Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization Documents

Issuing agencies

Abstract

On October 30, 2025, DHS published an interim final rule (IFR) that amended DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization documents (Forms I- 766 or EADs) for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in certain employment authorization categories. This final rule responds to comments received on the IFR and reaffirms and finalizes the provisions of the IFR. Ending the automatic extension of EADs enhances benefit integrity and prioritizes the proper vetting and screening of aliens before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65306-65368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20955]



[[Page 65305]]

Vol. 91

Wednesday,

No. 197

October 14, 2026

Part II





Department of Homeland Security





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





8 CFR Part 274a





Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment Authorization 
Documents; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2026 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65306]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 274a

[CIS No. 2859-26; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0271]
RIN 1615-AD05


Removal of Automatic Extensions for Certain Employment 
Authorization Documents

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 30, 2025, DHS published an interim final rule (IFR) 
that amended DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically 
extending the validity of employment authorization documents (Forms I-
766 or EADs) for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew 
their EAD in certain employment authorization categories. This final 
rule responds to comments received on the IFR and reaffirms and 
finalizes the provisions of the IFR. Ending the automatic extension of 
EADs enhances benefit integrity and prioritizes the proper vetting and 
screening of aliens before granting a new period of employment 
authorization and/or a new EAD.

DATES:  This final rule is effective on October 14, 2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Business and Foreign Workers Division, 
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, MD, Camp Springs, 
20746; telephone (240) 721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Basis and Purpose
    B. Legal Authority
    C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    D. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
    A. Legal Authority
    B. Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization and 
Documentation
    C. Increasing the Automatic Extension Period From a Maximum of 
180 Days to a Maximum of 540 Days
    D. The 2025 Interim Final Rule Removed Automatic Extensions for 
Certain Employment Authorization Documents
    1. Added New 8 CFR 274a.13(e)
    2. Modified the Heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d)
    E. Severability
III. Changes in the Final Rule
IV. Response to Public Comments on the Interim Final Rule
    A. Summary of Comments
    B. Comments in Support of the Rule
    C. Comments in Opposition to the Rule and Mixed Comments
    1. DHS Legal Authority
    i. DHS Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent
    ii. Constitutional Concerns
    iii. International Law and Refugee Protections
    2. DHS Justification and Need for the Rule
    i. Security Rationale for the Rule
    a. General Security Rationale Comments
    b. Lack of Evidence Supporting Security Rationale
    c. Prior Vetting of Renewal Applicants and Existing Security 
Measures
    d. Rule Would Not Strengthen Security
    e. Other Comments on Security Rationale
    ii. Consistency in USCIS Rationale and Reversal of Longstanding 
Policy
    iii. Lack of Acknowledgement of the Backlog and Other 
Operational Realities
    iv. ``Proper Planning'' Rationale
    3. Rationale for Eliminating the Automatic Extension of EADs
    4. Impact on USCIS Processing
    i. Administrative Burden and Efficiency
    ii. Processing Timelines
    iii. Procedural Fairness
    iv. General or Mixed Feedback on USCIS Processing
    5. Combined Impacts on Individuals, Employers, the Economy, and 
Specific EAD Categories
    i. Impacts on Aliens, Families, and Communities
    a. General Hardship, Fairness, Educational Disruptions, and 
Family Impacts
    b. Mental Health and Vulnerability, Including Risk of 
Exploitation
    c. Identification, Driver's Licenses, and Access to Services
    ii. Employment, Employers, and Economic Impacts
    a. Employer Burdens, Business Continuity, and Sector Specific 
Concerns
    b. Immigrant Contributions to the Economy and Macroeconomic and 
Local Economic Impacts of the Rule
    iii. Relief for Specific Immigration Categories
    a. Impact on Refugees, Asylees, Asylum Seekers, Unaccompanied 
Alien Children (UACs), and Other Humanitarian Categories
    b. Impact on Employment-Based Nonimmigrants, Their Dependents, 
and Employment-Based Green Card Applicants
    6. Clarification Request
    7. Recommendations for the Automatic Extension and EAD Validity 
Period
    i. Maintain the Automatic Extension, Including Various Lengths 
of the Extension Period
    ii. Consecutive EAD Validity Periods
    iii. Allowing Application Filing Earlier Than 180 days
    iv. Enhanced Vetting
    8. Processing Capacity and Timelines
    i. Timely Processing of Renewals
    ii. Increase Resources and Staffing
    iii. Prioritize Initial EAD Reviews
    9. Coordination, Guidance, and Outreach
    i. Additional Guidance and Communication
    ii. Accountability
    10. Other Alternatives and Recommendations
    11. Administrative Procedure Act
    i. ``Good Cause'' for Bypassing the Notice and Comment Period
    ii. ``Foreign Affairs'' Exception
    iii. Reasoned Decision-Making Requirement
    iv. Arbitrary and Capricious/Procedural Deficiencies That 
Violate the APA
    v. Reliance Interests
    vi. Failure To Consider Alternatives
    vii. Comment Period
    viii. Comment Submission Requirements
    12. Regulatory Impact Analysis
    i. Methodology
    ii. Impact on Individuals
    iii. Impact on the U.S. Economy, Employers, and Labor Force
    iv. Other Comments on the RIA
    13. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    14. Paperwork Reduction Act
    15. General Comments on Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    D. Additional Out of Scope Comments
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    A. Administrative Procedure Act: Delayed Effective Date
    B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 
and 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
    1. Affected Population
    2. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule
    Module A
    Module B
    Module C
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    H. Family Assessment
    I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    J. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    K. Paperwork Reduction Act
List of Subjects and Regulatory Amendments

Table of Abbreviations

    APA--Administrative Procedure Act
    CBP--U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    CDAO--Chief Data and Analytics Office
    CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CRA--Congressional Review Act
DHS--U.S. Department of Homeland Security
EAD--employment authorization document
E.O.--Executive Order
Form I-765--Application for Employment Authorization
FY--Fiscal Year
HSA--Homeland Security Act of 2002
ICE--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IFR--Interim final rule
IIRIRA--Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
of 1996
INA--Immigration and Nationality Act
ISO--Immigration Service Officer

[[Page 65307]]

NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OPQ--Office of Performance and Quality
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Secretary--Secretary of Homeland Security
TFR--Temporary final rule
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S.C.--United States Code
USCIS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

I. Executive Summary

A. Basis and Purpose

    DHS's mission is to safeguard the American people, our homeland, 
and our values with honor and integrity. In service of that mission, 
DHS protects the United States from threats by terrorists, criminals, 
smugglers, transnational criminal organizations, failed-state actors, 
and unpredictable lone offenders that constitute present and future 
threats to public safety and national security.
    USCIS issues EADs to certain classes of aliens. These documents are 
valid for a specified period. Aliens who intend to continue their 
employment beyond the date specified on their EAD must generally file 
an application to renew their employment authorization and/or EAD.
    The automatic extension of the validity of an EAD grants the alien 
the benefit of extending his or her expired employment authorization 
and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal EAD application and 
without first completing adjudicative review and related vetting, 
including resolution of any derogatory information identified during 
the vetting process. That is, the automatic extension allows for the 
granting of the benefit without USCIS first performing the following 
actions: an eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening 
checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in 
connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment 
authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if 
applicable.
    On October 30, 2025, DHS issued an IFR titled, ``Removal of the 
Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents,'' with a 
request for comment. See 90 FR 48799 (Oct. 30, 2025). The IFR amended 
DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the 
validity of EADs for aliens in certain employment authorization 
categories who timely filed an application to renew their EAD. After 
careful consideration of the public comments submitted in connection 
with the IFR, DHS is reaffirming and finalizing the IFR without 
changes. The rationale and reasoning provided in the preamble for the 
IFR remains unchanged with respect to the regulatory amendments, and 
DHS, therefore, adopts such reasoning also to support this final rule.
    In reaffirming and finalizing the changes made in the IFR, the 
purpose of this rule remains the same as articulated in the IFR: to 
prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensure 
continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment 
authorization and/or a new EAD by ending the practice of automatically 
extending the validity of employment authorization and/or EADs for 
certain employment authorization categories.
    Ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of EADs is 
consistent with Section 16 of President Trump's directive in Executive 
Order (E.O.) 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 
which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with 
the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to take all 
appropriate action to align any departmental activities with the 
policies set out by the President and to ensure, among others, ``that 
employment authorization is provided in a manner consistent with 
section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a), 
and that employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized 
alien in the United States.'' \1\ It is also consistent with Section 2 
of E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and 
Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, which directs the 
Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National 
Intelligence to ``identify all resources that may be used to ensure 
that all aliens seeking admission to the United States, or who are 
already in the United States, are vetted and screened to the maximum 
degree possible.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against 
Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).
    \2\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign 
Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats 
(Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Legal Authority

    The legal basis of this rulemaking is found in section 103(a) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which 
authorizes the Secretary to administer and enforce the immigration and 
nationality laws and establish such regulations as the Secretary deems 
necessary for carrying out such authority, and section 101(b)(1)(F) of 
the Homeland Security Act (HSA), 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), which 
establishes as a primary mission of DHS the duty to ``ensure that the 
overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by 
efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.''

C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    This final rule adopts the IFR as final, without any changes, after 
careful consideration of the comments received. Accordingly, DHS is 
adopting as final the following changes that the IFR has made:
    <bullet> Revised the heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d) to clearly 
indicate that the up-to-540-day automatic extension period only applies 
to renewal EAD applications filed before October 30, 2025.
    <bullet> Added new 8 CFR 274a.13(e). The new provision explains 
that, unless otherwise provided in 8 CFR 274a.13(d), by law, or through 
a Federal Register notice for Temporary Protected Status (TPS)-related 
employment documentation, the validity period of an expired or expiring 
Employment Authorization Document and/or employment authorization will 
not be automatically extended by a renewal EAD application filed on or 
after October 30, 2025.
    DHS explained in the IFR that the IFR did not impact the validity 
of EADs that were automatically extended prior to October 30, 2025. It 
also explained that the IFR did not impact automatic extensions of EADs 
and/or employment authorization provided by law or Federal Register 
notices, such as those for TPS applicants pursuant to section 244 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and 8 CFR part 244.\3\ This final rule 
similarly does not impact these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ However, on July 4, 2025, Congress passed and the President 
signed into law sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) of the One Big 
Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat.72 (July 4, 2025) 
(H.R 1), which limit the validity period of any employment 
authorization for aliens granted TPS under section 244 of the INA, 8 
U.S.C. 1254a, to a period of one year or for the duration of the 
designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Costs and Benefits

    This final rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory 
action'' and economically significant as defined under section 3(f)(1) 
of E.O. 12866, because its annual effects on the economy may exceed 
$100 million in any year of the analysis. Accordingly, this rule has 
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

[[Page 65308]]

    This final rule reaffirms and finalizes changes made by the IFR to 
DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the 
validity of employment authorization documents (Forms I-766 or EADs) 
for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in 
certain employment authorization categories. The purpose of this change 
is to prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens and ensure 
continued eligibility before granting a new period of employment 
authorization and/or a new EAD. This final rule does not affect the 
validity of EADs that were automatically extended prior to the IFR. In 
previous rules providing for the automatic extension of EADs based on 
the timely filing of a renewal EAD application, DHS attempted to 
stabilize aliens' earnings and avoid labor turnover costs of employers. 
However, as explained in the IFR, the Department has shifted focus to 
prioritizing public safety and national security, and ensuring that 
aliens continue to be eligible and merit a favorable exercise of 
discretion, as applicable, before being granted continued employment 
authorization. See 90 FR 48799, 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025).
    DHS has prepared two types of quantified estimates of the impacts 
generated by this final rule. For a single 18-month window (starting in 
May 2027) from about 20,000 to 33,000 EADs are estimated to lapse, 
based on several assumptions. This rule may result in some EAD holders 
incurring a loss of earnings (``reduced earnings'') because of USCIS 
process delays for renewal EAD applications, as under this rule there 
could be disruption to their earnings due to a lapsed EAD. Such 
earnings loss to aliens could comprise beneficial transfers to other 
U.S. workers if the substitution of the latter for the former is 
relatively frictionless. Additionally, to the extent this rule affects 
EAD holders' jobs going unfilled, there will be impacts to tax 
transfers from businesses and employees to the Federal Government.\4\ 
This rule will also generate labor turnover costs to businesses that 
employ the affected-lapsed EAD holders, as under this rule there would 
be a disruption to the EAD holders' employment authorization and/or 
document validity. In conducting these estimates DHS emphasizes that 
variation in factors involved in the impact, including impact 
processing times, filing volumes, the timing of renewal filings, and 
underlying benefit requests, will cause variation in the impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This rule could also result in a reduction in State and 
local tax revenue, but this impact is not quantified in this 
analysis due to variations in state and local tax laws and 
individual's tax scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to variation in future populations and process times, there is 
likely to be substantial variation in the impact estimates. For this 
reason, DHS develops wide ranges capturing a high and low bound for the 
estimates, in terms of the means (expected value). This rule is 
estimated to result in $138.1 million in lost productivity costs to 
employers that are not able to easily replace aliens with lapsed EADs, 
costs of $312.1 million to U.S. employers from potential labor 
turnover, transfers due to earnings changes worth $138.1 million from 
employment-authorized aliens to replacement workers and is expected to 
generate tax reduction impacts of $14.5 million over an 18-month 
period. Approximately 1,700 and 2,800 employers are estimated to be 
impacted.
    Section V.B. provides an A-4 accounting statement supporting the 
analysis and the accompanying economic analysis details the data and 
methodology supporting the impact estimates.

II. Background

A. Legal Authority

    The Secretary of Homeland Security's (Secretary) authority for the 
regulatory amendments made in this final rule are found in various 
sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and the HSA, Public Law 
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (codified in part at 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.).
    General authority for issuing this rule is found in section 103(a) 
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to 
administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws and 
establish such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for 
carrying out such authority, as well as section 102 of the HSA, 6 
U.S.C. 112, which vests all of the functions of DHS in the Secretary 
and authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations.\5\ Further authority 
for this rule is found in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although several provisions of the INA discussed in this 
final rule refer exclusively to the ``Attorney General,'' such 
provisions are now to be read as referring to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security by operation of the HSA. See 6 U.S.C. 202(3), 251, 
271(b), 542 note, 557; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) and (g), 1551 note; 
Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397 n.2 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), which 
provides the Secretary with authority to grant employment 
authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for asylum if 
180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum;
    <bullet> Section 214 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184, including section 
214(a)(1) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1), which authorizes the 
Secretary to prescribe, by regulation, the time and conditions of the 
admission of nonimmigrants;
    <bullet> Section 244(a)(1)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B), 
which states that the Secretary shall authorize employment and provide 
evidence of employment authorization for aliens who have been granted 
Temporary Protected Status;
    <bullet> Section 274A(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(b), which 
provides for the employment verification system and outlines employment 
eligibility verification requirements;
    <bullet> Section 274A(h)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), 
which recognizes the Secretary's authority to extend employment 
authorization to aliens in the United States; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Courts have acknowledged that Congress delegated authority 
to DHS to grant or extend employment authorization to certain 
classes of aliens. See, e.g., Wash. All. of Tech. Workers v. DHS, 50 
F.4th 164, 191-192 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (``What matters is that section 
1324a(h)(3) expressly acknowledges that employment authorization 
need not be specifically conferred by statute; it can also be 
granted by regulation.''). DHS is exercising this discretionary 
authority consistent with all applicable authorities, including the 
referenced authorities in the HSA, and sections 103, 208, 214, 244, 
and 274A(h)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1184, 1254a, and 
1324a(h)(3), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 
553. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2263 
(2024) (``In a case involving an agency, of course, the statute's 
meaning may well be that the agency is authorized to exercise a 
degree of discretion. Congress has often enacted such statutes. For 
example, some statutes `expressly delegate' to an agency the 
authority to give meaning to a particular statutory term. Others 
empower an agency to prescribe rules to `fill up the details' of a 
statutory scheme, or to regulate subject to the limits imposed by a 
term or phrase that leaves agencies with flexibility, such as 
`appropriate' or `reasonable.' '') (internal citations omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) of the One Big Beautiful 
Bill Act, Public Law 119-21 (July 4, 2025), which limit the validity 
period of any employment authorization for aliens granted TPS under 
section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, to either a period of one year 
or for the duration of the designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.

B. Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization and Documentation

    Before November 2016, 8 CFR 274a.13(d) stated that USCIS would 
adjudicate an EAD application within 90 days of receipt. If USCIS did 
not adjudicate the EAD application within that timeframe, the alien was 
eligible to request an interim EAD with a validity period not to exceed 
240 days.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 8 CFR 274a.13(d) (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 18, 2016, as part of DHS's efforts to implement the 
American Competitiveness in the

[[Page 65309]]

Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (AC21), DHS published a final rule 
that eliminated Interim EADs and replaced them with a maximum 180-day 
automatic extension period for certain renewal applicants.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Increasing the Automatic Extension Period From a Maximum of 180 Days 
to a Maximum of 540 Days

    Since the promulgation of the final rule authorizing up to 180-day 
automatic extension period for certain renewal EAD applicants, USCIS' 
ability to process both initial and renewal EAD applications within 
USCIS' targeted processing times was adversely impacted by a variety of 
temporary circumstances.\9\ In May 2022 \10\ and April 2024,\11\ DHS 
temporarily increased the automatic extension from up to 180 days to up 
to 540 days. The May 2022 and April 2024 temporary final rules were 
intended to reduce the number of renewal EAD applicants eligible for an 
automatic extension of their EAD validity under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) 
experiencing lapses in their employment authorization and/or EAD 
validity because of USCIS processing delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 87 FR 26614, 26617-26 (May 4, 2022) (identifying USCIS' 
precarious fiscal status, the COVID-19 public health emergency, and 
dramatic increases in Form I-765 filings); see also 89 FR 24628, 
24634-40 (Apr. 8, 2024) (identifying an increase in referrals to 
USCIS for Credible Fear Assessment and an increase in affirmative 
and defensive asylum filings as contributing factors to increased 
EAD processing times).
    \10\ 87 FR 26614 (May 4, 2022) (temporarily increased the 
automatic extension period to up to 540 days).
    \11\ 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024) (temporarily increased the 
automatic extension period to up to 540 days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also issued a final rule in December 2024 \12\ that 
indefinitely increased the up to 540-day automatic extension for 
certain applications pending on May 4, 2022, or properly filed on or 
after May 4, 2022. That rule was intended to reduce the effects of 
unknown future circumstances that could significantly impact EAD 
renewal processing times.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024) (permanently increased the 
automatic extension period to up to 540 days).
    \13\ See 89 FR 101210 (``When unforeseen future circumstances 
cause processing times to extend beyond 180 days and result in large 
scale lapses in renewal EADs, this permanent adjustment of the 
automatic extension period to 540 days will result in benefits and 
cost savings, such as stabilized earnings and avoided labor turnover 
costs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The 2025 Interim Final Rule Removed Automatic Extensions for Certain 
Employment Authorization Documents

    The IFR amended DHS regulations to end the practice of 
automatically extending the validity of certain EADs. See 8 CFR 
274a.13(e). The IFR did not impact the automatic extensions already 
granted to renewal EAD applicants under 8 CFR 274a.13(d)(1), if the 
renewal EAD application was filed before October 30, 2025. See 8 CFR 
274a.13(d). The IFR also did not impact automatic extensions otherwise 
provided by law or in an applicable Federal Register notice regarding 
procedures for renewing TPS-related employment documentation pursuant 
to section 244 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, and 8 CFR part 244.\14\ See 
8 CFR 274a.13(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DHS notes, however, that sections 100003(c) and 100012(a) 
of H.R. 1, Public Law 119-21 (2025), 139 Stat. 221 (2025) (codified 
at 8 U.S.C. 1802-1815), limits the validity period of any employment 
authorization for aliens granted TPS under section 244 of the INA, 8 
U.S.C. 1254a, to a period of 1 year or for the duration of the 
designation of TPS, whichever is shorter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IFR made two changes to the regulations governing EAD, as 
discussed below.
1. Added New 8 CFR 274a.13(e)
    The IFR added a new paragraph (e) that went into effect immediately 
with the publication of the IFR on October 30, 2025. With 8 CFR 
274a.13(e), DHS eliminated the practice of providing automatic 
extension periods for employment authorization and/or EAD validity for 
up to 540 days for renewal applications filed on or after October 30, 
2025. Therefore, renewal EAD applicants no longer receive an up to 540-
day automatic extension of their employment authorization and/or EAD 
validity if they file their application on or after October 30, 2025. 
See 8 CFR 274a.13(e).
    Except as otherwise provided by law, in 8 CFR 274a.13(d), or in 
accordance with an applicable Federal Register notice regarding 
procedures for renewing TPS-related employment documentation, an 
alien's employment authorization and/or EAD validity will expire as 
explained in the following paragraphs:
    For those aliens who are employment authorized incident to status 
under 8 CFR 274a.12(a), unless otherwise provided by law, their EAD 
will expire on the day after the end validity date stated on the face 
of the EAD. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e)(1). Because the alien's employment 
authorization is tied to the alien's status in the United States, the 
alien's employment authorization will not expire on the date indicated 
on the EAD. Instead, the alien's employment authorization will expire 
or terminate on the same date the alien's status in the United States 
expires or terminates.
    For example, an alien in L-2 nonimmigrant status as the spouse of 
an L-1 nonimmigrant is employment authorized incident to status. See 
INA sec. 214(c)(2)(E), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(E). If the L-2 nonimmigrant 
chooses to apply for an EAD to evidence his or her employment 
authorization, the EAD will expire as of the date indicated on the face 
of the EAD. In some cases that may be the same date as the expiration 
of the L-2's nonimmigrant status. But in other cases, the L-2 status 
expiration date may be after the EAD expiration date, particularly if 
the L-2 nonimmigrant travelled outside of the United States after 
obtaining an EAD and, upon return to the United States, was provided a 
new status expiration date that will expire after the EAD expires.\15\ 
In that scenario, the L-2 nonimmigrant would remain employment 
authorized while in L-2 nonimmigrant status, even after the EAD 
expires, but the expired EAD would no longer be a valid document to 
evidence the L-2 nonimmigrant's employment authorization.\16\ Once the 
alien is no longer in L-2 status (for example, the L-2 nonimmigrant 
status expires), the alien would no longer be employment authorized as 
an L-2 nonimmigrant because such employment authorization is dependent 
on being in L-2 nonimmigrant status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In this case, the new status expiration date is the date 
stated on the alien's Form I-94, Arrival Departure document.
    \16\ An L-2 can still have other evidence of documentation of 
employment authorization, such as a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure 
Record, designated with the L-2S classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For aliens who are not employment authorized incident to their 
immigration status and who instead must obtain employment authorization 
from USCIS, pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c) before accepting employment in 
the United States, such as adjustment of status applicants or aliens 
with a pending asylum application, USCIS determines the length of the 
period of employment authorization in the exercise of its discretion 
and thereafter issues an EAD reflecting the validity period.\17\ 
Therefore, the EAD will expire and the employment authorization will 
terminate the day after the end validity

[[Page 65310]]

date stated on the face of the EAD based upon the situations outlined 
in 8 CFR 274a.14, or for aliens with employment authorization under 8 
CFR 274a.12(c)(19) based on a pending TPS application, pursuant to 
section 244 of the Act and 8 CFR part 244 \18\ See 8 CFR 274a.13(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Employment authorization granted pursuant to 8 CFR 
274a.12(c) is generally granted in the discretion of the Secretary. 
See 8 CFR 274a.13(a)(1) (``The approval of applications filed under 
8 CFR 274a.12(c), except for 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(8), are within the 
discretion of USCIS.'').
    \18\ For example, employment authorization may also end prior to 
the expiration date displayed on the EAD, in accordance with 8 CFR 
274a.14, if exclusion or deportation proceedings are instituted 
against the alien; if a condition upon which the EAD was granted has 
not been met or no longer exists; or upon a showing that the 
information contained in the request for an EAD was not true and 
correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, an alien with a pending adjustment of status 
application (Form I-485) has an EAD that expires on May 30, 2026. The 
alien's adjustment of status application has not been adjudicated and 
continues to be pending. The alien is eligible to apply for a renewal 
EAD based on the pending adjustment of status application. The alien 
applies for a renewal of the EAD on February 4, 2026, which is after 
the October 30, 2025, effective date of the IFR. The alien will 
maintain continuous employment authorization if his or her renewal 
application is granted before his or her current employment 
authorization expires on May 30, 2026. If the renewal EAD application 
remains unadjudicated on May 31, 2026, the alien cannot continue to 
work for his or her employer on or after May 31, 2026, unless the alien 
is employment authorized on a separate basis. See 8 CFR 274a.13(e). If 
the renewal EAD application is subsequently approved, the alien would 
again be employment authorized and may resume employment during the 
validity period stated on the new EAD. The longer an alien waits to 
file a renewal EAD application, the more likely it is that he or she 
may experience a temporary lapse in his or her employment authorization 
and/or EAD validity.
2. Modified the Heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d)
    On December 13, 2024, DHS published a final rule amending 8 CFR 
274a.13(d) to permanently increase the automatic extension period for 
certain employment authorization and/or EAD validity. The rule became 
effective on January 13, 2025.\19\ DHS is retaining the provision 
granting an automatic extension for those aliens who had timely filed a 
renewal EAD request before October 30, 2025, and who otherwise meet the 
requirements of 8 CFR 274a.13(d). The IFR amended 8 CFR 274a.13(d) by 
revising the paragraph's heading to reflect that the paragraph applies 
to renewal requests properly filed before October 30, 2025, to avoid 
confusion between the automatic extension period granted under 8 CFR 
274a.13(d) for those renewal EAD requests filed prior to October 30, 
2025, and those filed on the day of or after the publication of the 
IFR. With this final rule, DHS is adopting and finalizing the changes 
made by the IFR and not making any additional changes to the 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 13, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This change to the heading of 8 CFR 274a.13(d) ensures that the IFR 
and this rule do not retroactively affect those aliens who have already 
timely and properly filed a renewal EAD application before October 30, 
2025. For these aliens, an EAD that appears on its face to be expired 
(``facially expired'') is considered unexpired under this rule for up 
to 540 days from the expiration date on the front of the EAD when 
combined with a Notice of Action (Form I-797C) indicating timely filing 
(that is, the receipt notice for the Form I-765 issued by USCIS has a 
receipt date that is before the expiration date on the EAD and before 
October 30, 2025) of the renewal application based on the same 
employment eligibility category as stated on the facially expired EAD 
(or in the case of an EAD and I-797C notice) that contains either an 
A12 or C19 category code, the category codes need not match). In those 
cases, the alien's facially expired EAD is considered unexpired for up 
to 540 days from the expiration date on the face of the EAD.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ If an adjustment of status applicant's (C09) EAD card is 
combined with the advance parole authorization, i.e., the applicant 
is issued a combo card (in this case, the EAD itself has an 
annotation ``SERVES AS I-512 ADVANCE PAROLE''), the up-to-540-day 
automatic extension under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) does not apply to the 
advance parole part of the applicant's combo card.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS updated the web page on the USCIS website with the 
appropriate information.\21\ USCIS also updated I-9 Central on the 
USCIS website and the Handbook for Employers, M-274, to provide 
employers and employees with additional guidance.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The website entitled ``Automatic Employment Authorization 
Document (EAD) Extension'' has been archived in light of the IFR but 
the web page is still available for viewing at <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/archive/automatic-employment-authorization-document-ead-extension">https://www.uscis.gov/archive/automatic-employment-authorization-document-ead-extension</a> (last updated Oct. 29, 2025).
    \22\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.0 Automatic 
Extensions of Employment Authorization and/or Employment 
Authorization Documents (EADs) in Certain Circumstances (last 
updated Oct. 30, 2025), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-9">https://www.uscis.gov/i-9</a>-central/form-i-9-
resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automatic-extensions-of-
employment-authorization-andor-employment-authorization-documents-
eads-in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Severability

    In issuing this final rule, like the IFR, DHS continues to intend 
that the rule's various provisions be considered severable from one 
another to the greatest extent possible. For instance, if a court of 
competent jurisdiction were to hold that ending the practice of 
automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or 
EADs for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their 
employment authorization and/or EAD in certain employment categories 
may only be applied to a particular category of renewal EAD applicants 
or in a particular circumstance, DHS would intend for the court to 
leave the remainder of the rule in place with respect to all other 
covered persons and circumstances. DHS's overarching goal is to 
militate against threats to national security and public safety and to 
ensure that employment authorization and/or EADs are provided only 
after USCIS conducts adequate vetting and determines that the alien 
continues to be eligible and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, 
if applicable.

III. Changes in the Final Rule

    This final rule adopts as final, without change, the amendments to 
8 CFR 274a.13(d) and (e) in the IFR, published on October 30, 2025, at 
90 FR 48799.

IV. Response to Public Comments on the Interim Final Rule

A. Summary of Comments

    When issuing the IFR, DHS invited the public to participate in the 
rulemaking by submitting post-promulgation comments on every aspect of 
the rule. DHS provided a 33-day comment period following the 
publication of the IFR. DHS received 653 public comment submissions in 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal site under Docket ID Number USCIS-2025-
0271 \23\ in response to the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The comments can be viewed by visiting the docket for this 
rule on the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2025-0271-0001/comment">https://www.regulations.gov/document/USCIS-2025-0271-0001/comment</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments were submitted by a range of entities and individuals, 
including attorneys and legal service providers, applicants, individual 
commenters, professional organizations, unions, advocacy groups, 
religious organizations, research and community organizations, and 
State and local government agencies or elected officials. Some 
commenters expressed support for the rule or offered suggestions for 
improvement. Some expressed general opposition to the rule, and some 
offered alternatives. For some of the public

[[Page 65311]]

comments, DHS could not ascertain whether the commenter supported or 
opposed the IFR. Finally, some commenters addressed topics outside the 
scope of this rulemaking.
    DHS carefully reviewed all the public comments received in response 
to the IFR and addresses relevant comments in this final rule, grouped 
by subject area.

B. Comments in Support of the Rule

    Comment: Several commenters supported the rule based on national 
security concerns, citing the need for proper vetting of nonimmigrant 
workers. Specifically, they stated that the rule would allow for 
thorough vetting of nonimmigrants before DHS extends their 
authorization to work in the United States. Commenters called the rule 
a ``critical'' measure to support the safety and security of the 
public. One commenter emphasized that working in the United States is a 
privilege, not a right, while another said that safety and national 
security should be government's highest priority.
    Several commenters supported the rule based on concerns about fraud 
and abuse in the visa system, stating, for example, that it would help 
deter potential fraud and abuse by preventing aliens from remaining in 
the workforce for extended periods without final adjudication of their 
eligibility.
    Multiple commenters supported the rule based on concerns about 
protecting job opportunities for American citizens. A commenter stated 
that automatic extensions keep nonimmigrant workers employed without 
timely reevaluation, allowing them to compete with American workers for 
positions while requiring renewed authorization before continuing 
employment ensures that only eligible aliens remain in the workforce.
    Response: DHS agrees that this rule safeguards the process to fully 
evaluate the applicants in order to determine continued eligibility, 
identify national security and public safety concerns, and enhance 
fraud prevention through robust vetting and screening processes. This 
administration prioritizes the safety of the American people. Ensuring 
that employment authorization and/or EADs are provided only after USCIS 
conducts adequate vetting and determines that the alien continues to be 
eligible and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable, 
better protects national security, public safety, and the integrity of 
the immigration system. This rule is part of a larger DHS effort to 
reduce frivolous, fraudulent, and otherwise non-meritorious EAD filings 
and focus adjudicatory and other resources on ensuring national 
security and program integrity.

