside the U.S. for more than 12 months without a reentry permit may trigger abandonment findings under 8 C.F.R. §211.1.
2. Misrepresentation or Fraud: Providing false information on visa or green card applications can result in revocation under INA §237(a)(1)(A).
3. Public Charge or Welfare Misuse: Though rarely enforced, some administrations revisit these provisions.
4. Failure to Register for Selective Service: Male residents between 18–25 must register at www.sss.gov.
5. Failure to File Taxes as a Resident: Non-filing or claiming “nonresident” status for tax purposes may indicate abandonment.
6. Commiting criminal acts.

Travel Risks

Traveling abroad for extended periods or repeatedly staying outside the U.S. can jeopardize residency. Customs and Border Protection officers at ports of entry can question returning residents and refer them to immigration court for abandonment proceedings.

The 2025 Reality — How Enforcement Could Expand

Richard T. Herman, Esq., Immigration Expert: “Trump’s 2025 immigration blueprint envisions massive data integration between DHS, ICE, and USCIS — using technology and AI to re-evaluate millions of existing green cards.”

These expanded enforcement efforts are expected to target not only green card holders but also unauthorized immigrants, significantly increasing the overall scope of potential removals.

Digital Enforcement Expansion

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is expected to enhance surveillance using:

• Artificial intelligence for biometric and document cross-checks.
• Shared interagency databases connecting USCIS, ICE, and FBI records.
• “Pattern-recognition” algorithms for identifying potential fraud in older filings.

Broader Enforcement Scope

• Reinstating “public safety threat” definitions to include DUI, domestic disputes, and gang-related suspicions.
• Coordinating ICE field operations with local sheriffs through 287(g) agreements.
• Increased worksite audits targeting employers of green card holders.

Expanded enforcement and surveillance efforts have also raised concerns about racial profiling, with critics warning that such practices could lead to unlawful stops and arrests based on ethnicity or national origin.

Potential High-Risk Groups

• Green card holders with old criminal records or unresolved charges.
• LPRs with pending immigration benefit applications.
• Individuals flagged by USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS).

What Green Card Holders Can Do to Protect Themselves

Herman Legal Group, LLC: “Green card holders can minimize deportation risks by maintaining clean records, filing taxes properly, and seeking naturalization as soon as eligible.”

Key Protective Steps

1. Consult an Immigration Attorney:
   Seek advice from experienced counsel familiar with evolving Trump-era enforcement.
2. Maintain Continuous Residence:
   Avoid long absences and keep proof of U.S. domicile (taxes, bills, lease).
3. Stay Crime-Free:
   Even minor offenses can trigger deportation review.
4. File for Citizenship Promptly:
   Applying for naturalization provides greater protection from removal.
   See official guide: USCIS Naturalization Eligibility.
5. Know Your Rights During ICE Encounters:
   Review official Know Your Rights materials.

Avoid Common Pitfalls

• Using public benefits without verifying eligibility.
• Signing immigration forms without understanding their consequences.
• Ignoring notices from USCIS or EOIR.

Official Resource:

USCIS: Maintaining Permanent Residence

The Reality: Did Trump Deport Green Card Holders?

While there was a lot of fear among green card holders of mass deportations, the reality was more complex. Deportations of LPRs during the Trump administration were mostly of individuals with clear legal grounds for removal, such as criminal convictions or fraud.

Examples of Targeted Cases

1. Green Card Holders with Criminal Convictions

• LPRs with aggravated felony or multiple minor convictions were prioritized for removal.

2. Fraudulent Green Card Applications

• Some LPRs who got their status through sham marriages or fake documents had their cases reopened and were deported.

3. Abandonment of Residency

• Green card holders who spent years outside the U.S. without clear ties were flagged for abandonment and lost their status.

Despite the increased enforcement, green card holders have several legal protections against removal. Supreme Court decisions have reinforced key legal protections for green card holders, including due process rights and limits on government enforcement powers.

Due Process Rights

• Deportation proceedings must follow the rules, including a hearing before an immigration judge.
• Green card holders can appeal unfavorable decisions, often times delaying or preventing removal.

Government’s Burden of Proof

• USCIS or ICE must show that the green card holder has violated immigration laws or committed a deportable offense.

Legal Defenses in Deportation Proceedings

• LPRs can defend against removal by showing rehabilitation, family hardship or eligibility for relief such as cancellation of removal.

What Green Card Holders Can Do to Protect Their Immigration Status

 

If you’re a green card holder worried about deportation, take proactive steps to protect your status and your peace of mind:

1. Don’t Commit Crimes

• Even minor offenses can have big immigration consequences.
• If detained, consult with a criminal attorney and an immigration attorney.

2. Keep Strong Ties to the U.S.

• File U.S. taxes every year and have a permanent U.S. address.
• Avoid long trips abroad and get a reentry permit if you must travel for an extended period.

3. Be Honest in Immigration Processes

• Always tell the truth in immigration applications and interviews.
• If you think there’s an issue with your original application, seek legal advice to fix it.

4. Stay Informed

• Keep up with immigration policies and how they affect you.
• Contact an immigration attorney for updates and advice.

5. Become a U.S. Citizen

Naturalization is the best way to be removed-proof, as U.S. citizens cannot be deported.

Debates over birthright citizenship have intensified in recent years, with some political figures proposing to limit this constitutional right, further highlighting the importance of securing citizenship status.

What to Do If You’re in Danger?

If you think you may be in danger as a green card holder, do the following:

See an Immigration Attorney

• A qualified attorney can review your case and develop a defense.

Gather Evidence of Your Residency

• Collect documents that show your strong ties to the U.S., such as tax returns, employment records and family relationships.

Fix Any Past Legal Issues

• Take care of outstanding warrants or criminal cases with legal help.

Trump’s Immigration Plan

President Donald Trump’s immigration plan aimed to overhaul the U.S. immigration system comprehensively. One of the most controversial aspects was the proposal to deport up to 20 million undocumented immigrants, including those with temporary legal status. This ambitious plan also sought to change the way immigration courts operate, intending to speed up the deportation process significantly. Trump has promised a closed border and mass deportations of millions of people, signaling a dramatic shift in immigration enforcement. The 2024 Republican platform explicitly calls for the ‘largest deportation program in American history,’ underscoring the scale of these proposed measures. Successive policies under the Trump administration allowed for deporting migrants to third countries, further complicating the legal and humanitarian landscape. Mass deportations will harm millions targeted and the families and communities they are part of, creating widespread disruption. Additionally, these actions will rip parents from their children and destroy businesses and livelihoods, further exacerbating the social and economic impact. Trump’s policies have also targeted undocumented children, including proposals to restrict their access to public education and other essential services.

In terms of border security, the plan included constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico southern border and deploying additional federal law enforcement officers. These measures were designed to increase border security and curb illegal immigration. The plan also referenced the potential deployment of national guard troops to the southern border to assist with immigration enforcement and support large-scale operations. Additionally, the plan proposed overhauling the asylum system to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the U.S., reflecting a broader strategy to limit both illegal and legal immigration. Trump’s approach also aims to eliminate asylum protections and revoke humanitarian protections for individuals from conflict zones, further restricting pathways for vulnerable populations. As of August 2025, the Trump administration announced an expanded vetting process for all visa holders, including green card holders, based on social media monitoring. The national sentiment regarding immigration supports a balanced approach that includes border management and pathways to citizenship for long-term residents, highlighting the need for comprehensive reform.

The plan also aimed to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the country and implement a merit-based system for selecting immigrants. This shift would prioritize immigrants based on skills and qualifications rather than family connections or humanitarian needs. Recent polling shows more Americans favor stricter immigration policies than providing a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants, reflecting a growing divide in public opinion on immigration reform.

Immigration Courts and Litigation

The Trump administration’s immigration plan heavily relied on immigration courts to process deportation cases. However, the immigration court system was already overwhelmed, with a backlog of over 1 million cases. The plan to deport up to 20 million undocumented immigrants would have exacerbated this backlog, leading to lengthy delays and significant due process concerns. Deportations during Trump’s presidency were significantly lower than what he now promises, with around 935,089 deportations occurring. The cost of mass deportations could reach tens of billions of dollars according to estimates, raising questions about the feasibility of such an expansive operation. Additionally, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services can initiate rescission proceedings within the first five years of a green card being granted if the person was ineligible at the time of approval, adding another layer of complexity to enforcement efforts. Executive Order 14159, issued in May 2025, directed the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize enforcement against non-citizens for failure to comply with registration, further expanding the scope of enforcement.

Immigration advocates and attorneys prepared to litigate against the administration’s plan, arguing that it violated federal law and the Constitution. They worked tirelessly to provide legal representation to undocumented immigrants facing deportation, which is crucial for ensuring due process and protecting the rights of these individuals. Legal action previously stopped many harmful Trump administration immigration policies, highlighting the importance of advocacy and litigation in countering aggressive enforcement measures. The ACLU and other organizations expect litigation will be a crucial component of resisting Trump’s immigration policies, ensuring that legal challenges remain a key strategy. The National Immigrant Justice Center is also prepared to provide critical legal representation to immigrants and refugees amid anticipated deportation efforts, reinforcing the importance of coordinated advocacy. The threat of mass deportations will provoke a coordinated response from advocates and community organizations, aiming to mitigate the impact on vulnerable populations.

Congressional Action and Response

Congress played a critical role in responding to the Trump administration’s immigration plan. Democrats in Congress were likely to oppose the plan, citing concerns about its constitutionality and the harm it would cause to immigrant communities. They argued that the plan’s aggressive deportation efforts and restrictive policies were not only inhumane but also legally questionable. To counter the administration’s actions, Congress could take several steps. Limiting funding for the administration’s deportation efforts was one approach. Additionally, exercising oversight authority to investigate the administration’s actions and ensure compliance with federal law was another critical measure. Introducing legislation to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants and provide a pathway to citizenship was also on the agenda. These steps were essential to safeguarding the rights and well-being of undocumented immigrants in the face of aggressive federal immigration enforcement. Meanwhile, organizations like the League of United Latin American Citizens are securing funds and legal support to combat proposed immigration policies, demonstrating the importance of grassroots and institutional collaboration.

To counter the administration’s actions, Congress could take several steps. Limiting funding for the administration’s deportation efforts was one approach. Additionally, exercising oversight authority to investigate the administration’s actions and ensure compliance with federal law was another critical measure. Introducing legislation to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants and provide a pathway to citizenship was also on the agenda. These steps were essential to safeguarding the rights and well-being of undocumented immigrants in the face of aggressive federal immigration enforcement.

State and Local Protections

States and localities played a crucial role in protecting the rights of undocumented immigrants. Many cities and states had already implemented sanctuary policies, which limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities and provided protections for undocumented immigrants. These policies were designed to create safe environments where undocumented immigrants could live and work without fear of sudden deportation. Local governments in sanctuary cities are also preparing to combat misinformation and support immigrant communities amid fears of increased federal enforcement under Trump. Local businesses, especially those relying on migrant labor, express the need for immigration reform to address labor shortages as a response to tightened immigration enforcement. A significant portion of individuals in the U.S. undocumented immigrant population are from mixed-status families, leading to increased public concern regarding deportations. Mass deportations will create a pervasive climate of fear, conflict, and stress that affects all students in school districts, further highlighting the broader societal consequences of such policies.

In addition to sanctuary policies, states and localities could take steps to provide legal representation to undocumented immigrants facing deportation. Offering other forms of support and resources, such as access to healthcare and education, was also vital. These local protections were essential in mitigating the impact of federal immigration enforcement and ensuring that undocumented immigrants had access to the resources and support they needed.

Border Security and Immigration Enforcement

The Trump administration’s immigration plan included several provisions related to border security and immigration enforcement. These measures aimed to increase the number of federal law enforcement officers deployed to the border and implement new technologies, such as drones and sensors, to monitor the border. Building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border was a central component of this strategy. To enforce mass deportations, Trump could utilize the military, National Guard, and local law enforcement, further expanding the scope of federal and state collaboration in immigration enforcement.

However, these provisions faced widespread criticism for being ineffective and wasteful. Immigration advocates argued that the administration’s focus on border security and enforcement was misguided. They contended that addressing the root causes of immigration, such as poverty and violence in Central America, would be more effective. Instead of punitive measures, the administration should focus on implementing humane and effective immigration policies that prioritize the safety and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their immigration status. Polls indicate voters generally oppose harsh measures such as banning asylum and family separation at the border, suggesting a preference for more balanced approaches.

Conclusion: Green Card Holder Deportations: The Risks and Reality

While the Trump administration under former President Donald Trump caused green card holders to be anxious, the reality was that removals of LPRs were limited to those who violated immigration laws. President Donald Trump’s policies led to increased scrutiny and enforcement, showing that green card holders need to be vigilant and compliant. President Trump’s administration emphasized enforcement, which created a climate of fear among immigrants. Advocates fear that Trump’s second term will lead to more stringent interpretations of immigration law, affecting families and the local economy. Many in mixed-status families are worried about how deportations could affect them, adding to the anxiety surrounding these policies.

If you’re a green card holder, know your rights and responsibilities. Don’t commit crimes, keep strong ties to the U.S. and consult with an immigration attorney. If you want to be extra safe, become a U.S. citizen.

Stay informed. Consult. Protect.

Final Thoughts — The Legal Future of Permanent Residency Under Trump

Trump’s 2025 immigration enforcement could redefine what it means to be a permanent resident — pushing more long-term immigrants toward naturalization as a protective measure.

While the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides due process safeguards, policy discretion under the executive branch can dramatically shape enforcement outcomes.

For green card holders, the key takeaway is vigilance. Trump’s return to office signals a renewed focus on record audits, old convictions, and administrative removals. Legal experts caution that no LPR should assume immunity from scrutiny.

Citizenship remains the strongest defense. Those eligible should consider applying before policy shifts or enforcement priorities change further.

FAQs: When and How Trump Might Deport Green Card Holders (2025 Guide)

 

Can Donald Trump legally deport green card holders?

Yes. Under INA Section 237, any lawful permanent resident can be deported if they commit certain crimes, commit fraud, or violate U.S. immigration laws. The President cannot unilaterally strip green cards, but he can direct ICE and DHS to enforce deportation laws more aggressively, expanding which offenses or behaviors trigger removal proceedings.

What laws allow green card holders to be deported?

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides the legal authority. Specifically, INA §§ 237 and 212 list the grounds for deportability and inadmissibility, including criminal convictions, immigration fraud, national security issues, and abandonment of residence. These laws apply regardless of who is president, but enforcement priorities can shift dramatically under executive direction.

How might Trump’s 2025 immigration agenda change deportation priorities?

Trump’s 2025 agenda includes broader enforcement categories such as “identity fraud,” “benefit misuse,” and “national security reevaluations.” DHS and ICE are expected to use data-matching technology and interagency databases to review old immigration files. This could reopen cases that were previously closed or overlooked, targeting lawful residents for minor or decades-old offenses.

Could green card holders with old criminal records be deported?

Yes. Even old convictions can trigger removal if they fall under deportable crimes such as aggravated felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude. Under Trump’s first term, ICE reopened cases from the 1990s and early 2000s. His 2025 policies appear to revive that approach, allowing agents to review long-settled files using digital background systems.

Will lawful permanent residents without criminal records face deportation?

Possibly. While most deportations involve criminal or fraud-related grounds, Trump’s enforcement blueprint directs ICE to “re-evaluate prior lawful admissions.” This could include green card holders who allegedly abandoned their residency, committed paperwork errors, or engaged in suspected immigration fraud during the application process.

What is “abandonment of residency,” and can it lead to deportation?

If a green card holder spends long periods outside the U.S. — usually more than six months per trip, or over one year continuously — CBP officers may conclude that the person abandoned their U.S. residence. Even without intent, extended absences or living abroad can trigger removal proceedings for abandonment of permanent residence.

Can green card holders be deported for fraud or misrepresentation?

Yes. Fraud in obtaining a visa, green card, or public benefits can lead to removal under INA § 237(a)(1)(A). Trump’s policies emphasize expanded document-fraud investigations. The Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) unit within USCIS may refer such cases to ICE for removal, even many years after approval.

What happens if a green card holder commits a crime under Trump’s policies?

Under Trump’s 2025 enforcement directives, ICE can prioritize any LPR with a criminal record — not just those convicted of serious felonies. Crimes like domestic violence, DUI, theft, or controlled-substance possession can lead to deportation. Even non-conviction arrests may trigger closer review or referral for removal proceedings.

Could Trump deport green card holders for using public benefits?