C. Comments in Opposition to the Rule and Mixed Comments

1. DHS Legal Authority
i. DHS Statutory Authority and Congressional Intent
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested that the rule be withdrawn 
stating that the rule contradicts DHS's statutory mandate, including 
the mandate to ensure that ``the overall economic security of the 
United States is not diminished by efforts . . . aimed at securing the 
homeland'' under 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F). Many of these commenters stated 
that, consistent with this statutory mandate, DHS recently concluded 
that a 540-day automatic EAD extension was necessary to protect 
employers and workers from lapses in work authorization due to USCIS 
delays, and DHS previously found that even the 180-day extension 
established under the 2016 Final Rule was not enough time to avoid 
harmful gaps in work authorization.
    Response: DHS disagrees that this rule is inconsistent with DHS's 
statutory mandate, including the mandate under 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F). 
According to 6 U.S.C. 111(b), DHS's primary mission includes preventing 
terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing the vulnerability 
of the United States to terrorism, minimizing the damage, and assisting 
in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that occur within the United 
States, and ensuring that the overall economic security of the United 
States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at 
securing the homeland. See 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), and (F). 
While the provision does not specifically define ``economic security,'' 
another provision within 6 U.S.C. Chapter 1 (Homeland Security 
Organization), defines ``economic security'' as the ``condition of 
having secure and resilient domestic production capacity, combined with 
reliable access to the global resources necessary to maintain an 
acceptable standard of living and to protect core national values.'' 
See 6 U.S.C. 474(c)(2).\24\ In addition, DHS is charged with the 
implementation of section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, preventing 
unlawful employment of aliens. This rule, which is part of an effort to 
secure the homeland, supports DHS's mission as provided by Congress in 
6 U.S.C. 111(b) and section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, ensures 
lawful employment, and supports the overall national and economic 
security of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Sorenson v. Sec'y of Treasury of U.S., 475 U.S. 851, 
860 (1986) (``The normal rule of statutory construction assumes that 
identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended 
to have the same meaning.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ending the practice of providing automatic extension of employment 
authorization and/or EADs enhances the benefit integrity in 
adjudications of employment authorization requests and better protects 
public safety and national security by ensuring that aliens are 
properly vetted and determined to be eligible (and merit a favorable 
exercise of discretion, if applicable), for employment authorization 
before such authorization is provided to the alien. The automatic 
extension of an EAD grants the benefit of extending an alien's expired 
employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a timely renewal 
EAD application and without first completing adjudicative review and 
related vetting, including resolution of any derogatory information 
identified during the vetting process. That is, the benefit is granted 
without USCIS first performing the following actions: an eligibility 
determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving 
potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien, 
and a determination that the employment authorization should be renewed 
in the exercise of discretion, if applicable. Without the IFR and this 
final rule, aliens could still obtain an automatic extension despite 
derogatory information that could flag them as national security or 
public safety risks. Automatic extensions, therefore, pose a security 
risk.
    DHS is charged with combating unauthorized employment in accordance 
with section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, which Congress 
implemented, among other reasons, because of the detrimental negative 
effect that unauthorized employment and illegal immigration has on the 
United States and the national economy.\25\ Sections 103 and 274A of

[[Page 65312]]

the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, among other provisions, 
provide DHS and USCIS with considerable flexibility to administer and 
enforce the INA, including granting employment authorization and the 
issuance of an EAD. There is no generally applicable statutory mandate 
that requires DHS to provide an automatic extension. As explained in 
the IFR, the automatic extension carries the risk that employers 
unwittingly continue to employ a worker whose employment authorization 
is in fact no longer valid. See 90 FR at 48810. This includes that 
aliens may no longer be entitled to employment authorization because 
they no longer have an underlying status which entitles them to work. 
Additionally, vetting every alien before granting an immigration 
benefit, including employment authorization, has been one of the key 
considerations of Congress.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a was codified as 
part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Public Law 
99-603, for the purpose of controlling illegal immigration to the 
United States by, among other things, establishing penalties for 
employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens and prohibiting the 
employment of aliens who are unauthorized to work in the United 
States either because they entered the country illegally or are in 
an immigration status which does not permit employment. See H. Rep. 
No. 99-682, 46, 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5650. The legislative 
history reflects that Congress considered, among other things, 
evidence of prior studies demonstrating the adverse impact of 
illegal immigration that warranted legislation to protect U.S. labor 
and the economy. See, e.g., H. Rep. 99-682, 46--52, 1986 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5649-5656 [``The need for control is underscored 
by international demographics. Undocumented aliens tend to come from 
countries with high population growth and few employment 
opportunities. The United States is not in a position to redress 
this imbalance by absorbing these workers into our economy and our 
population. U.S. unemployment currently stands at 7%, and is much 
higher among the minority groups with whom undocumented workers 
compete for jobs most directly . . . Extensive investigative and 
legislative hearings on the problem of undocumented aliens were held 
during the 92d Congress beginning in 1971, by the House Judiciary 
Subcommittee with special jurisdiction over immigration matters, 
then under the chairmanship of Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr. 
Quoting from a 1975 House Judiciary Committee report, `The basic 
conclusion reached by the majority of the members of the 
subcommittee as a result of the hearings was that the adverse impact 
of illegal aliens was substantial, and warranted legislation both to 
protect U.S. labor and the economy, and to assure the orderly entry 
of immigrants into this country.' (H. Rept. 94-506, p. 3)''].
    \26\ For example, the Congressional recommendation to establish 
an organization ``responsible for developing, implementing, 
directing, and overseeing the joint USCIS-Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE) anti-fraud initiative and conducting law 
enforcement/background checks on every applicant, beneficiary, and 
petitioner prior to granting immigration benefits.'' See Conference 
Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report 108-774], ``Making 
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,'' p. 74, <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf">https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf</a> [emphasis added]. 
In response to this recommendation, the Fraud and National Security 
Division (FDNS) was established at USCIS. See USCIS, DHS, ``Fraud 
Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate,'' <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/organization/directorates-and-program-offices/fraud-detection-and-national-security-directorate">https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/organization/directorates-and-program-offices/fraud-detection-and-national-security-directorate</a> (last updated Apr. 16, 
2026); USCIS, ``Fraud Detection and Nat'l Security Directorate 
(FDNS),'' May 2022, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/brochures/FDNS_Brochure_Web_V2_508.pdf">https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/brochures/FDNS_Brochure_Web_V2_508.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule does not eliminate employment authorizations or prevent 
eligible aliens from obtaining EADs for employment purposes or proof of 
identity; or from seeking and maintaining authorized employment. The 
rule does not reduce economic security. To the contrary, the rule 
supports the condition of having secure and resilient domestic 
production capacity, and protects core national values, as directed by 
Congress, with U.S. workers who are legally authorized to work. 
Therefore, the IFR is consistent with DHS's statutory mandate, 
including the mandate at 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F), because it 
appropriately balances the need for security and vetting while 
maintaining overall EAD eligibility practices.
    DHS is cognizant that prior rulemakings stated that DHS believed, 
at the time, that taking immediate action and providing automatic 
extensions of employment authorization supported USCIS' (as a component 
of DHS) statutory mission to administer employment authorization 
effectively, and as a measure to ensure that the overall economic 
security was not diminished by potentially harmful gaps in employment 
authorizations. See, e.g., 89 FR 101208, 101209 (Dec. 13, 2024); 89 FR 
24628, 24629 and 24651(Apr. 8, 2024). As explained in this response, 
and throughout this rule, DHS believes that the factual situation 
underlying prior rules, in particular the Dec. 13, 2024 rule, have 
significantly changed, including that DHS has taken significant steps 
to reduce the flood of filings of EADs that overwhelmed USCIS' 
adjudicative resources.\27\ Furthermore, the 2024 final rule made the 
automatic extension period permanent based on the presumption that 
harmful gaps would occur given the operational realities at the 
time.\28\ Even if the 2024 final rule had taken into account the 
security posture of the United States, it was unclear how the rule 
furthered the economic security given that the rule was based on 
potential harm to individual applicants and their employers, rather 
than the broader national economy. It is thus unclear how removing the 
automatic extension period, which improves the security posture of the 
United States and is consistent with immigration laws, would undermine 
the overall economic security of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).
    \28\ See 89 FR 101208, 101245 (noting ``the purpose of this 
final rule is to provide a long-term solution to mitigate the 
potential for unpredictable circumstances to significantly increase 
renewal EAD application processing times that would require future 
urgent action).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter asserted that removing the automatic extension 
of employment authorization without ensuring timely adjudication would 
strip lawfully authorized noncitizens \29\ of their ability to work due 
to USCIS processing delays, which, according to the commenter, 
contradicts the intent of the INA and the ``right'' to work in the 
United States. Another commenter stated that the IFR incorrectly states 
that the rule is consistent with section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 
1324a. Another commenter stated that it seems illegal to deny someone a 
renewal when they have followed the law and have filed the renewal 
application in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ USCIS generally refers to ``aliens'' when discussing 
foreign nationals present in the United States. The term ``alien'' 
is a legal term defined in the INA that is used to describe any 
person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. See 
INA sec. 101(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1). Some commenters 
used ``aliens'', but others may have used different terminology 
(such as person or individual). In general, when describing comments 
in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language used in 
those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity. 
Otherwise, DHS has used alien, or applicant, beneficiary, or 
requestor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: DHS disagrees with these commenters' assertions. This 
final rule and the IFR are consistent with section 274A of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1324a, which, among other things, recognizes the Secretary's 
authority to grant employment authorization in his or her discretion. 
DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that aliens have a broadly 
applicable ``right'' to work in the United States. Rather, the INA 
makes clear that aliens, to lawfully work in the United States, must be 
so authorized by law or a grant of employment authorization by the 
Secretary. See INA 274A(h)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3). Contrary to the 
commenters' assertions, this rule does not impact whether DHS will 
renew an alien's employment authorization; it only removes an 
intermediate automatic extension of the EAD period. If DHS determines 
that the alien is eligible for continued employment authorization and 
merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, DHS may grant 
the renewal of employment authorization. This final rule merely ends 
the practice of automatically granting the benefit of continued 
employment authorization without USCIS first performing the following 
actions: eligibility determination, completing vetting and screening 
checks, resolving potential hits of derogatory information in 
connection with the alien, and a determination that the employment 
authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if 
applicable.
    Comment: A commenter stated that, when providing the ability for 
asylum

[[Page 65313]]

seekers to obtain work authorization, Congress could not have intended 
the arbitrary and capricious impact, on both the alien authorized to 
work and the employer who has relied on that alien, of being without 
authorization for an indeterminate amount of time until USCIS 
adjudicates either the asylum application or a new EAD. A commenter 
stated, without pointing to specific provisions, that the IFR should be 
discontinued because its policy changes do not reflect the law or the 
intent of the law or even the will of the people who voted for 
candidates who would make immigration changes.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion. Section 
208(d)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), expressly states that ``[a]n 
applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization,'' 
though it also provides the Secretary with authority to grant 
employment authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for 
asylum if 180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum. 
The IFR, and this final rule, clearly outline the legal authority for 
this change, and are consistent with the Secretary's discretionary 
authority regarding the grant of employment authorization for asylum 
applicants and the duration of such authorization.
ii. Constitutional Concerns
    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed that the IFR raises First 
Amendment concerns, because the IFR suggests that USCIS must evaluate 
whether renewal applicants ``bear hostile attitudes'' toward U.S. 
citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles. 
The commenters reasoned that employment authorization may not be 
conditioned on ideological conformity and that agency action on 
unconstitutional factors may not be sustained as it is constitutionally 
questionable and impermissible. Another commenter stated that an 
ideological screening regime for work authorization renewals would 
further entrench USCIS in DHS's ``troubling pattern'' of suppressing 
First Amendment rights in the name of national security and opens the 
door for USCIS to profile individuals.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters. Citizens and aliens 
may object to various statutes, regulations, and policies and express 
those objections publicly. This rule neither penalizes individuals for 
protected political beliefs or associations nor subjects them to 
activities such as ideological screenings or profiling. This rule does 
not abridge the freedom of speech, of the press, or of association or 
peaceful assembly. Rather, it ends the practice of automatically 
granting the benefit of continued employment authorization without 
USCIS concurrently performing the following actions: eligibility 
determination, completing vetting and screening checks, resolving 
potential hits of derogatory information in connection with the alien, 
or a determination that the employment authorization should be renewed 
in the exercise of discretion, if applicable.
    DHS notes that freedom of speech for aliens is not absolute. See, 
e.g., INA sec. 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) 
(stating that any alien who endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or 
persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a 
terrorist organization, is inadmissible), and INA sec. 
212(a)(6)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (stating that any alien 
who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself 
to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under 
Federal or State law is inadmissible). DHS has a compelling interest in 
vetting and screening aliens before granting a benefit request, 
particularly when such request is granted in USCIS' discretion, as 
applicable.
    DHS also notes that a challenge to the First Amendment cannot lie 
unless an individual establishes that he or she faces a ``credible 
threat of prosecution'' specifically for his or her speech, ``under a 
statute [or rule] that appears to render the [individual]'s arguably 
protected speech illegal.'' See, e.g., Am. Library Ass'n v. Barr, 956 
F.2d 1178, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As indicated above, that is not the 
case in this scenario as neither section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1324a, nor the associated regulations, renders any form of speech 
illegal or attempts to directly or indirectly regulate or penalize 
speech. Rather, the IFR and this final rule subject all EAD renewal 
applicants to the same vetting and screening procedures used for 
initial applications or those applicants who were not previously 
eligible for an automatic extension of their renewal employment 
authorization and/or EAD.
    Comment: Several commenters raised concerns related to due process. 
Referencing the Fifth Amendment, a commenter stated that the IFR 
undermines the right to due process and the right to seek asylum by 
eliminating automatic extensions, which will cause large numbers of 
asylum seekers and other immigrants to lose employment authorization 
through no fault of their own. Another commenter said the rule replaces 
due process with guilt by association and abandons any pretense of a 
fair and rational immigration system. Other commenters expressed 
concerns about due process related to the immediate effective date of 
the IFR, stating that implementation of the IFR appears to be designed 
to reflect and further the current administration's policies and 
efforts toward ``creating and enhancing chaos and dysfunction.''
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the 
IFR, and this final rule by virtue of reaffirming and finalizing the 
IFR, undermine due process or the ability of aliens to request asylum, 
or that it will cause large numbers of asylum seekers or other aliens 
to lose employment authorization.
    In general, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects 
due process rights to a government benefit if the alien has an 
entitlement to it, but a benefit is not a protected entitlement if 
government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion. See Town 
of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756 (2005). There 
is no generally applicable statutory mandate to grant automatic 
extensions of employment authorizations. DHS and USCIS have been 
provided with considerable flexibility and discretion under section 103 
and 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, among other 
provisions, to administer and enforce the INA, including granting 
employment authorization. Therefore, there is generally no cognizable 
due process interest in matters related to automatic extensions of 
employment authorizations and/or EADs. Additionally, contrary to the 
commenter's assertion, the rule does not suggest guilt by association 
or that the immigration system is unfair or irrational. A fair and 
rational immigration system ensures that aliens are sufficiently 
vetted, and any background hits are resolved before a determination is 
made that the alien is eligible for an extension of his or her 
employment authorization and/or an EAD and merits a favorable exercise 
of discretion, as applicable. The examples provided in the IFR do not 
suggest guilt by association. Rather, those examples highlight the 
importance and urgency of ensuring that aliens are not granted 
employment authorization until appropriate adjudicative review has been 
completed, and the risks to the national security and public safety if 
such benefits are granted automatically.
    DHS also disagrees with the assertion that immediate implementation 
of the IFR was designed or intended to create chaos or dysfunction. DHS 
explained in the IFR why it was implementing the

[[Page 65314]]

rule with immediate effect. DHS concluded that the good cause 
exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) apply to the IFR and that 
delaying the implementation of the IFR until the conclusion of notice 
and comment procedures and the delayed effective date would be 
impracticable and contrary to public interest. See 90 FR 48814 (Oct. 
30, 2025). DHS also explained that the IFR was issued with an immediate 
effective date because the rule clearly implicates the foreign affairs 
policy of the United States, and that notice and comment procedure as 
well as a 30-day delayed effective date would result in undesirable 
international consequences. See 90 FR 48816 (Oct. 30, 2025).
iii. International Law and Refugee Protections
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the IFR violates refugee 
protections, including the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of 
Refugees and the Refugee Act of 1980.\30\ One of these commenters said 
the Refugee Act of 1980 specifically enshrines the right of refugees to 
work, obtain documentation, and access education, and UNHCR Guidance 
makes clear that asylum seekers awaiting adjudication of their cases 
are to be afforded the right to work. The commenter said asylum seekers 
must obtain EADs to work while their cases are pending, and gaps in 
EADs restrict the enjoyment of these rights either by directly 
impacting the right to safe work, or because many services require 
documentation for which an EAD may be the only form of proof available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In 1968, the U.S. acceded to the 1967 Protocol Relating to 
the Status of Refugees (``Protocol''), which adopted articles of the 
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (``Convention'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter stated that eliminating the automatic extension 
was contrary to Article 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, because the 
resulting loss of employment and the bar of legal employment impede 
assimilation and naturalization of refugees. The commenter also said 
the IFR was contrary to Article 33's nonrefoulement, and the Refugee 
Convention's and Protocol's mandate to facilitate access to fair and 
efficient refugee status determination procedures that function as a 
safeguard against refoulement. The commenter reasoned that by 
undermining asylum seekers' ability to meet their basic needs through 
legal employment while their claims are pending, the rule obstructs 
access to a fair asylum procedure and risks forcing aliens to abandon 
their claims, potentially resulting in their return to the country of 
persecution.
    A commenter stated that cutting off work authorization from people 
fleeing persecution contradicts our legal obligations and longstanding 
values.
    Response: DHS disagrees that ending the practice of granting 
automatic extensions for EAD renewals is inconsistent with the United 
States' international obligations related to refugee protections, 
including the Refugee Convention and its Protocol and the Refugee Act 
of 1980. Although the United States is party to the 1967 Protocol, 
which incorporates, among others, Articles 17, 33, and 34 of the 1951 
Refugee Convention, the treaty is not self-executing and is not 
directly enforceable in U.S. law. It is the domestic implementing law 
that governs. The Supreme Court and other case law makes clear that the 
Protocol serves only as a useful guide in determining congressional 
intent in enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, because the Act sought to 
bring U.S. law into conformity with the Protocol. See, e.g., INS v. 
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 428 n.22 (1984); Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 
783 (9th Cir. 2009). The United States Congress implemented U.S. 
obligations with respect to certain provisions of the Refugee 
Convention in the Refugee Act of 1980, including in sections 208, 235, 
and 241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, 1225 and 1231, and DHS regulations, 
including 8 CFR part 208 and 1208. Section 208(d)(2) of the INA, 8 
U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), provides the Secretary with authority to grant 
employment authorization, in his or her discretion, to applicants for 
asylum if 180 days have passed since filing an application for asylum.
    The IFR is limited in scope, merely ending the practice of 
automatically extending the validity of employment authorization and/or 
EADs for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD 
in certain employment categories. There is no mandate under 
international or United States law that DHS provide an automatic 
extension of employment authorization and/or EAD validity for aliens 
filing renewal EAD applications, and certainly not without adequately 
being vetted for continued eligibility. Aliens with a pending asylum 
application are permitted to still apply for employment authorization 
as nothing in this rule restricts the ability to apply for an EAD.\31\ 
Rather, the IFR, and this final rule, are consistent with the 
Secretary's discretionary authority regarding the grant of employment 
authorization for asylum applicants and the duration of such 
authorization, and with international obligations, including the 
favorable treatment of those seeking refuge from persecution in their 
countries. DHS finally notes that asylees (but not those with pending 
asylum applications), refugees, and certain other aliens are 
``qualified aliens'' for purpose of receiving public benefits to cover 
basic needs under Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.\32\ Therefore, even if there 
are gaps in employment on account of adjudication delays, these aliens 
may be able to obtain public benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ On December 4, 2025, USCIS changed the validity periods for 
certain other EAD categories, including pending asylum seeker 
(``C08'') to enhance screening and vetting efforts. See DHS, USCIS, 
Policy Alert, Subject: Updating Certain Employment Authorization 
Document Validity Periods (December 4, 2025), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf">https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf</a>. Therefore, C08 applicants now 
must seek renewal of their EAD more often than under the previous 5-
year EAD validity period. DHS, however, cannot accurately predict 
whether this policy change will adversely affect EAD renewal 
processing times, as a likely increase in EAD renewals could be 
offset by other recent or future policy changes. For example, on 
February 23, 2026, DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
proposing to modify filing and eligibility requirements for aliens 
requesting employment authorization based on a pending asylum 
application and an employment authorization document. See 91 FR 8616 
(Feb. 23, 2026). As of the publication of this final rule, the NPRM 
has not been finalized. If finalized as proposed, changes to 
eligibility for C08 employment authorization could significantly 
reduce the number of initial C08 applications and, by extension, the 
longer-term number of renewal applications.
    \32\ Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260 (1996), codified 
at 8 U.S.C. 1601-1646; see 8 U.S.C. 1641(b)(1) and (2) (defining 
asylees and refugees as ``qualified aliens'' eligible for federal 
public benefits); see also 8 U.S.C. 1611(a) (providing that an alien 
who is not defined as a ``qualified alien'' is not eligible for 
federal public benefits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter referenced Article 17 of the Refugee 
Convention, which provides that refugees lawfully in the territory of 
the host state (which would include not only asylees and resettled 
refugees, but all aliens pursuing asylum claims who apply for renewal 
EADs), shall be the accorded the ``most favorable treatment accorded to 
nationals of a foreign country in the same circumstances.'' The 
commenter stated that, because the rule does not end all automatic 
extensions of the validity period of EADs for those applying for 
renewal (for example, TPS-based EAD validity extensions through FRN), 
it provides refugees applying to renew their EADs less favorable 
treatment than other foreign nationals. The commenter concluded that 
the rule is therefore issued in violation of Article 17 of the Refugee 
Convention and should be withdrawn.

[[Page 65315]]

    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters. The United States 
implemented the ``Wage-earning and Employment'' provision of Article 17 
of the 1951 Refugee Convention (as incorporated through the 1967 
Protocol) through sections 207 and 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1157, 1158, 
and implementing regulations at 8 CFR 207, 208 and 274a. Refugees (and 
asylees) \33\ have the right to employment authorization upon arrival, 
with minimal restrictions and are provided a pathway to lawful 
permanent residency because their status in the United States is 
permanent. This approach aligns with Article 17's requirements and 
complies with the U.S. obligation including that these individuals are 
not subject to more restrictive conditions than other foreign nationals 
in similar circumstances. Even if Article 17 were imposing a binding 
obligation, nothing in Article 17 requires DHS to provide employment 
authorization to noncitizens seeking refugee status or asylum before 
DHS or an immigration judge has made a final determination that they 
meet requirements for asylum or refugee status and grant the alien's 
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Asylees are aliens who are physically present in the United 
States or at a U.S. port of entry and who meets the definition of a 
refugee because he or she has a reasonable fear of persecution as 
defined in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). In 
contrast, a refugee is an alien located outside the United States 
who has been determined to have a fear of persecution. Asylees who 
meet the conditions of section 208 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158 are 
afforded the same treatment as refugees in regard to the wage-
earning and employment requirement of Article 17. Contrary to the 
commenter's assertion, applicants for asylum are not asylees or 
covered by Article 17. Even if they were, the United States 
implemented Article 17 through sections 207 and 208 of the INA, 8 
U.S.C. 1157, 1158.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TPS applicants do not have the same protections and legal 
definition as refugees and asylees. Aliens granted TPS and TPS 
applicants are only temporarily in the United States on account of the 
Secretary's designation under section 244 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a, 
and 8 CFR part 244. As part of the TPS statute, Congress provided 
employment authorization for purposes of the entire designation period. 
See INA sec. 244(a)(1)(B) and (2), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(a)(1)(B) and (2). To 
comply with the law enacted by Congress, DHS is typically extending 
employment authorization via a Federal Register notice. However, TPS 
applicants still must apply for the renewal employment authorization 
document as part of the redesignation to obtain evidence of employment. 
Additionally, TPS may be terminated, and TPS never leads to permanent 
residency. See INA sec. 244(b)(3)(B), (h), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(B), 
(h). Thus, upon termination of TPS, TPS beneficiaries and applicants 
may lose employment authorization in the United States. See 8 CFR 
244.12 and 13. Refugees (and asylees) once granted, do not typically 
lose their refugee status and thus, their right to employment and path 
to lawful permanent residency and eventually citizenship. Therefore, 
the implementation scheme and the termination of automatic extension is 
not contrary to the United States international obligations.
2. DHS Justification and Need for the Rule
i. Security Rationale for the Rule
a. General Security Rationale Comments
    Comment: Multiple commenters said the IFR rests on a single 
asserted justification: the desire to complete vetting and security 
checks before approving an individual's \34\ work permit renewal, and 
DHS offers no other policy rationale for eliminating automatic 
extensions. Commenters stated the IFR is a reversal in policy without 
new evidence or a reasoned explanation and violates the APA. The 
commenters stated that DHS's sole rationale suffers from numerous 
problems and reveals a significant mismatch between the concern 
asserted and the real-world purpose and impact of automatic extensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ USCIS generally refers to ``aliens'' when discussing 
foreign nationals present in the United States. The term ``alien'' 
is a legal term defined in the INA that is used to describe any 
person who is not a citizen or national of the United States. See 
INA sec. 101(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(1). Some commenters 
used ``aliens'', but others may have used different terminology 
(such as person or individual). In general, when describing comments 
in this preamble, DHS has sought to mirror the language used in 
those comments, sometimes with quotation marks for clarity. 
Otherwise, DHS has used alien, or applicant, beneficiary, or 
requestor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional commenters stated that DHS's security rationale for the 
IFR contradicts findings in its own 2024 Final Rule, which did not 
identify any adverse impact of automatic extensions on USCIS' ability 
to conduct security checks. Commenters stated that DHS offers no 
credible rationale for this new finding. Some commenters also stated 
that this rule ignores that DHS narrowly tailored the prior automatic 
extensions to certain applicants who applied for EAD renewals, which 
``reasonably assured'' the agency that the individual remained eligible 
for employment authorization and protected the program from abuse.
    Response: DHS does not agree that the IFR is a ``reversal of policy 
without new evidence or a reasoned explanation,'' that the 
justification for the rule is a ``mismatch between the concern asserted 
and the real-world purpose and impact of automatic extensions,'' or 
that DHS failed to consider important aspects of the program. DHS, in 
the IFR, explained that it is ending the practice of providing 
automatic extensions of employment authorization documents to enhance 
integrity in adjudications of employment authorization requests and 
better protect public safety and national security by ensuring that 
aliens are properly vetted and determined to continue to be eligible 
(and merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable), for 
employment authorization before such authorization is provided to the 
alien. The Department also explained the permissibility of the change 
and specifically acknowledged and considered reliance interests that 
applicants could have engendered by the prior policy and explained why 
the policy considerations outweighed these interests. The IFR and this 
final rule reflect a continuation and refinement of DHS's longstanding 
focus on security, fraud prevention, and benefit integrity in the 
employment authorization context.
    In 2016, DHS eliminated the interim EAD and replaced it with the 
180-day automatic extension of employment authorization and explained 
that it would support the Department's vital mission of securing the 
nation from the many threats it faces. Therefore, DHS determined that 
the elimination of both the 90-day EAD processing timeframe and the 
issuance of interim EADs was necessary.\35\ This change in 2016 
reflected DHS's ``continued attention to security and commitment to 
improving adjudication processes, including technological advances in 
document production, to reduce fraud and address threats to national 
security.'' See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule). DHS 
implemented the automatic extension of employment authorization to 
avoid gaps in employment without compromising national security and 
public safety given the context at the time. However, the automatic 
extension of employment authorization and/or EADs, whether 180 days or 
540 days, extends employment authorization based solely on the filing 
of a renewal EAD application, before USCIS has completed full vetting, 
resolved any derogatory information, and determined continuing 
eligibility for the benefit. Today, concerns regarding national

[[Page 65316]]

security, public safety, and integrity of immigration benefits are at a 
high point, and the President has directed DHS, through Executive 
Orders 14159 and 14161, to vet and screen aliens to the maximum extent 
possible and to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to 
unauthorized aliens.\36\ DHS notes there is no statutory requirement 
for USCIS to automatically extend EADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ On November 18, 2016, as part of DHS's efforts to implement 
the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 
(AC21), DHS published a final regulation that eliminated interim 
EADs and provided for a 180-day automatic extension period. 81 FR 
82398 (Nov. 18, 2016).
    \36\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign 
Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats 
(Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159, 
Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 
FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS has provided a reasonable explanation for changing its policy, 
namely by giving greater weight to different policy considerations than 
in the past. DHS has concluded that, owing to current conditions and 
presidential directives, the security and program-integrity risks 
inherent in automatic extensions must be given greater weight than the 
benefits and different temporary circumstances that motivated prior 
rules. Given the inherent national security and public safety concerns 
that flow from granting immigration benefits (including EADs) to aliens 
before determining continued eligibility, DHS believes that rescinding 
the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or EADs is a 
necessary remedy. Ending the practice of providing automatic extensions 
of employment authorization and/or EADs enables DHS to better protect 
the public's safety and enhance benefit integrity.
b. Lack of Evidence Supporting Security Rationale
    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that DHS did not present 
evidence or data supporting the claim that automatic extensions pose 
security risks or that eliminating extensions would meaningfully 
enhance screening. Multiple commenters stated that the absence of any 
such evidence demonstrates that the purported problem does not exist. 
Several commenters wrote that for nearly 10 years, millions of workers 
have worked under automatic extensions, but the IFR provided no 
evidence showing that this system allowed security risks to persist or 
resulted in later security-based denials.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. DHS 
explained in its AC21 Final Rule nearly 10 years ago that it was 
prioritizing national security and fraud concerns by eliminating the 
interim EAD and the mandated EAD 90-day processing timeframe. 
Specifically, DHS noted that ``any reduction in the level of 
eligibility and security vetting before issuing evidence of employment 
authorization, whether on an interim basis or otherwise, would both be 
contrary to its core mission and undermine the security, quality, and 
integrity of the documents issued.'' \37\ Consistent with that 
rationale, and as explained in the IFR, DHS now believes that 
eliminating the automatic extension of employment authorization and/or 
EADs will ensure that all identity verification, public safety and 
security related checks are completed, and that a determination has 
been made that the applicant continues to be eligible and merits a 
favorable exercise of discretion, as applicable, before renewing 
employment authorization and/or an EAD. The IFR also clearly explained 
the relevance of the Boulder incident and its connection to the 
automatic extension,\38\ and why the measure was justified. Maintaining 
automatic extensions based upon the filing of an EAD renewal 
application would be inconsistent with DHS's stated benefit integrity, 
security and fraud-prevention objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See 81 FR 82398 (Nov. 18, 2016) (AC21 Final Rule).
    \38\ See 90 FR 48799, 48808 (Oct. 30, 2025) (explaining that the 
need to fully vet applicants for renewal EADs became clear when an 
alien with an automatically extended EAD perpetrated a terrorist 
attack that injured many people in Boulder, Colorado on June 1, 
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters stated that DHS's reliance on a single 
anecdotal incident involving an individual in Boulder, Colorado, was 
insufficient evidence to justify a policy reversal negatively affecting 
hundreds of thousands of law-abiding workers and their employers. 
Commenters wrote that DHS did not demonstrate that the incident 
involved an automatic extension or how eliminating automatic extensions 
would have prevented this incident.
    Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR relied on insufficient 
evidence to justify the IFR's policy change as alleged by commenters. 
The concern addressed by the IFR and this final rule is that, under the 
automatic extension framework, an alien's employment authorization and/
or EAD validity could be extended for up to 540 days based only on the 
filing of a renewal application and without having fully vetted the 
alien for eligibility, including background and security checks. When 
employment authorization is automatically extended before those checks 
are complete, aliens who may no longer qualify for the benefit, or who 
present public safety or national security concerns, are able to remain 
employment-authorized. This allows aliens who could be public safety or 
national security threats to use associated documentation to 
potentially obtain other credentials, such as driver's licenses, and 
use such document, in turn, to engage in nefarious activities. For 
example, an alien could rent a car by using the driver's license 
obtained with an automatically extended EAD as an identity document and 
subsequently use the car to perpetrate a terrorist attack or other 
criminal activity. As explained in the IFR and throughout this final 
rule, DHS has found that these public safety and national security 
concerns outweigh the interim impacts that may result from a temporary 
lapse in an individual aliens' employment authorization and/or 
documentation while USCIS completes refreshed vetting, evaluates any 
new derogatory information, and determines that the alien remains 
eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if 
applicable.
    The IFR references the attack by an alien against peaceful 
demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado, as a concrete example of an alien 
in possession of an automatic extension that highlighted the urgent 
need to mitigate additional public safety emergencies, as well as the 
importance of ensuring aliens are not granted employment authorization 
until adjudicative review has been completed. The alien responsible for 
the Boulder, Colorado, incident was the beneficiary of an automatic 
extension of his employment authorization, and is thus one example of 
an alien who remained employment authorized without having undergone 
full vetting for eligibility or security concerns. Attacks, such as the 
one in Boulder, Colorado, are tough to predict, but they may not be 
impossible to stop with proper and thorough vetting and intelligence 
sharing among government agencies each time an alien is seeking 
immigration benefits.\39\ DHS is prioritizing the completion of vetting