While current law does not permit deportation solely for using legal public benefits, Trump has previously expanded the public charge rule, making it harder to obtain or keep permanent residency if someone is deemed dependent on government aid. His administration could again interpret “public charge” more broadly to target welfare misuse or fraud.

Can long-term green card holders who pay taxes still be deported?

Yes. Paying taxes or living in the U.S. for decades does not guarantee protection. If a permanent resident violates any deportable ground under INA § 237, they may still face removal. However, long-term residence and good moral character can be strong mitigating factors during immigration court proceedings.

Will Trump’s deportation plans include background reviews of existing green cards?

Yes. The 2025 DHS framework reportedly includes “Operation Safeguard,” designed to re-audit millions of existing immigration files. Using digital fingerprint and facial-recognition databases, DHS may flag inconsistencies between old applications, FBI records, and state databases — leading to potential revocation or removal actions.

How does the government start deportation against a green card holder?

The process begins when ICE issues a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, alleging deportable grounds under the INA. The case then proceeds before an immigration judge (EOIR), where the person can contest the charges or apply for relief such as cancellation of removal, asylum, or adjustment of status.

Can a green card holder lose their status without going to court?

In rare cases, yes. If Customs and Border Protection determines at a U.S. port of entry that a returning LPR has abandoned residency, they can issue a removal order or request the person sign a Record of Abandonment (Form I-407). Once signed, the green card is considered surrendered. Always seek legal advice before signing anything.

Could Trump use local police to help deport green card holders?

Yes. The 287(g) program allows ICE to deputize local police officers to perform certain immigration-enforcement functions. During Trump’s first term, participation expanded significantly. In 2025, this model could return on a larger scale, enabling local arrests to trigger immigration status checks.

Are lawful permanent residents protected from deportation if they serve in the U.S. military?

Service in the military can provide some benefits but not absolute immunity. If an LPR veteran is convicted of a deportable offense, they can still face removal. However, military service and honorable discharge can be powerful equities when seeking relief before an immigration judge.

What agencies carry out deportations of green card holders?

Three primary agencies are involved:

• USCIS investigates potential fraud or eligibility issues.
• ICE (Deportation and Removal Operations) enforces removal orders.
• EOIR (Department of Justice) conducts immigration-court hearings and appeals.

Each operates under DHS or DOJ but follows the President’s enforcement priorities.

Can Trump deport people who already became U.S. citizens?

Naturalized citizens cannot be deported, but their citizenship can be revoked through a process called denaturalization if it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Once denaturalized, the individual reverts to green card status and can then be deported. Trump’s DOJ revived denaturalization units in his first term and may expand them again.

What are the main defenses against deportation for green card holders?

Defenses include:

• Cancellation of removal (showing long-term residence and hardship).
• Adjustment of status to correct a prior error.
• Waivers for certain crimes or fraud.
• Asylum or CAT protection if returning home poses danger.
• Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or federal courts.

Can applying for U.S. citizenship stop deportation?

Filing for naturalization does not automatically protect someone from deportation. USCIS conducts criminal and background checks during citizenship processing. If issues are found, the agency can deny the application and refer the case to ICE for potential removal. However, once approved, U.S. citizenship provides full protection.

Could deportation increase for green card holders in 2025–2026?

Yes. Data modeling suggests that under renewed Trump-era policies, deportations of lawful permanent residents could rise sharply — particularly through document fraud, re-entry violations, and reopened cases. Expanded AI-based case review systems make such enforcement logistically easier than in previous years.

How can green card holders protect themselves from deportation risks?

Stay compliant with immigration and tax laws, avoid criminal activity, renew green cards on time, and consult an experienced immigration attorney before traveling abroad or filing complex forms. Filing for citizenship, maintaining records of residence, and responding promptly to any government notices are critical.

What should I do if I receive a Notice to Appear from ICE?

Do not ignore it. Contact an immigration attorney immediately. You have the right to representation and to contest the charges. Missing a court hearing will result in an automatic removal order. Bring all documentation — green card, passport, criminal records, and tax filings — to your lawyer.

Is there a deadline to act before Trump’s deportation policies take effect?

Trump’s immigration agenda began rolling out through executive orders after his 2025 inauguration. Policies evolve quickly; green card holders should act now — renewing expired documents, updating addresses, and seeking naturalization while eligibility rules remain unchanged.

Will deportation reviews target specific nationalities?

Officially, the U.S. government cannot target people based on nationality alone. However, enforcement historically prioritizes regions associated with visa overstays or security concerns. Under Trump, analysts expect increased scrutiny of nationals from countries with higher fraud or security indicators, based on DHS data systems.

Could lawful permanent residents be placed in immigration detention?

Yes. ICE may detain an LPR while removal proceedings are pending, especially if the person has a criminal record or flight risk. Detention can last until release on bond or until a final court decision is issued.

Can deported green card holders ever return to the U.S.?

Possibly. After deportation, an LPR can file a Form I-212 (Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission) and possibly an I-601 waiver if qualifying hardship exists. Approval is difficult but not impossible, especially for those with U.S. citizen family members.

How many green card holders were deported under Trump’s first term?

Between 2017 and 2021, ICE deported tens of thousands of lawful permanent residents annually, many for non-violent offenses or administrative violations. Exact figures varied yearly, but government data showed a consistent upward trend tied to expanded enforcement categories.

Could Trump expand denaturalization or revoke more green cards in 2025?

Yes. Analysts predict renewed funding for “second-look” programs reviewing past naturalizations and green card approvals. The goal is to detect fraud, misrepresentation, or undisclosed criminal activity. Revocations could rise as data-sharing improves between USCIS, ICE, and FBI systems.

Are there warning signs that my green card might be at risk?

Common red flags include:

• Receiving a Notice of Intent to Deny or Revoke from USCIS.
• Pending criminal charges or arrests.
• Past use of inconsistent identities or documents.
• Long absences abroad.
• Government letters requesting updated information.

If any apply, seek legal advice immediately.

Should I hire an immigration lawyer if I’m concerned?

Yes. An experienced immigration lawyer can review your record, identify potential risks, and prepare defenses before enforcement actions begin. Proactive legal strategy is the most effective protection against unexpected deportation or green card revocation.

Bottom Line:
While lawful permanent residents have strong rights, they are not immune from removal. Trump’s 2025 policies could expand enforcement beyond traditional criminal grounds, using technology and administrative audits to target older cases. Green card holders should stay informed, maintain compliance, and consult an attorney early to safeguard their status

 

 

Protect Your Green Card — Act Before It’s Too Late

If you are a green card holder who has received a Notice to Appear (NTA), been contacted by ICE, or fears being placed in removal proceedings under Trump’s 2025 immigration enforcement agenda, you cannot afford to wait. Every decision — every form, every hearing date — can determine whether you remain in the United States or face deportation.

Attorney Richard T. Herman, a nationally recognized immigration lawyer with over 30 years of experience, has successfully defended thousands of immigrants facing deportation, visa revocation, and denaturalization. As co-author of Immigrant, Inc., he is more than an attorney — he is an evangelist for the economic and community power of immigrants, fighting every day to ensure families remain together and lawful residents keep their American dream alive.

Why contact Attorney Richard Herman now:

• He understands how Trump’s 2025 deportation priorities are reshaping the risk landscape for lawful permanent residents.
• He knows the law — INA §§ 237, 240, and 316 — and how to leverage every waiver, defense, and procedural safeguard to protect your green card.
• He leads a nationwide team with proven experience before USCIS, ICE, and EOIR, offering full representation from bond hearings to appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
• His compassionate, multilingual team provides guidance through Zoom, WhatsApp, Skype, or in-office meetings — wherever you are.

Don’t face the system alone. The sooner you act, the stronger your defense.

➡️ Schedule a confidential consultation today with Richard T. Herman at LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation.
Get clarity, strategy, and protection — from a lawyer who has spent three decades helping immigrants stay, thrive, and succeed in America.

 

 

Comprehensive Resource List: Deportation of Green Card Holders & Defense (Government + Professional Associations)

Foundational Law & Policy (Statutes, Regulations, Manuals)

• Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) – Core Removal Provisions: Read the primary statutory grounds and procedures in the INA, including deportability, inadmissibility, and removal hearings via the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the U.S. Code Title 8.
• Federal Regulations (8 C.F.R.) – Procedures & Evidence: Consult controlling regulations for charging documents, evidence, motions, and relief in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
• USCIS Policy Manual – Status, Fraud, Abandonment: Officer-facing guidance on permanent residence maintenance, fraud determinations, and revocations in the USCIS Policy Manual.
• EOIR Policy & Practice Resources: Judge, clerk, and practitioner references (practice manual, standing orders, precedents) in the EOIR (DOJ) Policy & Law Library.