[[Page 65317]]

prior to granting an immigration benefit to ensure public safety and 
national security and to mitigate the immediate risks posed to 
Americans. Ending automatic extensions based on the filing of an EAD 
renewal application alone addresses that systemic vulnerability. It 
ensures that continued employment authorization and its documentation 
is conferred only after USCIS has completed refreshed vetting, 
evaluated any new derogatory information, and determined that the alien 
remains eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of 
discretion, if applicable. As discussed in the Executive Summary, 
President Trump has directed DHS to ``vet and screen to the maximum 
degree possible'' all aliens within the United States and ensure that 
``employment authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien.'' 
\40\ In line with presidential priorities, DHS is prioritizing program 
integrity, public safety, and national security and believes the 
benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks 
of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The public, including members from Congress, criticized 
immigration and law enforcement authorities, including DHS, for not 
detecting the alien's activities and not protecting the public. They 
emphasized the urgency to fix security vulnerabilities. See House of 
Representatives Homeland Security Committee, ``Chairman Pfluger, 
Green Request DHS Documents on Suspect in Boulder Terror Attack'' 
(June 4, 2025), <a href="https://homeland.house.gov/2025/06/04/chairmen-green-pfluger-request-dhs-documents-on-suspect-in-boulder-terror-attack">https://homeland.house.gov/2025/06/04/chairmen-green-pfluger-request-dhs-documents-on-suspect-in-boulder-terror-attack</a> (``This tragedy is indicative of a heightened terrorism 
threat on U.S. soil, signaling an urgent need for increased homeland 
security measures, particularly with respect to foreign nationals 
who are unlawfully present in the United States, as Soliman 
reportedly overstayed a nonimmigrant visa. Our nation has now faced 
several major acts of antisemitic terror this year alone, including 
the recent assassination of two Israeli embassy staffers in our 
nation's capital.'').
    \40\ See E.O. 14161, Protecting the United States from Foreign 
Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats 
(Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025); see E.O. 14159, 
Protecting the American People Against Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 
FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Prior Vetting of Renewal Applicants and Existing Security Measures
    Comment: One commenter stated that DHS ``offered no credible 
evidence of security risks associated with'' the automatic extension of 
employment authorization and/or EADs, and that the IFR therefore 
``lacks any substantive rationale.'' Other commenters claimed the 
security rationale for the rule is inadequate given that aliens 
applying for EAD renewals have already been vetted. Some commenters 
said many EAD holders are also likely to have other pending 
applications before USCIS with evidentiary submissions, background, and 
identity documents that allow for additional agency vetting.
    Response: DHS disagrees that the IFR lacks a rationale. DHS is 
prioritizing the completion of proper vetting before issuing 
immigration benefits and cannot continue to extend employment 
authorization or EADs without determining that the applicant continues 
to be eligible and, when applicable, merits a favorable exercise of 
discretion, regardless of any prior vetting that may have been 
conducted in connection with past or pending benefit requests. DHS is 
not required by statute to provide an automatic extension of employment 
authorization and/or EADs. Rather, DHS is exercising its authority to 
structure employment authorization processes in a manner that ensures 
the integrity of the immigration benefit provided, and better advances 
national security, public safety, and program integrity.
    Comment: Commenters wrote that the IFR misstates how security 
vetting works, stating that all relevant background check processes 
occur independently of whether a worker has an unexpired EAD. The 
commenter said many security flags require follow up investigation, 
interagency coordination, and a full review of classified or sensitive 
information that can take considerable time to evaluate, and these 
assessments occur within the structured adjudicative framework, not 
during the mechanical, threshold review of an EAD-renewal request.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the premise of these comments. While 
some background checks and security review processes may be ongoing, 
others are initiated when USCIS receives a request and are completed in 
connection with that adjudication. There are no statutory or other 
regulatory limitations on USCIS' authority to conduct background and 
security checks to determine eligibility for employment authorization. 
Additionally, background checks and vetting can be a lengthy process 
that may require additional time to resolve or to make an eligibility 
determination. For USCIS to renew an immigration benefit, the applicant 
must meet the relevant eligibility standards and merit a favorable 
exercise of discretion, if applicable. All individuals who apply for 
immigration benefits, including applications for employment 
authorization, are required to submit and sign the application 
authorizing the release of any information from their records that 
USCIS may need to determine eligibility for the benefit sought. By 
signing and submitting the form to USCIS, the applicant consents to 
verification by USCIS, as well as use of information to determine 
initial or continued benefit eligibility. Given the, at times, lengthy 
vetting process, the previous practice allowed automatic extension of 
EADs to aliens that would otherwise be found ineligible after USCIS 
initiates or resolves background check information.
    The previous practice of automatically extending employment 
authorization for a period of up to 540 days prioritized EAD backlog 
management over program integrity, public safety and national security. 
Requiring completion of adjudicative review before extending employment 
authorization and/or EADs better aligns with DHS's vetting 
responsibilities and the policy priorities of enhancing program 
integrity, public safety, and national security.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that USCIS remains free to 
conduct continuous vetting during the renewal process and deny the 
renewal application and terminate employment authorization immediately 
should it identify new information indicating a security concern.
    Some commenters stated that DHS already has the capability to 
perform continuous screening and vetting, such as through ATLAS and the 
Continuous Immigration Vetting (CIV) program, which allow for ongoing 
information sharing and monitoring of individuals in the immigration 
system, stating these systems can identify security concerns at any 
time, not just during the renewal application process.
    Response: DHS continues to implement various strategies to address 
public safety and national security concerns. These efforts include, 
but are not limited to, the use of continuous screening and vetting 
capabilities, interagency information-sharing, and enhancements to 
identity and security verification processes. However, these tools do 
not obviate the need to complete appropriate vetting and screening 
before extending employment authorization. Conducting background 
checks, whether continuously or at certain intervals (for example, when 
an alien again applies for an immigration benefit), is only one part of 
the overall vetting and screening process.
    Furthermore, derogatory information identified during the 
background check process must still be reviewed and resolved.\41\ DHS 
believes that before any immigration benefit is granted, such as an 
extension of employment authorization and/or an EAD, USCIS should 
complete the vetting and screening process and determine that the alien 
continues to be eligible for the benefit and merits a favorable 
exercise of discretion, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Thus, even with CIV, USCIS is required to manually resolve 
derogatory information, which needs time. See DHS/USCIS/PIA-076 
Continuous Immigration Vetting, at 8, <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscispia-076-continuous-immigration-vetting">https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscispia-076-continuous-immigration-vetting</a> (last 
updated March 31, 2023) (``Although automation assists with the 
identification of national security concerns, FDNS officers also 
manually review each hit to confirm the validity, relevancy, and 
accuracy of the information and to determine if the information is 
actionable, consistent with DHS authorities. If actionable, USCIS 
FDNS may perform administrative investigations to produce findings 
to sufficiently inform adjudications.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated that the rule discounts the multiple 
layers of

[[Page 65318]]

vetting and monitoring tools that are already being conducted by 
employers to identify potential security threats, including Form I-9 
verification, E-Verify participation, and criminal background checks.
    Response: DHS will not delegate to employers its responsibility to 
enhance program integrity and better protect public safety and national 
security. The varying levels of vetting by different employers are not 
a substitute for the vetting that USCIS conducts. USCIS has 
information-sharing agreements with various agencies within the U.S. 
government and foreign partners. Therefore, vetting from an employer is 
typically not comparable to USCIS access and vetting. In addition, Form 
I-9 and E-Verify are not used for national security and public safety 
vetting. Form I-9 is required for all U.S. employers to document 
identity and employment authorization for every worker hired. E-Verify 
is a voluntary program that electronically compares the information on 
Form I-9 with SSA and DHS records to confirm employment 
eligibility.\42\ Criteria for security checks and vetting depend upon 
the immigration benefit sought as well as various other factors, and 
each benefit request has its own requirements and vulnerabilities. DHS 
does not believe that renewing employment authorization should be an 
exception to the stated policy objectives of better protecting public 
safety and national security and ensuring continued eligibility and 
that the applicant warrants a favorable exercise of discretion (as 
applicable) prior to issuing immigration benefits. USCIS is exercising 
its full authority to investigate immigration benefit requests filed by 
aliens who may pose risks to the national security and public safety of 
the United States while adhering to the provisions of the INA and 
applicable laws, as outlined in DHS Delegation of Authority 0150.1 and 
15006.\43\ The elimination of automatic extensions of employment 
authorization and/or an EAD based on the filing of a renewal 
application is one component of this broader effort to enhance program 
integrity and safeguard the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See E-Verify, 1.1 Background and Overview, <a href="https://www.e-verify.gov/e-verify-user-manual-10-introduction/11-background-and-overview">https://www.e-verify.gov/e-verify-user-manual-10-introduction/11-background-and-overview</a> (last updated May 29, 2024).
    \43\ See, e.g., DHS, Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Delegation No. 0150.1 (June 5, 2003), 
available at <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=234775">https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=234775</a>; DHS, USCIS, 
Delegation to Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, to Order Expedited Removal and to Enforce Immigration 
Laws, Delegation No. 15006 (May 2, 2025), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/Delegation_to_USCIS_for_LE_Authorities_15006_1_1.pdf">https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/Delegation_to_USCIS_for_LE_Authorities_15006_1_1.pdf</a>. DHS Delegation 
Number 0150.1 is based on the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and 
delegates broad authority under the INA, to the Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS), now USCIS, to 
administer the laws, process benefits, investigate potential fraud, 
make prosecution recommendations, and initiate removal proceedings. 
DHS Delegation Number 15006 grants the Director of USCIS the 
authority to issue warrants, order immediate removal of aliens, to 
detain or release aliens on bond, and the ability to investigate 
civil and criminal immigration law violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Rule Would Not Strengthen Security
    Comment: One commenter said justifying the rule under ``the guise 
of national security is ironic'' because the rule's likely consequence 
in derailing the livelihoods of aliens may push them to violate the law 
for survival. Another commenter stated that most of the public safety 
and national security risk created by malicious aliens stems from their 
presence in the United States rather than their ability to work and 
encouraged DHS to study how significant the risk associated with income 
generated through lawful employment is compared to the risk associated 
with presence on U.S. soil. A commenter stated that DHS implicitly 
assumes that unemployment is the antidote to potential crime when 
common sense and empirical evidence provides the opposite is true.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the comment that this rule will result 
in derailing the livelihoods of aliens and the insinuation that it may 
push individuals to become criminals to survive.
    As explained in the IFR, DHS has taken significant steps to reduce 
the overall EAD filings that followed the unprecedented flood of 
illegal immigration into the United States during previous years.\44\ 
For example, DHS has narrowed the use of parole and better aligned TPS 
and related programs with statutory criteria. As a result, initial EAD 
applications have significantly declined since 2025. USCIS has also 
seen a decline in the number of filings in the largest EAD categories 
that were formerly eligible for automatic extensions based on the 
filing of a renewal EAD application, as shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

[[Page 65319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14OC26.000

BILLING CODE 9111-97-C
    The two largest categories of Form I-765 applicants are those with 
pending asylum applications (C08) and those with pending adjustment of 
status applications (C09). Together these categories made up 
approximately 80% of all I-765 applicants from January 2025 through the 
end of June 2026.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    \47\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics, <a href="https://ohss.dhs.gov">https://ohss.dhs.gov</a> (last visited Apr. 2, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS acknowledges the commenter's view that the primary public 
safety and national security risk posed by malicious actors arises from 
their presence in the United States and not solely from their 
continuing ability to work. Even so, DHS considers it important and 
appropriate to use its authorities to reduce risks associated with both 
presence and employment. Access to lawful employment can provide 
malicious actors with financial resources, routine cover for their 
activities, and access to certain workplaces and facilities. Limiting 
the ability of aliens with potentially malicious intent to retain EADs 
and/or employment authorization, and to lawfully work and generate 
income, without full vetting is therefore a meaningful component of 
DHS's broader efforts to safeguard benefit integrity, national security 
and public safety.
    For these reasons, DHS continues to view measures that reduce the 
likelihood that malicious actors can obtain or rely on employment 
authorization and related secure documentation as worthwhile.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that, if the goal is to strengthen 
vetting integrity, the logical solution is to expedite case processing 
so that all

[[Page 65320]]

background checks and reviews are completed more quickly. One commenter 
also stated that workers should be able to maintain their employment 
authorization and support their families while vetting occurs.
    Response: DHS undertakes every effort to complete case processing 
as expeditiously as possible while being conscious of the importance of 
vetting every benefit requestor thoroughly for eligibility, including 
vetting for criminal activity and other security risks. DHS believes 
screening, vetting, and determining continued eligibility before 
granting a renewal of employment authorization and/or documentation is 
essential to enhance program integrity and better protect public safety 
and national security. Such processes, however, especially given the 
volume of initial and renewal EAD applicants that USCIS encounters, 
necessarily take time. Note that expediting a case generally means that 
USCIS would move the benefit request to the front of the processing 
queue to the detriment of those who may have filed earlier but does not 
otherwise change the time needed to properly conduct screening and 
vetting and determine continued eligibility. To the extent that these 
commenters suggest that USCIS should expedite all EAD renewal 
applications and thus put renewal EAD applications in front of other 
applications in the processing queue, DHS maintains that this would not 
be a viable solution and would not enhance program integrity or better 
protect public safety and national security.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the security benefit of 
the rule is incremental because renewal applicants have already been 
robustly vetted and will not be re-vetted until the EAD renewal is 
adjudicated, stating that this second vetting by USCIS occurs even if 
EAD extensions are automatic.
    Response: USCIS must ensure that all aliens who request immigration 
benefits from USCIS are eligible for the benefit sought, merit a 
favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable, and do not pose a 
threat to national security or public safety. It is necessary and 
within USCIS' authority to continue investigating immigration benefit 
requests and to assess whether an applicant has established ongoing 
eligibility and warrants favorable discretion, if applicable, and 
whether they pose a risk to the national security and public safety of 
the United States, before issuing immigration benefits. This includes 
renewal applications for employment authorization and/or EADs, which 
may reveal new derogatory information or changed circumstances that 
were not present at the time of the initial grant.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the IFR would cause DHS 
resources to be spent on EAD processing while people remain in the 
United States without decisions on their ability to stay, stating that 
the rule ``punishes applicants, families, communities, and employers 
for USCIS' failure to timely process applications.'' Another commenter 
similarly stated that the rule ``does not meaningfully improve homeland 
security'' and would divert resources rather than supporting security 
or operational efficiency.
    Response: DHS is dedicated to ensuring that all aliens who enter 
and remain in the United States do not present threats to national 
security or public safety. USCIS plays an instrumental role in 
preventing terrorists and other bad actors from harboring in the United 
States, and screening and vetting should be prioritized over purely 
expedient adjudications to that end. DHS will continue to work to 
reduce frivolous, fraudulent, and meritless EAD filings to free up 
adjudicatory and other resources to better ensure national security and 
program integrity. Therefore, DHS does not agree that focusing 
resources on careful EAD renewal adjudications ``diverts'' resources 
from security; rather, such adjudications are themselves a core 
security function of USCIS.
e. Other Comments on Security Rationale
    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern with DHS's rationale 
that bad actors could benefit from EADs being automatically extended 
and the income generated from working to support ``nefarious 
activities,'' stating that it is speculative, discriminatory, and 
perpetuates anti-immigrant rhetoric. A commenter said this is 
particularly dangerous language for Asian American communities who face 
a persistent narrative as the ``perpetual foreigner'' and will only 
contribute to that ``pernicious stereotype'' and support unfounded 
suspicions that Asians are agents of foreign governments.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions. DHS ended 
the practice of providing automatic extension of employment 
authorization and/or EADs based on the filing of a renewal EAD 
application to ensure continued eligibility and prioritizing the proper 
vetting and screening of aliens in furtherance of its mission. This 
rule does not target Asian American communities or any other specific 
group of aliens. Instead, this rule, as written, applies to all aliens 
who were eligible for the automatic extension of their employment 
authorization and/or EADs under former 8 CFR 274a.13(d). As explained 
in the IFR and this final rule, DHS is prioritizing the completion of 
vetting prior to granting an immigration benefit to enhance program 
integrity and better protect public safety and national security. The 
examples provided in the IFR illustrated the broader concern that 
extending employment authorization before completing vetting can allow 
aliens who may present public safety or national security risks to 
retain employment authorization. Ending automatic extensions based on 
the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures that continued 
employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS has completed 
renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory information, and 
determined that the alien remains eligible and continues to merit a 
favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. DHS believes that the 
program integrity, public safety, and national security benefits of 
eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh the risks of 
potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.
    Comment: Commenters stated that, while DHS repeatedly cites 
purported national security concerns as justification for the IFR, the 
``underemphasized yet explicit'' motivation for the IFR is a reduction 
in EAD filings overall. They stated that the rule is intended to 
generally deter immigration, specifically for asylum seekers, and that 
DHS ignores that asylees and refugees are authorized employment even if 
the expiration date on their EAD has passed. One commenter stated that, 
while DHS claims it is ending the practice of automatically renewing 
EADs for refugees and asylees to take a ``uniform approach'' and avoid 
``the potential for confusion'' of employers, it does not quantify the 
potential confusion or justify why it cannot at least provide automatic 
renewals for refugees and asylees, who are authorized to work incident 
to their status.
    The commenters concluded that the IFR is meant to undermine and 
frustrate those with legal work authorization and will cause 
unnecessary lapses in work authorization creating unreasonable 
obstacles, citing DHS's referenced goal of providing a ``comprehensive 
policy solution'' and stating the rule is actually intended to 
unnecessarily confuse employers, frustrate immigrants' ability to work, 
and push more into ``dire straits.'' Another commenter questioned 
enhanced security as the true intent of

[[Page 65321]]

the rule, suggesting other motives such as intentionally causing aliens 
to fall out of status and lose their jobs.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters that the goal of this 
rule is to reduce EAD filings overall, generally deter immigration or 
to ``unnecessarily confuse employers'' and ``frustrate immigrants' 
ability to work.'' As previously stated, the purpose of this rule is to 
prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens, to ensure 
continued eligibility, and to confirm that applicants continue to merit 
favorable exercises of discretion, if applicable, before granting new 
periods of employment authorization and/or new EADs by ending the 
practice of automatically extending the validity of employment 
authorization and/or EADs.
    DHS recognizes that aliens who are granted asylum or refugee status 
are authorized employment incident to their asylum or refugee status. 
As explained in the IFR, aliens who are authorized employment incident 
to their status \48\ and are maintaining their respective immigration 
status, such as asylees and refugees, will continue to be employment 
authorized while maintaining their immigration status, regardless of 
the expiration date on their EAD. Aliens who are authorized employment 
incident to status will continue to have the choice to file Form I-765 
to obtain EADs for proof of identity. As stated in the IFR, DHS is 
taking a uniform approach for all aliens by ending the practice of 
providing automatic extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comment: One commenter said that eliminating automatic extensions 
does not serve E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against 
Invasion, which orders DHS and other agencies to ensure that employment 
authorization is not provided to any unauthorized alien in the United 
States. The commenter said eliminating automatic extensions has no 
impact on this mandate, as the purpose of such automatic extensions is 
to afford USCIS the time and resources to make a robust determination 
in compliance with its statutory and regulatory obligations in cases 
where aliens were already approved for employment authorization.
    Response: DHS maintains that this rule accomplishes the mandate of 
E.O. 14159. This executive order directs the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney 
General, in Section 16 to take all appropriate action to align any 
departmental activities with the policies set out by the President, to 
ensure that ``employment authorization is not provided to any 
unauthorized alien in the United States.'' As stated in the IFR and 
this rule, ending the practice of providing automatic extensions of 
EADs is consistent with this instruction in E.O. 14159 because a 
previous grant of employment authorization does not mean that an 
applicant remains indefinitely eligible for employment authorization, 
and it is necessary to review eligibility to ensure that an alien's 
circumstances have not changed such that the alien is no longer 
eligible. Granting automatic extensions of employment without proper 
vetting and full adjudication to ensure continued eligibility is not 
consistent with E.O. 14159 or with current priorities.
ii. Consistency in USCIS Rationale and Reversal of Longstanding Policy
    Comment: Multiple commenters wrote that USCIS says it does not 
expect delays in processing EAD renewals in the future, but also says 
it must end automatic extensions on EADs now because it needs more time 
to finish security checks. Commenters said both cannot be true. 
Commenters also stated that, if DHS expects continued delays, then 
ending automatic extensions will push employees out of work 
authorization simply because the government cannot finish adjudicating 
these cases fast enough. These commenters said courts invalidate rules 
when an agency's reasoning is contradictory and the agency offers no 
adequate justification for the inconsistency, with some commenters 
citing F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
    Also referencing this purported inconsistency, multiple commenters 
stated that DHS's conclusion that EAD applications will decline and 
that more adjudicative resources will reduce EAD renewal processing 
times ignores that those same resources will be available at the 
initial stage to address any red flags. Thus, the commenter said DHS's 
purported need for fuller investigations at the renewal stage will be 
even less necessary moving forward. The commenter said the claim also 
cannot be reconciled with the Department's historic position that it 
can complete sufficient investigations promptly, given sufficient 
resources.
    Multiple commenters said the IFR rejects and contradicts the 
policies of both the 2016 and the recent 2024 rules, the purpose of 
which was to mitigate the harm to workers and employers caused by 
interruptions in work authorization, without adequate explanation, 
justification, or alternative remedies. One commenter specified that 
the IFR cites no data showing sustained reductions in renewal 
processing times, no new performance metrics, and no analysis 
demonstrating that the long-recognized adjudication challenges 
identified in 2016 and again in 2024 have materially changed.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the 
reasoning in the IFR, and this final rule, is contradictory or 
unjustified. DHS notes the IFR does not state that ``USCIS does not 
expect delays in processing EADs.'' Instead, DHS explained it has taken 
measures to address floods of filings from TPS beneficiaries and other 
applicants, and that DHS expects that overall filing rates for initial 
and renewal EADs are likely to substantially decline, freeing up 
adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD processing times.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    USCIS routinely evaluates filing volumes relative to adjudicative 
resources and reallocates workloads to address priorities as 
appropriate and feasible, including between initial and renewal EAD 
filings. The IFR explains that, while USCIS continues to work to 
improve processing times and reduce backlogs, DHS has determined that 
automatic extensions are inconsistent with ensuring continued 
eligibility or with current security and vetting priorities. DHS 
believes that the reasoning provided in the IFR is appropriate and that 
the purpose of the IFR has been adequately justified. Ending automatic 
extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures 
that continued employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS 
has completed renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory 
information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and 
continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. 
DHS believes that the program integrity, public safety, and national 
security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh 
the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization.
    As discussed in greater detail in response to a previous comment in 
Section IV.C.2.i.a. of this preamble, the decision to end automatic 
extensions reflects a change in how DHS balances operational efficiency 
and continuity of employment against these security and benefit 
integrity concerns rather than an inconsistency in DHS's underlying 
commitment to timely adjudications.
    DHS expects that overall, EAD filing rates will substantially 
decline and free up adjudicative resources to reduce

[[Page 65322]]

renewal EAD processing times. Decreasing processing times would result 
in a reduced need for aliens filing renewal EAD applications to rely on 
an automatic extension of their EAD to avoid potential lapses. Since 
the IFR became effective on October 30, 2025, USCIS has seen a steady 
decrease in overall EAD filings. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of 
this preamble. USCIS notes that decreased EAD filing rates support the 
point made in the IFR: that the potential for an alien to have a lapse, 
and in particular the duration of any lapse, is speculative and could 
be outweighed by the harm posed by automatic extensions.
iii. Lack of Acknowledgement of the Backlog and Other Operational 
Realities
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the IFR ignores that 
backlogs persist today and provides no projections or plans to reduce 
the backlogs that necessitate automatic extension. Some of these 
commenters said the IFR incorrectly portrays backlogs as a future 
``scenario,'' but processing delays are significant. A commenter stated 
that external analyses reinforce the conclusion that long delays in EAD 
adjudication are a documented, ongoing reality and, despite this 
record, DHS offers no empirical data showing in the IFR that processing 
times have improved enough to make automatic extensions unnecessary. A 
commenter stated that external analyses reinforce the conclusion that 
long delays in EAD adjudication are a documented, ongoing reality and, 
despite this record, DHS offers no empirical data showing in the IFR 
that processing times have improved enough to make automatic extensions 
unnecessary. Some commenters referenced DHS backlog data in asserting 
the value of the automatic extension mechanism and the rule's lack of 
acknowledgement of the backlog. Another commenter stated that, while 
striving for timely adjudication is a worthy goal, it does not 
eliminate the need for automatic extensions, and USCIS should not 
eliminate the regulatory provision of automatic extensions in its 
entirety.
    Response: DHS is ending the automatic extension of employment 
authorization and EADs not because USCIS has completed its backlog of 
pending cases, but rather because DHS is prioritizing ensuring 
continued eligibility and proper vetting. However, USCIS will continue 
to work through its backlog of cases without unnecessarily granting 
immigration benefits to those who may be ineligible or threaten the 
public safety and national security of the United States.
    DHS acknowledged the EAD backlog in the IFR, stating that most of 
the backlog resulted from prior policy decisions that resulted in an 
overwhelming number of initial and subsequent renewal EAD filings.\50\ 
DHS discussed potential future backlog scenarios while also 
acknowledging the current backlogs in each of those rules. 
Specifically, DHS provided data in the 2024 TFR to project the impact 
of the asylum filing surges and backlogs to consider possible renewal 
EAD application filing behaviors and the impact throughout the 
effective period of the 2024 TFR. See 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 2024). DHS 
discussed the same data in the 2024 Final Rule. See 89 FR 101208 (Dec. 
13, 2024). These rules attempted to mitigate the impact of potential 
future renewal EAD processing backlogs that could have been caused by a 
variety of circumstances, and DHS used those data projections to 
estimate the impact of codifying the automatic extension period 
increase from up to 180 days to up to 540 days. DHS has reassessed that 
conjectural approach and determined that, notwithstanding ongoing 
backlogs, automatic extensions are not an appropriate mechanism given 
the associated security and integrity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \51\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025). See also USCIS, 
``DHS Strengthens Integrity in Nation's Immigration System, Returns 
to Commonsense Legal Immigration Levels,'' <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-strengthens-integrity-in-nations-immigration-system-returns-to-commonsense-legal-immigration">https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-strengthens-integrity-in-nations-immigration-system-returns-to-commonsense-legal-immigration</a> (Nov. 
13, 2025); Testimony of USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow, Oversight of 
the Department of Homeland Security: ICE, CBP, and USCIS: Hearing 
Before the House Comm. on Homeland Security, <a href="https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM00/20260210/118916/HHRG-119-HM00-Wstate-EdlowJ-20260210.pdf">https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM00/20260210/118916/HHRG-119-HM00-Wstate-EdlowJ-20260210.pdf</a>, at 6, (Feb. 10, 2026), (``These critical efforts have 
strengthened the integrity of our legal immigration system, 
reinforced accountability, and ensured that USCIS resources are 
directed toward lawful, properly filed cases.'').
    \52\ Though their numbers were much smaller, I-765 applications 
also declined in the A07, A08, A10, C16, C20, C24, and C31 
categories. DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment 
Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD 
Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar. 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 
03/2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office 
(CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by 
Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June 
30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.
    \53\ DHS, USCIS, OPQ, I-765 Application for Employment 
Authorization Receipts by Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD 
Type FY 2025-2026 (through Mar. 05, 2026). CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 
03/2026, PAER0020648; DHS, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office 
(CDAO), I-765 Application for Employment Authorization Receipts by 
Eligibility Category Code, Month, and EAD Type October 30, 2025-June 
30, 2026. CLAIMS3, ELIS, queried 07/2026, PAER0022044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 65323]]