---

Notices to Appear, Immigration Court Practice & Appeals

• EOIR Immigration Court Practice Manual: Filing standards, motions, evidence, timelines, and ethics in the Immigration Court Practice Manual.
• EOIR BIA Practice Manual: Appellate rules, briefing schedules, emergency motions, and stays in the Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Manual.
• Case Status, Hearing Info, and eRegistry: Access hearing info, filings, and case lookup via EOIR Case Portal & Information.
• DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL): Federal-court litigation guidance and resources through OIL (DOJ).

---

Grounds of Deportability & Charging Theories (INA § 237 / § 212)

• Deportable & Inadmissible Offenses (Overview): Statutory overviews and officer guidance through USCIS Law & Policy.
• Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude, Aggravated Felonies, Controlled Substances: Review statutory text and annotations via U.S. Code Title 8 and case-processing notes in the EOIR Law Library.
• Fraud/Misrepresentation & Visa/Benefit Revocation: Applicable standards and revocation procedures in the USCIS Policy Manual.

---

Relief from Removal & Forms of Protection

• Cancellation of Removal (LPR & Non-LPR): Eligibility, equities, hardship, and documentation standards are covered across EOIR resources and the USCIS Policy Manual.
• Waivers (Fraud/Criminal) & Adjustment of Status: Waiver frameworks, evidentiary burdens, and adjustment interplay in USCIS Law & Policy.
• Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection: Elements, country conditions, and CAT standards via EOIR Guidance and USCIS Humanitarian Programs.
• Voluntary Departure: Requirements, deadlines, and consequences detailed in EOIR references.

---

Detention, Bond, Supervision & Post-Order Issues

• ICE ERO (Deportation & Removal Operations): Detention guidance, supervision, and post-order compliance through ICE ERO.
• Detainee Locator & Facility Information: Find individuals and facility details using the ICE Detainee Locator.
• Bond Hearings & Custody Redeterminations: Court procedures, standards, and motions in the EOIR Practice Manual.
• Stays of Removal & Post-Order Motions: Appellate tools and emergency relief options via the BIA Practice Manual.

---

Travel, Re-Entry, and Abandonment of Residence

• Maintaining Permanent Residence (Travel/Taxes/Documentation): Best practices and reentry documentation in USCIS: Maintaining Permanent Residence.
• Reentry Permits & Advance Parole (Form I-131): Long-trip planning and documentation through USCIS Form I-131.
• Returning Residents (SB-1 Visa) & CBP Inspection: Port-of-entry considerations and returning resident process via U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Department of State – Immigrant Visas.

---

Naturalization Strategy & Denaturalization Risks

• Naturalization Eligibility, Good Moral Character, Travel/Taxes: Pathway, timelines, and risk mitigation in USCIS Citizenship & Naturalization.
• Name/Identity, Old Records & “Second Look” Risks: File-integrity checks and potential referrals detailed across USCIS Policy and DOJ/OIL.
• Denaturalization (Fraud/Misrepresentation): DOJ authority, litigation posture, and recent filings via DOJ Civil Division – Denaturalization.

---

Data, Research & Official Reporting

• DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: Annual admissions, removals, and status data in the DHS Immigration Statistics portal.
• USCIS Immigration & Citizenship Data: Form-level trends (I-485, N-400, I-751, etc.) and backlogs via USCIS Data & Reports.
• ICE, CBP, and EOIR Operational Updates: Enforcement releases, policy memos, and program announcements through ICE Newsroom, CBP Newsroom, and EOIR News.

---

Official Directories for Legal Help & Accredited Providers

• EOIR Pro Bono Legal Service Providers: Court-by-court directory of free/low-cost representation via EOIR Pro Bono Providers.
• DOJ-Recognized Organizations & Accredited Representatives: Nonprofit providers authorized to represent immigrants through DOJ Recognition & Accreditation.
• Legal Orientation & Helpdesks (Detained/Non-Detained): Education programs and orientation materials via EOIR Programs & Initiatives.

---

Professional Associations & Practitioner-Focused Defense Resources

While not government entities, the associations below are essential for defense strategy, training, amicus briefs, and policy updates that directly impact LPR removal cases.

• American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA): National bar association offering practice advisories, liaison updates, and removal-defense resources via AILA.
• National Immigration Project (NIPNLG): Expert removal-defense toolkits (criminal-immigration, motions to reopen, waivers) via NIPNLG.
• American Bar Association – Commission on Immigration: Standards, detention oversight, and pro bono initiatives through ABA Commission on Immigration.
• Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC): Training, technical assistance, and model filings for nonprofits via CLINIC.
• National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC): Litigation support, practice materials, and pro bono placements through NIJC.
• American Immigration Council: Research, impact litigation, and practice manuals via American Immigration Council.

---

Compliance, Records, and Case Preparation

• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for Immigration Records: Request A-files and agency records via USCIS FOIA, ICE FOIA, CBP FOIA, and DOJ EOIR FOIA.
• FBI Identity History Summary (Rap Sheet): Obtain national criminal history for immigration case prep via FBI Identity History Summary Checks.
• Selective Service Registration (for Eligibility Issues): Verify status or register at Selective Service System.
• Social Security & IRS Records (Taxes/Residence Evidence): Access wage/tax documentation via SSA and IRS Transcripts.

---

Worksite, Compliance & Identity

• I-9 Employment Eligibility & E-Verify: Employer verification duties and audits through USCIS I-9 Central and E-Verify.
• REAL ID, Passports, and Identity Documents: Identity-document standards and compliance via DHS REAL ID and Department of State – Passports.

---

Enforcement Programs & Interagency Cooperation

• ICE 287(g) Program (State/Local Partnerships): How local law enforcement collaborates with ICE under delegated authority in ICE 287(g).
• Secure Communities & Biometric Sharing: Biometric checks and information exchanges across agencies detailed by DHS and ICE.
• Fraud Detection & National Security (FDNS): USCIS fraud screening and referral processes in the USCIS Policy Manual.

---

Courtroom Tools: Country Conditions, Evidence & Expert Use

• U.S. State Department Country Reports: Human rights, persecution, and security conditions used in asylum/CAT claims via State Department Country Reports.
• Executive Office for Immigration Review (Reference Materials): Benchbooks, LPR-specific guidance, and key precedent summaries within the EOIR Law Library.
• Federal Register (Rules, Notices, Interim Final Rules): Track regulatory changes, interim policies, and requests for comment in the Federal Register.

---

Emergency & Practical Checklists

• Know Your Rights (Government Resources): Official civil rights and complaint avenues (CRCL) and agency contact points via DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
• CBP Traveler Communications & Secondary Inspection: Port-of-entry expectations, secondary inspection, and deferred inspection via CBP Traveler Info.
• USCIS Change of Address (AR-11) & Case Updates: Maintain compliance and receive notices via USCIS Change of Address and USCIS Case Status.

---

Pro Tips for Using These Resources

• Start with statute/regulation (INA and 8 C.F.R.), then confirm agency policy (USCIS, EOIR).
• For any NTA or court notice, consult the EOIR Practice Manual and consider immediate BIA stay strategies where appropriate.
• Always FOIA your A-file and obtain FBI and court records early; accurate rap sheets and charging documents drive relief eligibility.
• Use DHS/EOIR data to support discretionary arguments (equities, rehabilitation, hardship).
• Cross-check relief (e.g., cancellation, waivers, asylum/CAT) against current country reports and USCIS/DOJ guidance.

---

Social and Family Impact of Deportation

The social and family consequences of mass deportation under a second Trump administration would be profound, touching every corner of American society. Former president Donald Trump’s renewed promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants would not only target individuals without legal status, but would also deeply disrupt immigrant families, mixed-status households, and entire communities.

One of the most devastating effects of these deportation efforts would be the forced separation of families. Many immigrant families in the U.S. include both citizens and non-citizens—children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, spouses with different immigration statuses, and extended relatives living together. When federal law enforcement officers, including Customs Enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), conduct immigration raids in collaboration with local law enforcement, the result is often the sudden removal of a parent or breadwinner. Children of undocumented parents face the trauma of losing a caregiver, with some forced into foster care or left to navigate life on their own. The emotional and psychological toll on these children and their families is immeasurable, leading to long-term consequences for their well-being and development.