concluded that DHS must plan for continued high renewal volumes.
    One commenter said the rule fails to account for the impact that 
halting asylum decisions will have on the backlog of renewal EAD 
applications. The commenter referenced the November 28, 2025, statement 
of the USCIS Director that ``USCIS has halted all asylum decisions 
until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the 
maximum degree possible.'' The commenter said halting asylum decisions 
means that asylum applications will remain pending longer, which means 
more asylum applicants' EADs will expire during the pendency of their 
asylum applications and result in the need to file additional requests 
to renew their EADs.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that various policy changes outside of 
this rulemaking, such as significant changes to humanitarian parole 
programs,\54\ the termination of TPS designations,\55\ and changes made 
to the asylum program,\56\ have affected, and will continue to affect, 
the demand for employment authorization and/or EADs in the future. DHS 
also recognizes the continued high demand for employment authorization 
and/or EADs, and DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the 
IFR ignored such demand. Rather, as the IFR and this final rule 
explain, DHS believes the program integrity, public safety, and 
national security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs 
outweigh the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment 
authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See, e.g., Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, 
Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025). 
This termination is the subject of ongoing legal challenges but 
remains in place. See Doe v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass); 
Noem v. Doe, 145 S. Ct. 1525 (2025).
    \55\ The TPS designations for numerous countries have been 
terminated in the past year, but there has been significant 
litigation over these terminations. See, e.g., Mullin v. Doe, No. 
25-2083 (argued Apr. 29, 2026). The latest status of TPS 
designations is available on the USCIS website. USCIS, Temporary 
Protected Status (Mar. 17, 2026), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status">https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status</a>.
    \56\ See, e.g., Proclamation 10888, Guaranteeing the States 
Protection Against Invasion, 90 FR 8333 (Jan. 20, 2025) (suspending 
the entry of aliens who unlawfully enter the United States across 
the southern border and barring those aliens from asylum and other 
provisions of the INA). Litigation against the Proclamation is 
ongoing, but asylum remains barred for covered aliens as of the time 
of drafting this rule. See Refugee and Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & 
Legal Servs. v. Mullin, No. 25-5243,--F.4th--, 2026 WL 1110616 (D.C. 
Cir. Apr. 24, 2026) (affirming the district court's decision with 
modifications to the definition of the certified class and enjoining 
the Departments from continuing to implement the Invasion 
Proclamation, including the Proclamation's restriction on asylum but 
staying the decision until after disposition of either a petition 
for rehearing or rehearing en banc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DHS recognizes that the demand for employment authorization 
and/or EADs remains high, the various immigration-related initiatives 
implemented by this administration described previously in the IFR 
preamble have reduced EAD filings overall. See Table 1 in Section 
IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the IFR ignores the impact of DHS's 
recent and planned future reductions in the USCIS workforce. 
Specifically, in April, nearly 20,000 USCIS staff--about 80 percent of 
the workforce--received communications urging them to end their 
employment with USCIS. The commenter said the rule does not explain how 
ongoing or planned USCIS staffing cuts affect the adjudicative 
resources available to process renewal EAD applications or how it 
accounted for these cuts in its planning to reduce backlogs. Another 
commenter similarly said the IFR also ignores the effects of this 
administration's ``decimation'' of the federal workforce and the 
longest shutdown of government operations in history.
    Response: The IFR and this final rule do not undercount or ignore 
the impact of processing times and resources needed for adjudicating 
EADs. As stated previously, DHS is prioritizing public safety, national 
security and benefit integrity.
    DHS notes that USCIS is generally fee-funded and able to continue 
its adjudicatory work during government shutdowns. However, DHS notes 
that government shutdowns could impact our ability to work with federal 
law enforcement partners and other agencies that are more directly 
impacted.
    Regarding the size of USCIS' workforce, DHS agrees that adequate 
staffing and efficient allocation of resources are important to 
reducing backlogs and minimizing the risk that a renewal EAD 
application will remain pending past the current card's expiration. 
USCIS continuously takes operational steps within existing budgetary 
and hiring authorities to further enhance processing efficiency, 
including hiring and reallocating personnel, refining workflows, 
investing in automation where appropriate,\57\ and implementing the fee 
\58\ and program changes directed by recent legislation and executive 
actions.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ For example, USCIS has undertaken various efforts to 
incorporate AI to deliver immigration services to their customers 
more efficiently. See DHS United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services--AI Use Cases, <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory/uscis">https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory/uscis</a> (last updated Feb. 12, 2026).
    \58\ See DHS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee 
Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request 
Requirements, 89 FR 6194 (Jan. 31, 2024) (``These fee collections 
fund the cost of fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration 
benefit requests, including those provided without charge to 
refugee, asylum, and certain other applicants or petitioners''). 
USCIS is primarily a fee-based agency. See sec. 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 
1356(m) that is generally not appropriated by Congress.
    \59\ See, e.g., USCIS Immigration Fees and Related Procedures by 
H-R.1 Reconciliation Bill, 91 FR 22952 (Apr. 29, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. ``Proper Planning'' Rationale
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that DHS's assertion that 
renewal applicants' ``proper planning'' could avoid lapses in work 
authorization is false and ignores operational realities and backlogs, 
asserting that EAD renewal applicants cannot ``properly plan'' for 
every unforeseen circumstance that may affect USCIS processing times. 
Commenters stated that the 2016 and 2024 Final Rules were issued to 
address unforeseen circumstances that neither the agency nor applicants 
could reasonably anticipate.
    Commenters cited processing backlog figures when stating that 
applicants who follow the agency's recommendation not to file more than 
180 days in advance face unavoidable employment gaps. Multiple 
commenters stated that many EAD applications, including renewals, took 
longer than 180 days to adjudicate.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Response: As previously discussed, DHS has determined that the 
potential impact that some aliens may experience a temporary lapse, of 
unpredictable duration, in the validity of their employment 
authorization and/or EAD is outweighed by the need to better protect 
the safety and security of the American people by ensuring that 
employment authorization and/or an EAD is not granted until USCIS has 
thoroughly vetted and screened the applicant, resolved any derogatory 
hits, and determined that the alien continues to be eligible for the 
immigration benefit and merits a favorable exercise of discretion, as 
applicable.
    USCIS provides case processing times for select forms and locations 
to inform the public how long it generally takes to process benefit 
requests.\61\ USCIS updates case processing times on its website 
monthly with the latest available data. The processing times

[[Page 65324]]

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

    \61\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, <a href="https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times">https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times</a> (last visited May 8, 2026).
    \62\ See USCIS, Case Processing Times, <a href="https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info">https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/more-info</a> (last visited Apr. 22, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although USCIS generally recommends that applicants not file 
requests to renew EADs more than 180 days before the expiration of 
their EADs, there is no prohibition on filing the form before a certain 
date ahead of expiration. Proper planning by applicants includes filing 
early, rather than close to the expiration of the EAD, and ensuring 
that all evidence needed for USCIS to determine eligibility has been 
submitted with the application at the time of filing. While proper 
planning might not avoid a temporary lapse in employment authorization 
and/or documentation in all cases, it should help to reduce the 
potential of a lapse and shorten the duration if a lapse were to occur.
3. Rationale for Eliminating the Automatic Extension of EADs
    Comment: A couple of commenters opposed the rule without providing 
their rationale. They supported automatic extension of employment 
authorization, and the provision of employment authorization documents, 
without vetting or reviewing aliens' applications. One called the 
regulatory change ``wrong'' and ``inhumane.''
    Response: As discussed in greater detail in response to more 
specific comments elsewhere in this preamble, to the extent that some 
renewal applicants might face a temporary lapse in employment 
authorization and/or documentation, DHS believes this approach is 
nevertheless justified as it will enhance program integrity and better 
protect public safety and national security. Ending automatic 
extensions based on the filing of an EAD renewal application ensures 
that continued employment authorization is conferred only after USCIS 
has completed renewed vetting, evaluated any new derogatory 
information, and determined that the alien remains eligible and 
continues to merit a favorable exercise of discretion, if applicable. 
DHS believes that the program integrity, public safety, and national 
security benefits of eliminating automatic extensions of EADs outweigh 
the risks of potential temporary lapses in employment authorization and 
or EAD validity.
    In addition to these independent reasons for promulgating this 
rule, DHS is acting in accord with presidential directives. As 
discussed in the Executive Summary, E.O. 14159 instructs the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, alongside the Secretary of State and Attorney 
General, to ensure that employment authorization is not provided to 
unauthorized aliens.\63\ Furthermore, removing automatic extensions of 
employment authorization and/or EADs aligns with Executive Order 14161, 
which requires DHS to vet and screen all aliens within the United 
States ``to the maximum degree possible,'' \64\ and Presidential 
Proclamation 10949, which orders DHS to ensure that aliens already 
within the United States do not support foreign terrorists or bear 
hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, 
institutions, or founding principles.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Executive Order, Protecting the American People Against 
Invasion, 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025).
    \64\ See 90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 31, 2025).
    \65\ Proclamation 10949 (June 4, 2025), 90 FR 24497-98 (June 10, 
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Impact on USCIS Processing
i. Administrative Burden and Efficiency
    Comment: Multiple commenters asserted that the IFR would increase 
the administrative burden on the government and further slow the 
adjudication process and USCIS' ability to timely processes EAD 
renewals. A commenter stated that eliminating the automatic extension 
does not speed up adjudications, but simply ``creates a guaranteed 
administrative failure'' and will lead to increases in emergency 
service requests, inquiries, and appeals. Similarly, another commenter 
wrote that the IFR would create unnecessary administrative 
inefficiencies as USCIS would likely face an increase in prematurely 
filed renewal applications, multiple submissions from applicants 
fearing gaps in employment, and additional employer verification 
requests during pending periods. One commenter reasoned it would be 
less burdensome for USCIS to not implement the IFR than to implement 
it.
    Other commenters stated that the Agency has been unable to timely 
adjudicate EAD renewals for several years and the IFR does not resolve 
the current operational reality to avoid gaps in employment 
authorization, because even when applicants file at the earliest 
possible date, their current EADs often expire long before adjudication 
concludes as USCIS processing times are sometimes 8 to 11 months. A 
commenter remarked that backlogs and resulting lapses in employment 
authorization are not the fault of EAD renewal applicants.
    One commenter stated that the IFR does not account for the impact 
of other DHS rules, including the recent Duration of Status proposed 
rule,\66\ which would increase the adjudication workload on USCIS staff 
and jeopardize the Agency's ability to ensure extensions can be 
consistently processed within existing timeframes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Response: DHS acknowledges that backlogs and operational challenges 
were justifications for the 2022 and 2024 Temporary Final Rules and the 
2024 Final Rule. However, as DHS explained in the IFR, the automatic 
extension of the validity of an EAD grants the benefit of extending an 
alien's expired employment authorization and/or EAD merely by filing a 
timely renewal EAD application and without first completing 
adjudicative review and related vetting, including resolution of 
derogatory information identified during the vetting process. That is, 
the benefit is granted without USCIS first performing the following 
actions: an eligibility determination; completing vetting and screening 
checks; resolving potential hits of derogatory information in 
connection with the alien; and a determination that the employment 
authorization should be granted in the exercise of discretion, if 
applicable. The automatic extension, therefore, poses a security 
vulnerability that could allow bad actors to continue to work and 
generate income to potentially finance nefarious activities that pose 
an imminent threat to the American public. Granting benefits without 
proper vetting and full adjudication is contrary to the

[[Page 65325]]

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

    \67\ See, e.g., Conference Report to accompany H.R. 4567 [Report 
108-774], ``Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005,'' p. 74 
(Oct. 9, 2004), <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf">https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt774/pdf/CRPT-108hrpt774.pdf</a> (recommending, among other things, the creation 
of an organization to conduct ``law enforcement/background checks on 
every applicant, beneficiary, and petitioner prior to granting 
immigration benefits.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \68\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.
    \69\ See 90 FR 8443, 8446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \71\ See 91 FR 44976.
    \72\ See 91 FR 44976 (discussing 8 CFR 214.1(m)(1)).
    \73\ See 91 FR 44976, 45017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 4, 2025, USCIS changed the validity periods for certain 
other EAD categories, including C08s, to enhance its screening and 
vetting efforts.\74\ Therefore, C08 applicants now must seek renewal of 
their EAD more often than under the previous 5-year EAD validity 
period. DHS, however, cannot accurately predict whether this policy 
change will adversely affect EAD renewal processing times, as a likely 
increase in EAD renewals could be offset by other recent or future 
policy changes. For example, on February 23, 2026, DHS published an 
NPRM proposing to modify filing and eligibility requirements for aliens 
with a pending asylum application requesting employment authorization 
and an employment authorization document (EAD). See 91 FR 8616 (Feb. 
23, 2026). As of the publication of this final rule, the NPRM has not 
been finalized. If finalized as proposed, changes to eligibility for 
C08 employment authorization could significantly reduce the number of 
initial C08 applications and, by extension, the longer-term number of 
renewal applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See DHS, USCIS, Policy Alert, Subject: Updating Certain 
Employment Authorization Document Validity Periods (December 4, 
2025), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf">https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20251204-EmploymentAuthorizationValidity.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Processing Timelines
    Comment: One commenter asserted that early filing routinely leads 
to rejections or denials, and that filing fees are not returned to the 
applicant if they are rejected for early filing. Another commenter 
reasoned that since USCIS' policy only allows service inquiries after 
365 days, this would limit employer and employee's options for 
addressing delays.
    Response: Although USCIS generally recommends that applicants not 
file to renew their EAD more than 180 days before the expiration of 
their current EAD, USCIS will not reject or deny an otherwise eligible 
Form I-765 renewal solely because it was filed sooner. The USCIS 
Contact Center is an available resource and provides specific customer 
service options, including how to obtain assistance if a case is 
rejected or denied.\75\ Further, USCIS does not have a set rule that 
applicants must wait 365 days to submit a service inquiry. Rather, 
USCIS posts processing times on its Case Processing Times web page, 
which includes a tool to help determine whether an applicant can 
request an update on their case. Depending on the applicant's receipt 
date and other factors, USCIS provides an estimated date for when a 
case inquiry may be submitted or a link to submit a case inquiry.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See USCIS, Contact Us (last visited Feb. 3, 2026), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/contact-us">https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/contact-us</a>.
    \76\ See Frequently Asked Questions About Processing Times, 
USCIS, <a href="https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/processing-times-faqs">https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/processing-times-faqs</a> 
(last visited Mar. 23, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 65326]]

extensions to ensure that aliens have uninterrupted employment 
authorization and/or EADs. While DHS cannot guarantee that every 
renewal will be adjudicated before the existing EAD expires, DHS 
believes that proper planning by applicants, combined with reduced 
filing volumes and ongoing operational improvements, may lessen the 
likelihood and duration of lapses.
iii. Procedural Fairness
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns about the procedural 
fairness of applicants losing work authorization due to USCIS 
processing times. Specifically, some commenters said that the IFR would 
punish people who are following the law, complying with immigration 
procedures, or, more generally, ``have done everything right,'' losing 
status through ``no fault of their own.'' Likewise, several commenters 
remarked that the current automatic extension policy helps prevent 
nonimmigrants from being punished for delays beyond their control. A 
few commenters said that removing automatic extensions without 
addressing processing delays would be unjust.
    A few other commenters remarked that the IFR would contradict 
administrative equity or fairness. Other commenters said that the rule 
would contradict DHS's own acknowledgement that interruptions in work 
authorization cause ``substantial and unnecessary harm.'' A couple of 
commenters said that the rule would penalize law abiding applicants due 
to an extreme individual case.
    Response: DHS recognizes that many renewal applicants diligently 
comply with filing requirements and that delays in adjudication may not 
be within their control. DHS also acknowledges that prior rulemakings, 
including the 2016 and 2024 rules, sought to mitigate the impact of 
processing delays on workers and employers by providing automatic 
extensions of employment authorization and/or EADs.
    However, as explained in the IFR, DHS has reassessed the balance 
between continuity of employment authorization and the need to ensure 
that immigration benefits are granted only after appropriate vetting 
and eligibility determinations. There is no statutory entitlement to an 
automatic extension of employment authorization. Employment 
authorization in the relevant categories is generally discretionary and 
time-limited, and renewal requires a new adjudication. The IFR and this 
final rule do not deny renewal to eligible applicants; they simply 
require that continued employment authorization be based on an approved 
renewal application rather than on the mere filing of that application.
    DHS has determined that granting automatic extensions without 
updated vetting and adjudication is inconsistent with its mission and 
with E.O.s directing DHS to ensure that employment authorization is not 
provided to unauthorized aliens and that all aliens in the United 
States are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible. While 
DHS is mindful of the hardships that may arise from temporary lapses in 
employment authorization, the need to protect national security and 
public safety, and to enhance the integrity of immigration benefits, 
justifies discontinuing automatic extensions.
iv. General or Mixed Feedback on USCIS Processing
    Comment: Several commenters asked questions about USCIS operational 
metrics, processing times, use of RFEs, and remedial actions for 
applicants who lose their jobs due to adjudication delays. A commenter 
agreed that a 540-day extension was too long because there should be 
thorough vetting before granting EADs and/or employment authorization.
    Response: DHS acknowledges commenters' questions about the rule's 
impact. As discussed in the IFR and earlier in this preamble, the 
department has taken measures to address policies that resulted in the 
historic spike in EAD applications received during the previous 
administration. DHS anticipates a substantial decrease in both initial 
and renewal filings for EADs,\77\ which would allow for a reduction in 
processing times for renewal EADs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 90 FR 48814, footnote 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \78\ See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(ii).
    \79\ See INA sec. 291, 8 U.S.C 1361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \80\ See USCIS, Expedite Requests (last updated Sep. 8, 2026), 
<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests">https://www.uscis.gov/forms/filing-guidance/expedite-requests</a>.
    \81\ See id.
    \82\ See id.
    \83\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, DHS agrees with commenters' belief that the previous 540-
day automatic extension was too long, as demonstrated by this rule's 
finalization of the IFR's removal of the automatic extension process.
5. Combined Impacts on Individuals, Employers, the Economy, and 
Specific EAD Categories
i. Impacts on Aliens, Families, and Communities
a. General Hardship, Fairness, Educational Disruptions, and Family 
Impacts
    Comment: Many commenters expressed concerns that the IFR would 
cause lapses in valid work authorization, causing job loss or 
interruptions of work, while undermining aliens' financial stability.
    Commenters expressed that lapses in work authorization lead to job 
loss, income loss, housing/food insecurity, loss of health coverage, 
strain on community resources, educational disruption, and harm to 
families and children, and that this is unfair to individuals who have 
complied with all requirements. Many commenters expressed general 
concerns about the consequences of lost wages due to gaps in employment 
authorization. For example, commenters shared that lost wages could 
lead to housing and food