The impact of mass deportations extends beyond the home. Immigrant communities as a whole experience heightened fear and anxiety, especially when federal agencies ramp up immigration raids and detentions. The presence of federal agents and local law enforcement conducting joint operations can erode trust in public institutions, making it less likely for undocumented immigrants or their family members to report crimes, seek medical care, or access essential services. This climate of fear undermines public safety and community cohesion.

Navigating the immigration system becomes even more challenging under stricter immigration policies. The Trump administration’s approach would make it harder for immigrants to secure legal representation, understand their rights, or pursue legal status through employment-based visas or asylum. Asylum seekers and those seeking humanitarian protections would face additional barriers, with the use of the Alien Enemies Act and other federal law provisions raising serious concerns about due process and the erosion of legal protections. The expansion of detention centers and the increased use of federal agencies to enforce deportation would further strain the system, leaving many without access to fair hearings or adequate legal support.

The economic fallout from mass deportations would also be significant. Immigrant workers are vital to industries such as agriculture, construction, and healthcare. Removing millions of undocumented immigrants would create severe labor shortages, disrupt supply chains, and drive up costs for consumers. The loss of immigrant entrepreneurs and small business owners would stifle job creation and economic growth, with estimates suggesting that mass deportations could cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars.

In summary, the social and family impact of deportation under the second Trump administration would be severe and far-reaching. The trump administration’s immigration policies, including mass deportations and stricter enforcement, would lead to widespread family separation, trauma, and economic disruption. These consequences highlight the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform that protects families, supports immigrant communities, and upholds the principles of due process and fairness in the immigration system.

Trump Purge Immigration Judges: His Strategy of Removing Qualified Judges, and Then Hiring Hundreds of Inexperienced Judges

Introduction — A New Era of Immigration Court Control

In 2025, the Trump administration’s campaign to reconfigure the immigration judiciary has amounted to one of the most aggressive waves of terminations in recent memory. Immigration enforcement has become a central issue in the administration’s approach to judicial operations.

According to a DOJ-internal letter submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, on February 14, 2025, EOIR abruptly terminated 20 immigration judges — including 5 assistant chief judges and 13 newly appointed judges still waiting to be sworn in — with no public explanation or previous warning. In that same action, nine Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members appointed under the prior administration were also removed.

Union representatives and advocacy groups report that by mid-2025, 17 judges across 10 states had been fired without cause, as part of the Trump administration’s unprecedented purge of immigration judges. These rolling rounds of dismissals were aimed at courts in California, Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, New York, Ohio, Louisiana, and Utah. The union claimed that “fifteen judges were fired ‘without cause’ on a Friday and two more the next Monday.” (Union statement)

In the San Francisco Bay Area, Judge Ila Deiss (appointed years ago) and Judge Kyra Lilien (still in probationary period) were among the local judges dismissed in July 2025. While Lilien’s removal matched expectations for probationary attrition, Deiss’s firing, despite long service and strong performance, alarmed practitioners as indicative of political targeting. These actions reflect the Trump administration’s goals in reshaping the immigration judiciary.

In Chicago, Jennifer Peyton, who had served about nine years as Assistant Chief Immigration Judge, told observers she was dismissed in an email with no cause given just days after meeting with a U.S. Senator. Her removal followed a Trump-era directive that judges route congressional inquiries through EOIR headquarters — a change she resisted.

These terminations are not isolated. Internal appeals records indicate that the entire cohort of December 2024 probationary IJs (13 members) was summarily terminated, despite being selected through competitive processes and in some cases prior experience. (MSPB appeal)

As of mid-2025, the union has estimated that over 100 judges have either been fired or resigned under the current administration’s restructuring—an attrition rate some argue is destabilizing the nation’s immigration courts already under backlog pressure. The terminations contribute to a backlog of nearly four million cases in immigration courts, further straining an already overwhelmed system.

These changes affect both citizens and immigrants alike, raising concerns about fair treatment and justice for all impacted by the immigration system.

TRUMP 2.0

The second Trump administration has reasserted control over the nation’s immigration courts, which operate under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a subagency of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Building on precedents set during the first Trump administration, the current leadership has intensified efforts to reshape the courts.

In 2025, EOIR implemented sweeping changes to staffing, performance metrics, and appointment rules that together amount to a systematic purge of veteran immigration judges. Experienced adjudicators with reputations for fairness have been removed, reassigned, or pressured to retire, while inexperienced and politically screened appointees have taken their place. A significant number of these removed judges had granted asylum claims at a rate of 30% or higher, raising concerns about the motivations behind their terminations. The justice department has played a central role in overseeing these reforms and enforcing new policies affecting judicial independence.

Immigration Lawyer Richard Herman: “Under 2025 policy changes, DOJ gained broad authority to remove experienced judges and fill vacancies with temporary and military appointees.”

These reforms are documented across official sources: the Federal Register final rule expanding Temporary Immigration Judges (TIJs), EOIR policy updates tightening performance quotas, MSPB orders confirming removal disputes, and GAO reports tracking record-high backlogs. Professional organizations including the NAIJ, ABA, and AILA have warned that these developments endanger judicial independence and due process.

Immigration Court/BIA Backlog: The Steep Climb and Recent Dip

The immigration court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) backlog has expanded dramatically in recent years, reaching historic levels due to surges in case receipts, constrained adjudicative capacity, and rapid policy shifts. By the end of FY2023, pending cases reached about 2.5 million, according to Congressional Research Service analyses of EOIR data.

Through mid-2024, the Government Accountability Office reported nearly 3.5 million pending matters, underscoring the acceleration in filings and the strain on dockets. CRS later estimated about 3.6 million pending at the close of FY2024, confirming sustained growth across the year. Immigration courts are now facing a backlog of approximately 4 million cases, exacerbating delays and challenges in the system that delays justice for those awaiting hearings.

A confluence of factors drove the spike: historically high new filings; docket reshuffling; uneven staffing and training; and performance systems that reward volume rather than deliberation. As 2025 opened, EOIR acknowledged that pending cases peaked at more than 4.18 million before declining after aggressive throughput measures.

Independent trackers (using EOIR data) simultaneously recorded 3.43 million active cases at the end of August 2025, a lower figure that reflects definitional differences (e.g., how “active” vs. “pending” is counted). EOIR’s September 2025 milestone announcement placed the total under 3.75 million, describing the largest month-over-month backlog reduction in its history. Efforts to address the backlog have included proposals for more immigration judges and additional personnel, supported by increased funding and hiring initiatives.

Three takeaways matter for readers and practitioners:

1. Backlog growth was exponential from 2023 into mid-2024. That growth outpaced judge hiring and training, pushing median wait times upward and increasing variance across courts.
2. Definitions and data pipelines matter. “Pending” vs. “active,” and snapshot dates, can yield different counts; always pair a number with its source and timestamp.
3. Throughput can cut both ways. While output spikes can reduce topline totals, they may also increase appeals and remands if adjudications are rushed, shifting the burden to the BIA and federal courts.

Sources: GAO (Dec. 2024) and CRS (Nov. 2024/Jan. 2025) for 2023–2024 figures; EOIR (Sept. 2025) and EOIR-based trackers for 2025 snapshots.

Mechanisms of Removal Documented by the Federal Government

1. Probationary Termination Actions

In early 2025, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) issued an Order on Stay, temporarily halting DOJ’s attempt to terminate a group of probationary immigration adjudicators. Many of these judges are subject to a two year probationary period, during which their employment is reviewed and decisions about termination are often made at the end of this phase. The Board’s order required EOIR to reinstate the judges pending review, confirming that a broad removal action was underway and subject to civil-service safeguards. The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents immigration judges, criticized these firings as undermining the judicial system and eroding trust in its independence. Some judges also opted for a voluntary resignation program amid ongoing terminations and restructuring efforts.

2. Performance-Based Discipline

The EOIR Performance Plan for Adjudicative Employees mandates a minimum of 700 case completions per year, timeliness standards, and remand-rate thresholds. These numerical benchmarks now form part of each judge’s performance evaluation, giving management leverage to discipline or remove judges who fail to meet production goals — regardless of case complexity.

Additionally, EOIR leadership has encouraged adjudicators to streamline case reviews and favor oral decisions over written ones. These measures are aimed at efficiently managing the growing caseload.

3. Policy Manual Revisions

The EOIR Policy Manual Table of Changes shows numerous 2025 updates altering docketing practices and decision workflows. These policy revisions directly impact immigration related activities, including case management and adjudication procedures within immigration courts. Such centralized policy control enables leadership to reassign judges or invalidate prior discretion based on shifting priorities.

4. Civil-Service Appeals and Final Decisions

Subsequent MSPB final decisions issued in 2025 document additional challenges to DOJ disciplinary actions. The board’s rulings confirm that multiple judges fired by the administration have challenged their dismissals, highlighting the contested nature of these actions. Some appellants obtained stays or remands, establishing that removal attempts were real, widespread, and contested under federal employment law. The broader impact of fired judges and the pattern of judges fired from the immigration courts has raised concerns about judicial capacity and the efficiency of the immigration court system.

MSPB’s stay orders confirm EOIR’s 2025 effort to terminate adjudicators and the continuing applicability of civil-service protections.

The 2025 Performance Metrics System

EOIR’s Performance Plan redefined success for judges in quantitative terms. Key thresholds include:

• 700 case completions annually
• 95% timeliness compliance
• Limited remand rates from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

EOIR leadership has publicly criticized judges who fail to meet these new efficiency standards, highlighting concerns about caseload management and decision-making speed.

While framed as efficiency measures, these quotas tether judicial evaluation — and thus job security — to numerical output. Both the National Association of Immigration Judges and the American Bar Association have stated that such metrics erode impartial decision-making by rewarding speed over fairness.

Professional associations warn that quota-based evaluations compromise independence and due process.

Federal Register Rule Expanding Temporary Immigration Judges

On August 28, 2025, DOJ finalized the rule “Designation of Temporary Immigration Judges” in the Federal Register. This regulation fundamentally broadens who may serve as a Temporary Immigration Judge (TIJ). The role of temporary immigration judges has become more essential due to the increasing number of cases in the immigration court system, highlighting the need for rapid surge capacity despite concerns over qualifications and training. Congress approved increased funding for the hiring of temporary and additional immigration judges as part of a recent mega spending bill, which provided over $3 billion to the Justice Department for immigration-related activities, including addressing the significant case backlog.

Before 2025

Only former Immigration Judges, Appellate IJs, Administrative Law Judges, or DOJ attorneys with 10+ years of immigration-law experience were eligible.

After 2025

Any “well-qualified candidate” who meets basic IJ criteria may now serve — effectively opening the door to attorneys with no immigration background, including military lawyers detailed from the Department of Defense.

The AILA analysis of this rule underscores that removing experience prerequisites risks inconsistency and procedural error. The NAIJ and ABA similarly caution that expanding eligibility without commensurate training dilutes adjudicative quality and threatens independence.

Immigration Attorney Richard Herman: “The 2025 Federal Register rule eliminated experience thresholds, enabling rapid appointments from outside EOIR — including military attorneys.”

Integration of Military Lawyers into Immigration Courts

The broadened TIJ rule authorizes DOJ to recruit licensed military attorneys for temporary detail. Under existing Defense Department legal authorities, Judge Advocates may be assigned interagency duties when approved by the Secretary of Defense. This interagency cooperation is often justified by the need to support homeland security initiatives, which include immigration enforcement and border control efforts.

Benefits Cited by DOJ

• Rapid surge capacity amid backlogs
• Familiarity with administrative hearings
• Temporary service flexibility

Risks Identified by Associations

• AILA warns of inadequate asylum-law training.
• NAIJ notes temporary status undermines decisional independence.
• ABA raises separation-of-functions concerns about placing military officers in civilian adjudication roles.

Richard T. Herman, Esq.: “Military-lawyer appointments mark the first modern instance of uniformed personnel adjudicating civilian immigration cases.”

Real-World Examples of Immigration Judges Being Fired in 2025

In 2025, multiple immigration judges across the U.S. have publicly testified to or been documented as having been terminated — often abruptly, with minimal explanation, and in ways that suggest systemic force, according to people familiar with the events. The number of terminations landed as a result of these administrative decisions has raised significant concern within the legal community. In several instances, people spoke about their experiences, sharing perspectives on the impact and circumstances of their dismissals. The following are the most prominent and illustrative cases.

Jennifer Peyton — Chicago Assistant Chief Immigration Judge

One of the most cited examples is Judge Jennifer Peyton, who had served nearly nine years as the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge in Chicago. According to her account:

• She received her termination via an email sent over a holiday weekend, while on vacation, with just three sentences and no stated cause.
• Peyton asserts her performance reviews had been consistently strong, including recognition from EOIR leadership.
• Shortly before her termination, DOJ issued a directive requiring that all communications from congressional offices be forwarded through headquarters — a rule she viewed as limiting judges’ accountability to oversight. She believes her termination was retaliatory.
• She also reported that on February 14, 2025, a group of seven Assistant Chief Immigration Judges, including herself, received simultaneous email dismissals.
• Peyton told interviewers that the tone shifted almost immediately after inauguration: “We were being told we weren’t valued.”

Her case exemplifies how even senior judges with oversight roles have been vulnerable to sudden removal under the new regime.

Ted Doolittle — Hartford Immigration Court

In Hartford, Connecticut, Immigration Judge Ted Doolittle was removed in September 2025. Key facts:

• His appointment was not renewed at the end of his two-year term, though he was still formally in a probationary window.
• Notification came via a brief letter from EOIR’s Acting Director stating that his probationary term would not continue; he was placed on administrative leave and instructed to surrender badge and keys.
• Doolittle said that, despite surpassing benchmark goals (completing nearly 2,000 cases in one fiscal year), his dismissal came without explanation.
• He reported the timing was abrupt and caught him off guard, even though he was scheduled to serve until the official end of his two-year period.

Doolittle’s removal shows how purported term expirations are being used as cover for nonrenewal of judges who might not conform to enforcement priorities.

Fifteen Judges Put on Leave and Terminated in Mid-July

Reports have emerged that fifteen immigration judges across multiple jurisdictions were notified in July 2025 that they would be placed on leave and their employment terminated by July 22. According to union sources:

• Many were told of their termination days in advance, with little formal process.
• Some of those judges believed they were targeted because their grant rates or case outcomes deviated from enforcement expectations.
• The union representing immigration judges publicly characterized the action as sweeping and unprecedented — arguing that removing judges en masse in this way deeply disrupts court operations. The union further stated that these mass firings were contrary to the public interest, as they undermine the effective enforcement of immigration laws and negatively impact the broader community.

Mass Termination of 20 Judges on February 14, 2025

One of the earliest and most significant acts of the purge occurred on February 14, 2025, when EOIR abruptly terminated 20 immigration judges by email, per union documentation submitted to Congress:

• Among those terminated were seven Assistant Chief Immigration Judges and 13 newly hired judges who had completed training but had not yet been sworn in.
• The terminations reportedly included Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) members appointed under the prior administration — indicating the purge reached not only trial-level judges but appellate members.
• The terminations followed mass dismissal of senior EOIR leadership (Chief Judge, acting director, policy head) earlier that same day.
• Many of those affected have since challenged the dismissals as lacking due process or justification, pointing to email memos with no substantive reasoning.

Judge Ila Deiss — San Francisco

In San Francisco, Judge Ila Deiss was notified that she was being removed via a terse email:

• After eight years on the bench and 25 years of federal service, her removal came with a brief message from EOIR stating the Attorney General had decided to remove her.
• She said she was given no prior warning or detailed performance critique.
• Deiss described the action as one among “dozens” of judge firings nationwide since January 2025, alleging that such removals have turned judges into political pawns rather than neutral decision makers.

Overall Scope and Patterns

Taken together, these examples reveal several consistent features:

• Mass, simultaneous firings (e.g., 20 judges on Feb. 14; 15 in July)
• Dismissals of both career and newly hired judges, even ones not yet sworn
• Abrupt notices via email, often with minimal explanation
• Targeting of leadership roles, such as Assistant Chief Judges and BIA members
• Judges reporting fear of retaliation or pressure to align with enforcement agendas

The mass firings represent a costly setback for the immigration court system, undermining its efficiency and effectiveness. In fact, these actions are widely seen as an illogical and costly setback, as they exacerbate case backlogs and disrupt the administration of justice. By increasing delays and inefficiencies, the purge wastes taxpayer dollars and diverts public resources away from more productive uses.

These cases illustrate how, in real courtrooms across the country, the purge is not hypothetical—it is transforming the composition, expectations, and independence of immigration adjudication in a methodical way.

Impact Measured by Government Oversight Bodies

GAO Backlog Findings

A GAO report released in 2024 estimated EOIR’s pending caseload at 3.5 million matters, up from 1.3 million in 2020. The exponential growth provided DOJ’s justification for accelerating case completions and expanding judge ranks.

Throughput vs. Quality

EOIR’s internal metrics tout record closures, yet GAO performance audits highlight persistent management weaknesses and data gaps that obscure quality outcomes. Increased remand rates at the Board of Immigration Appeals suggest hurried decisions are triggering more appeals.

GAO data confirm that while throughput rose, oversight gaps prevent assurance of decision quality.

Judicial Independence Under Siege

The NAIJ has documented how DOJ’s employment controls — from quotas to probationary reviews — convert judges into policy implementers rather than neutral arbiters. The ABA similarly asserts that administrative adjudicators must be insulated from agency performance management to satisfy due-process norms.

Immigration advocates have expressed concern that the erosion of judicial independence undermines due process and judicial autonomy, making it harder to protect immigrants’ rights in court.

Both organizations support transforming EOIR into an Article I immigration court, akin to the U.S. Tax Court, ensuring judges have fixed terms and non-political removal standards.

Immigration Law Expert Richard Herman: “Bar associations agree: true independence requires removing EOIR from DOJ control.”

Documented Removals in Official Records

MSPB Stay Order

The MSPB’s March 2025 stay order explicitly directed DOJ to pause probationary terminations and maintain status quo employment for affected judges pending adjudication — official confirmation of a coordinated removal action.

Subsequent MSPB Decisions

Later 2025 MSPB rulings addressed compliance and remedies, demonstrating that multiple immigration adjudicators pursued — and occasionally secured — relief against unlawful dismissal.

MSPB litigation provides the only government-verified record of Trump-era judge terminations.

Comparative Table — First vs. Second Trump Terms

Area	2017–2021	2025–2026
Case Quotas	Introduced 700-case goal	Quotas tied to evaluations
NAIJ Status	Decertification attempt	Union rights fully removed
TIJ Eligibility	Limited, experience-based	Expanded to any qualified attorney
Military Details	None	Authorized under new rule
Backlog (GAO)	~1.3 M	~3.5 M
Oversight	Minimal	Active GAO & MSPB interventions

During both the first and second terms, President Donald Trump and President Trump implemented significant policy changes affecting immigration courts. The Trump administration’s approach included restructuring court procedures, increasing enforcement, and firing a notable number of immigration judges.

Richard T. Herman, Esq. “Trump 2.0 completed what Trump 1.0 began — full managerial dominance over immigration adjudication.”

Congressional and Oversight Perspectives

The Congressional Research Service notes bipartisan proposals to establish an independent Article I immigration court, removing EOIR from DOJ to resolve conflicts between prosecutorial and judicial roles.

Concurrent GAO evaluations emphasize chronic staffing, data, and governance deficiencies that impair accountability. The DOJ Office of Inspector General retains authority to audit EOIR’s actions but has limited publicly available findings to date.

CRS and GAO analyses converge: structural reform, not managerial tweaks, is required for lasting independence.

FAQs: Trump’s Purge of Qualified Immigration Judges and Hiring of Inexperienced Judges

What is meant by Trump’s “purge” of qualified immigration judges?The “purge” refers to the Trump administration’s large-scale removal or reassignment of experienced immigration judges (IJs) under the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Beginning in 2025, dozens of veteran judges were terminated, pressured to retire, or sidelined through new performance metrics, disciplinary reviews, and policy changes. This move replaced fair-minded, experienced adjudicators with politically aligned or less qualified appointees.

---

Why were veteran immigration judges removed or forced out?Veteran judges were targeted primarily for failing to meet new performance quotas or for issuing asylum grants viewed as too generous. Trump’s DOJ required judges to close at least 700 cases per year, which incentivized rapid denials. Judges who resisted enforcement-driven targets or maintained high asylum approval rates were more likely to face scrutiny, negative evaluations, or non-renewal of appointments.

---

How many immigration judges have been affected by the purge?By late 2025, more than 80 immigration judges across multiple jurisdictions had been removed, reassigned, or terminated during their probationary periods. Many more reported being pressured into early retirement or stripped of leadership roles. The turnover is the largest in EOIR history and has reshaped the bench nationwide.

---

Who replaced the experienced judges who were fired or reassigned?The vacancies created by these removals have been filled with newly hired judges who often lack immigration law experience. Many appointees come from prosecutorial or administrative backgrounds unrelated to asylum or removal defense. Some are temporary judges or military attorneys assigned under newly broadened eligibility rules.

---

What legal changes allowed Trump to appoint inexperienced or temporary judges?A 2025 rule published in the Federal Register, titled “Designation of Temporary Immigration Judges,” removed prior experience requirements. It now allows the Attorney General to appoint any licensed attorney who meets basic qualifications as a Temporary Immigration Judge (TIJ). This expanded pool includes military lawyers and political appointees with minimal background in immigration law.

---

Why is the hiring of inexperienced judges controversial?Inexperienced judges often lack training in complex asylum law, procedural safeguards, and international human rights obligations. Their lack of expertise increases the risk of procedural errors, inconsistent rulings, and unfair outcomes. Critics warn that replacing experts with novices prioritizes case quotas and political loyalty over legal accuracy and due process.

---

What role do military lawyers play in the new hiring plan?Under the 2025 EOIR rule, military attorneys can now be detailed to serve as Temporary Immigration Judges. While the administration claims this will help reduce the backlog, critics argue it blurs civilian–military boundaries and introduces adjudicators without specialized immigration expertise into life-altering asylum proceedings.

---

What are performance metrics, and how are they used to control judges?Performance metrics are numerical quotas requiring judges to close a certain number of cases annually and meet timeliness goals. Introduced under Trump’s first term and reinstated in his second, these metrics tie job security and promotion to volume-based targets. This structure undermines judicial independence by encouraging fast decisions rather than fair or well-reasoned outcomes.

---

How has the purge affected asylum seekers and their cases?Asylum seekers face higher denial rates, inconsistent rulings, and longer delays as new judges learn on the job. Inexperienced or politically pressured judges are more likely to deny claims or issue removal orders without sufficient evidence review. Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) have surged as a result, creating further backlogs. Individuals making an asylum claim now encounter additional procedural obstacles and reduced chances for approval due to these changes.

---

Are these removals legal?While the DOJ claims authority to remove probationary judges or reassign personnel, civil-service protections still apply. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has issued stays and rulings suggesting that certain terminations violated due process. Litigation over removals is ongoing, and administrative appeals have challenged the legality of mass firings.

---

How do quotas and performance evaluations influence judicial independence?Quotas transform judges from neutral decision-makers into agency employees beholden to managerial oversight. When a judge’s career depends on meeting numeric goals or producing deportation outcomes, impartial adjudication becomes nearly impossible. Professional associations like the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) and American Bar Association (ABA) have condemned these practices as incompatible with judicial ethics.

---

What is the backlog, and how does it relate to the purge?The immigration court backlog exceeded 3.5 million cases by mid-2024. The administration uses this crisis to justify accelerated hiring and removal of slower adjudicators. However, replacing experienced judges with inexperienced ones often increases mistakes and appeals, which ultimately makes backlogs worse, not better.

---

Is the use of Temporary Immigration Judges common?Before 2025, temporary judges were rare and drawn only from experienced adjudicators or senior DOJ attorneys. The new rule dramatically expanded this power, allowing virtually any qualified attorney — even without immigration expertise — to serve temporarily. This marks an unprecedented change in U.S. immigration court history.

---

What oversight exists for these hiring and firing actions?Oversight is limited because EOIR remains under DOJ control. While the Government Accountability Office (GAO) monitors backlog and workforce management, and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears individual employment appeals, there is no independent body reviewing immigration court restructuring as a whole.

---

How do professional associations view Trump’s immigration judge purge?The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) calls the removals an “attack on judicial independence.” The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) warns that unqualified hires undermine due process. The American Bar Association (ABA) supports transforming EOIR into an Article I immigration court to ensure judicial autonomy and integrity.

---

What is an Article I immigration court, and why is it proposed?An Article I court is a judicial body created by Congress, independent of the executive branch. Moving EOIR from DOJ to Article I status would prevent political interference, set fixed judicial terms, and insulate adjudicators from quota-based evaluations or arbitrary removals. Nearly all major legal organizations support this reform.

---

What are the long-term risks of appointing inexperienced judges?Inexperienced judges may misapply legal standards, overlook critical evidence, or issue inconsistent rulings. This erodes public trust, increases appeals, and creates a body of conflicting precedent. Over time, these trends weaken the rule of law and damage the credibility of the U.S. immigration system.

---

How does this purge compare to Trump’s first term?During his first term (2017–2021), Trump introduced quotas and appointed enforcement-focused judges. In his second term, beginning 2025, the administration expanded its reach by actively removing veteran judges and rewriting eligibility rules to flood the bench with loyal or temporary adjudicators. The pace and scope of this second-term purge are unprecedented.

---

How are asylum denial rates changing under the new judge corps?Preliminary data suggest that asylum denial rates under newly appointed judges exceed 80 percent, compared to roughly 58 percent under prior administrations. While EOIR claims improved efficiency, advocates attribute the spike to lack of training, political influence, and absence of meaningful oversight.

---

Can Congress stop or reverse these changes?Congress holds authority to restructure EOIR through legislation, fund oversight hearings, and establish an independent Article I immigration court. Some lawmakers have introduced bills to restore transparency, reinstate judicial protections, and limit executive interference, but none have yet become law.

---

What reforms are recommended by oversight and legal experts?Experts recommend removing EOIR from DOJ control, codifying experience requirements for judges, reinstating collective bargaining for the NAIJ, mandating independent oversight by the GAO and OIG, and banning quota-based evaluations that tie employment to case completions.

---

Why is judicial independence important in immigration court?Immigration judges make life-or-death decisions for asylum seekers, families, and long-term residents. Independence ensures decisions are based on law and evidence, not politics or pressure. When judges fear retaliation, justice becomes arbitrary — undermining faith in the entire system.

---

Is there any precedent for using military lawyers as civilian judges?There is no modern precedent for using active-duty military lawyers as civilian immigration adjudicators. Legal scholars note this blurs the boundary between civil and military authority and risks undermining constitutional norms separating executive enforcement from judicial function.

---

How might this affect future administrations?The structural changes implemented in 2025 — particularly the rule expanding TIJ eligibility — remain in effect unless repealed. Future administrations could inherit a bench filled with politically vetted judges and diminished independence, complicating any effort to restore neutrality.

---

What is the ultimate solution proposed by legal organizations?The consensus among legal experts and professional associations is to establish an Article I immigration court independent from DOJ. This would safeguard tenure, remove quota pressures, and restore credibility to the nation’s immigration adjudication system.

---

In summary, what does Trump’s immigration judge purge mean for the U.S. justice system?It signifies a profound transformation of immigration courts from quasi-judicial bodies into executive-controlled enforcement arms. The removal of experienced judges, the appointment of unqualified or temporary replacements, and the imposition of quotas collectively threaten due process, fairness, and the integrity of the American legal system.

---

How do these changes affect immigration court proceedings and enforcement?Federal agents now play a more visible role in immigration court operations, including increased presence during hearings and enforcement actions involving asylum seekers. Their involvement has heightened concerns about the impartiality and fairness of the process.

---

What are the administration’s broader enforcement goals?The Trump administration has stated its intention to deport millions of undocumented individuals as part of its immigration enforcement strategy. This goal has driven many of the recent changes in court staffing, procedures, and enforcement priorities.

Talk to an Immigration Lawyer Who Understands What’s at Stake

If you’re alarmed by reports of immigration judges being fired, inexperienced judges taking the bench, or the growing question of whether immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remain truly independent — you’re not alone. The system is undergoing seismic change, and understanding how these shifts may affect your case, appeal, or right to fair process is critical.

This is where Attorney Richard T. Herman can help.

For more than 30 years, Richard has stood at the intersection of law, policy, and justice, representing immigrants before agencies and courts that now face unprecedented politicization. As *co-author of Immigrant, Inc.— the acclaimed book celebrating the power of immigrants to transform communities and economies — Richard brings not only legal experience but also a visionary commitment to fairness and opportunity.

He has witnessed firsthand how judicial independence protects families, employers, and individuals seeking a fair hearing. In a climate where seasoned judges are being replaced by politically screened appointees, you need a lawyer who knows how to navigate shifting policies, anticipate agency behavior, and build strong, appeal-ready cases grounded in evidence and law.

Snippet: Attorney Richard T. Herman helps clients understand how recent purges and appointments in immigration courts may affect fairness, appeals, and outcomes.

Whether you’re facing removal proceedings, appealing a BIA decision, or simply trying to understand what judicial changes mean for your future, Richard and his team can help you assess your options and assert your rights.

Why Choose Richard Herman

• Over 30 years of immigration law experience.
• Nationwide practice representing clients before EOIR and federal courts.
• Deep knowledge of policy shifts, due process challenges, and BIA reforms.
• Passionate advocate for fair adjudication and immigrant empowerment.
• Author and national thought leader advancing the case for inclusive immigration reform.

Get the Guidance You Deserve

The immigration court system is changing faster than ever — but your right to fair treatment should not. If you want clear answers about:

• The firing or reassignment of judges,
• The qualifications and biases of newly appointed adjudicators, or
• The erosion of independence within EOIR and the BIA,

Schedule a confidential consultation today with Attorney Richard T. Herman and his team at Herman Legal Group. They’ll help you understand how these developments could shape your case and what you can do to protect your rights.

Book your consultation now:LawFirm4Immigrants.com/book-consultation

When fairness is in question, you need more than legal advice — you need an advocate who believes in justice.

Authoritative Resources on Trump’s Purge of Immigration Judges and the Hiring of Inexperienced Judges

Core Government Sources (Rules, Policy, Oversight)

• Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) — Official Home
  Central hub for immigration courts, leadership memos, policy updates, statistics, and press materials.
  https://www.justice.gov/eoir
• EOIR Policy Manual & Change Log (2025 updates)
  Controlling guidance for immigration judges; use the Change Log to track recent revisions affecting dockets, performance, and discretion.
  https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-policy-manual
• EOIR Adjudicator Performance & Case Metrics
  Reference for case-completion quotas (e.g., 700 cases/year), timeliness, and remand thresholds that drive performance reviews.
  https://www.justice.gov/eoir (navigate: Policy & Resources → Performance/Statistics)
• Federal Register — “Designation of Temporary Immigration Judges” (Final Rule)
  The 2025 rule that broadened eligibility for Temporary Immigration Judges (TIJs), enabling rapid appointments (including military attorneys).
  https://www.federalregister.gov/ (search: “Designation of Temporary Immigration Judges”)
• Department of Justice (DOJ) — EOIR Notices & Press Room
  Official announcements, leadership directives, hiring notices, and structural changes impacting immigration courts.
  https://www.justice.gov/eoir/press-room
• Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) — Orders & Decisions
  Authoritative rulings on federal employment disputes, including stays and decisions addressing termination of immigration adjudicators.
  https://www.mspb.gov
• Government Accountability Office (GAO) — EOIR & Backlog Reports
  Independent audits on case backlogs, workforce planning, data integrity, and performance management within EOIR.
  https://www.gao.gov (search: “Executive Office for Immigration Review” or “immigration courts backlog”)
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) — Immigration Court Structure & Article I Proposals
  Nonpartisan analyses of proposals to move EOIR out of DOJ, establish an Article I court, and reform hiring/tenure standards.
  https://crsreports.congress.gov (search: “immigration courts Article I”)
• DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG) — Oversight Authority
  Investigatory body for allegations of retaliation, mismanagement, or policy abuse within DOJ components, including EOIR.
  https://oig.justice.gov

---

Professional Associations (Judicial Independence, Due Process, Training Standards)

• National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) — Judicial Independence & Article I Advocacy
  Judges’ professional association documenting how quotas, probationary removals, and policy centralization undermine decisional independence; primary source for Article I court advocacy.
  https://www.naij-usa.org/
• American Bar Association (ABA) — Separation-of-Functions & Article I Court Positioning
  ABA analyses and policy frameworks urging removal of immigration courts from DOJ to protect impartial adjudication and ethical judging standards.
  https://www.americanbar.org/ (navigate: Immigration / Government & Public Sector → Commission on Immigration)
• American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) — Practice Alerts & Rule Tracking
  Practitioner-focused summaries on the TIJ final rule, hiring standards, due-process concerns, and training requirements for new judges.
  https://www.aila.org/