[[Page 65327]]

insecurity for nonimmigrants. Several commenters wrote that a lapse in 
employment could make nonimmigrants face the threat of eviction and 
other commenters shared concerns about increased risk of homelessness. 
Commenters remarked that many nonimmigrants may not have families or 
friends to lean on for temporary shelter, making this group 
particularly vulnerable to income shortages. One commenter remarked 
that in the current job market, it would be extremely difficult for 
them to find another job if they were to lose employment due to a lapse 
in work authorization.
    Several commenters expressed concern about the negative impact that 
the IFR would have on families. Some commenters said that employment 
lapses would result in financial insecurity for households. Some 
commenters specifically expressed concern that the IFR would cause 
significant financial hardship for families, including those who depend 
on dual incomes to meet basic needs such as mortgage payments, rent, 
childcare, healthcare, food, transportation, and other living expenses. 
A commenter said that the IFR could force family separation. A 
commenter remarked that a lapse in employment authorization would 
affect nonimmigrants' ability to travel and visit or take care of sick 
family members. Another commenter wrote that work authorization gaps 
would disproportionately affect households where women care for 
children, elders, and disabled family members.
    Several commenters expressed concern regarding the IFR's specific 
impact on children. For example, commenters shared that employment gaps 
would hinder their ability to provide care for their special needs 
children. A commenter remarked that families that continually face 
unmet needs endure stress that can impact the long-term health and 
development of children. Similarly, another commenter wrote that if 
household income is interrupted, children could lose their access to 
stable food, shelter, healthcare, and education ``overnight.'' The 
commenter reasoned that, as a result, children whose parents lack 
stable work authorization are more likely to suffer from poor overall 
health, and have a greater likelihood of hospitalization, school 
absenteeism, and disciplinary issues. Commenters remarked that food 
insecurity from disrupted wages would contribute to conditions such as 
hypertension and diabetes and said that children from poor families are 
four times as likely to be in ``less than very good health'' than 
children from wealthier families. Another commenter similarly remarked 
that they anticipate U.S. citizen children with an immigrant parent to 
be particularly impacted by the IFR.
    A few commenters said that the IFR poses humanitarian difficulties 
and challenges aliens' rights to pursue dignified work, as well as the 
American Dream. Other commenters said that the IFR is inhumane and 
erodes trust in the immigration system, while others stated it sends 
the message that working aliens are dispensable.
    One commenter stated that many EAD applicants are victims of 
disasters abroad and do not need to face further hardship. Similarly, 
multiple commenters stated that aliens come to the United States 
fleeing conflict or persecution and described automatic work 
authorization as ``a lifeline.'' Another commenter described the IFR's 
removal of automatic extensions of EAD validity periods as an unlawful 
form of coercion, stating that it will make life in the United States 
unbearable for aliens. A few commenters expressed concerns about the 
IFR causing potential discrimination in the hiring process. For 
example, a couple of commenters expressed concern that employers would 
not hire employees who are dependent on work authorization, due to 
potential disruptions from processing delays. One commenter remarked 
that the automatic extension policy helps level the hiring playing 
field against potential discrimination.
    A couple of commenters remarked that many nonimmigrant families 
live on modest wages and may not have enough saved up to supplement a 
gap in income. One commenter added that, since asylum seekers are not 
eligible for federal benefits, this group would be left particularly 
vulnerable.
    Some commenters also expressed concerns that nonimmigrants would 
lose benefits such as unemployment insurance and employer sponsored 
health coverage during employment authorization gaps. One commenter 
said that many nonimmigrants rely on EADs to demonstrate their 
eligibility to purchase healthcare on the Healthcare Marketplace. 
Multiple commenters added that, without health care coverage, aliens 
may be more likely to avoid treating health conditions and seeking 
preventive services. Commenters remarked that this would consequently 
increase use of emergency rooms and urgent care and expose nonimmigrant 
populations to medical debt. Additional commenters remarked that the 
2025 tax and budget law, Public Law 119-21, also known as the ``One Big 
Beautiful Bill Act,'' will further limit health coverage for aliens, 
and expressed concern for resulting health outcomes, citing several 
articles which demonstrated correlation between one's ability to afford 
health insurance and their health outcomes. One commenter also remarked 
that some medical insurance plans require minor children to have an 
unexpired EAD for coverage.
    Many commenters expressed concerns about the impact that the IFR 
would have on public resources. Commenters reasoned that loss of income 
would have to be supplemented by increased reliance on public 
assistance programs, charity, and other community or humanitarian 
services. For example, commenters said that the IFR would increase 
demand for services like food pantries, emergency shelters, clothing or 
donation centers, and community health centers. A few commenters 
remarked that these resources are already strained, particularly after 
having absorbed the spillover from shrinking federal assistance 
programs. One commenter remarked that cities in Maine are already 
exceeding their general assistance funds and cannot afford additional 
strain on resources. The commenter added that alien workers fill vital 
roles at social service agencies, working as translators, interpreters, 
case managers, and cultural brokers. The commenter reasoned that loss 
of these workers would exacerbate the strain on these agencies, 
predicting that if the alien workers face a lapse in EAD validity, they 
may then turn to the social service agency for help. The commenter 
added that local support services such as food banks have already seen 
an uptick in demand over the past year.
    Several commenters expressed concern that nonprofit legal providers 
would see an overwhelming increase in demand for services. Similarly, 
some commenters said that crisis-driven requests require timely 
responses and cannot be integrated into existing caseloads without 
sacrificing key legal services, and that shouldering more of these 
cases would cause stress to their organization and divert attention 
away from humanitarian case preparation.
    Response: DHS recognizes that lapses in employment authorization 
can create real hardship for affected aliens, their families, their 
employers and the communities in which they live. Commenters described 
risks such as job loss, reduced income, housing and food insecurity, 
loss of health coverage, strain on community resources, educational 
disruption, and negative impacts on children and family stability, 
particularly for households

[[Page 65328]]

relying on dual incomes or modest wages. DHS is also mindful of other 
disruptions that a temporary lapse in employment authorization of an 
alien may bring, including for those who may rely on an automatic 
extension to obtain REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses and other forms 
of identification.
    DHS considered these concerns before issuing the IFR \84\ and again 
in finalizing this rule. However, DHS has concluded that the need to 
ensure proper vetting and screening, and continued eligibility, before 
granting renewed employment authorization and issuing secure evidence 
of that authorization outweighs the risk that some applicants might 
experience a temporary lapse in employment authorization and/or EAD 
validity. DHS also determined that extending this benefit without 
updated adjudication and screening is inconsistent with its mission and 
with E.O.s \85\ directing DHS to ensure that employment authorization 
is not provided to unauthorized aliens and that aliens in the United 
States are vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See 90 FR 48799, 48809 (Oct. 30, 2025).
    \85\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against 
Invasion (Jan. 20, 2025), 90 FR 8443, 8446 (Jan. 29, 2025) and E.O. 
14161, Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and 
Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (Jan. 20, 2025), 
90 FR 8451, 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, DHS emphasizes that this rule does not eliminate 
eligibility for employment authorization or prevent eligible aliens 
from obtaining initial or renewal EADs. Rather, it ends the practice of 
automatically extending employment authorization and/or EAD validity 
for up to 540 days based solely on the filing of a renewal application, 
without completion of adjudicative review and related vetting, 
including resolution of any derogatory information. Continued 
employment authorization will now depend on USCIS' approval of a 
renewal application, after USCIS has determined that the alien 
continues to be eligible and continues to merit a favorable exercise of 
discretion, if applicable.
    This rule also does not change underlying eligibility standards for 
immigration benefits, public benefits, or educational programs, and it 
does not restrict aliens from seeking assistance for which they are 
otherwise eligible under Federal or State law. Certain categories of 
aliens, such as refugees and asylees, remain ``qualified aliens'' for 
specified public benefits under existing statutes, and those 
authorities are unchanged by this rule. Likewise, this rule does not 
alter the ability of States, localities, or private organizations to 
provide charitable or humanitarian assistance.
    DHS also notes that, independent of this rule, it has taken steps 
to reduce the extraordinary EAD filing volumes driven by prior 
policies, including narrowing the use of parole and aligning TPS 
designations with statutory criteria. DHS expects that overall EAD 
filing rates (initial and renewal) will substantially decline because 
of those actions, freeing adjudicative resources to reduce renewal EAD 
application processing times. For example, initial and renewal EAD 
applications for the largest EAD categories that were formerly eligible 
for automatic extensions have significantly reduced since the start of 
2025. See Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.
    Accordingly, the decreased EAD filing rates support the point made 
in the IFR that any claims about an increase in the number and duration 
of employment authorization and/or EAD lapses are speculative and 
outweighed by the harm posed by automatic extensions.
    USCIS also publishes current case processing time information on 
its website.\86\ Proper planning by applicants, such as monitoring EAD 
expiration dates, consulting posted processing times, and filing 
renewal applications as soon as permitted by regulation and form 
instructions, can further mitigate the risk and duration of any lapses 
in employment authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Overall, DHS recognizes the seriousness of the hardships described 
by commenters but concludes that, on balance, the national security, 
public safety, and benefit integrity interests served by ending 
automatic EAD extensions outweigh the potential adverse impacts 
associated with temporary lapses in employment authorization and/or EAD 
validity.
b. Mental Health and Vulnerability, Including Risk of Exploitation
    Comment: Commenters asserted that employment gaps due to the lack 
of automatic extensions and processing delays will exacerbate stress, 
trauma, and anxiety, and may push some aliens into unauthorized or 
exploitative employment or unsafe living conditions.
    Multiple commenters remarked that the IFR would instill fear, 
stress, depression, and anxiety, among other mental health concerns. 
One commenter asserted that some of the immigrant population is already 
experiencing significant levels of trauma and stress from immigration 
enforcement activity, and that the IFR would only exacerbate such 
feelings.
    Many commenters shared concerns about nonimmigrants' increased 
level of vulnerability to exploitation by employers and landlords, as 
well as human trafficking, sexual harm, and abuse owing to the IFR's 
elimination of automatic extensions. For example, multiple commenters 
said that loss of employment authorization makes nonimmigrants 
vulnerable to exploitative working conditions. Some commenters remarked 
that if aliens lose their ability to work legally, they may seek under 
the table work or unlawful employment. Commenters warned that this 
leaves such individuals vulnerable to exploitation, explaining that 
these jobs often have lower wages, minimal labor protections, and 
abusive conditions which they may be afraid to report due to unlawful 
status. They also indicated that 84.9 percent of unauthorized 
immigrants reported not being paid time and a half for overtime labor, 
and 37.1 percent reported being victims of minimum wage violations. The 
commenter added that many employers of unauthorized workers do not 
carry workers compensation insurance, meaning that employees may be 
responsible for covering their own medical costs in the case of work-
related injury. The commenter added that since USCIS recently ended a 
program that protected whistleblowers, unauthorized employees are now 
less likely to report various types of abuse. A different commenter 
added that forcing applicants into unlawful employment may also impact 
their eligibility for future immigration benefits, putting them in a 
long-term position of vulnerability.
    Response: DHS recognizes that uncertainty about employment 
authorization and potential lapses in income can contribute to stress, 
anxiety, and other mental health challenges, particularly for 
individuals who may already have experienced trauma or instability. DHS 
also recognizes that economic insecurity and lack of lawful employment 
opportunities can increase vulnerability to exploitation by 
unscrupulous employers, landlords, or others, and may heighten risks of 
trafficking, abuse, or other harm.
    The IFR and this final rule do not deny eligible aliens access to 
employment authorization or to the underlying immigration benefits for 
which they qualify. Rather the IFR, affirmed by this final rule, 
removes only the automatic extension mechanism that previously allowed 
aliens to remain employment authorized for up to 540

[[Page 65329]]

days based solely on a pending renewal application, without completion 
of updated vetting and adjudication. As described throughout this 
preamble, DHS has determined that such automatic extensions present an 
unacceptable security and program integrity risk because they confer 
significant benefits before USCIS has completed vetting and screening, 
resolved any derogatory information, determined continued eligibility 
and that the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion, if 
applicable.
    DHS cannot structure its regulatory framework on the assumption 
that aliens and/or employers will respond to temporary lapses in 
employment authorization by engaging in unauthorized employment or 
other unlawful conduct. The INA prohibits the knowing employment of 
unauthorized aliens and establishes consequences for both employers and 
aliens who violate those provisions. While DHS recognizes that some 
aliens may face difficult choices if a lapse occurs, DHS does not 
condone unauthorized employment or believe that it is an appropriate 
response to a temporary lapse in employment authorization.
    DHS shares commenters' concerns about exploitation and abuse. DHS, 
including through components such as ICE and USCIS' fraud detection and 
victim protection programs, will continue to enforce laws related to 
human trafficking, forced labor, and other forms of exploitation, and 
to coordinate with the Department of Labor and other agencies on 
enforcement. Existing protections for victims of trafficking, crime, 
and abuse (including T and U nonimmigrant classifications and VAWA) are 
unaffected by this rule. Nothing in this rule diminishes DHS's 
commitment to identify and assist victims or to support the 
investigation and prosecution of traffickers and other offenders.
    DHS recognizes that some aliens may experience heightened stress or 
vulnerability if their employment authorization temporarily lapses. 
However, DHS has concluded that the need to ensure that employment 
authorization is extended only after appropriate vetting and 
adjudication, consistent with current national security and public 
safety priorities, justifies ending automatic extensions. DHS also 
expects that reductions in overall EAD filing volumes may help limit 
the frequency and length of lapses and that timely filing and planning 
by applicants can further reduce uncertainty. For reduced filing 
volumes, see Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.
c. Identification, Driver's Licenses, and Access to Services
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns that lapses in 
employment authorization and the associated use of employment 
authorization documents would hinder nonimmigrants' abilities to obtain 
or renew their driver's licenses, open and access bank accounts, obtain 
or renew health insurance, enroll in educational programs and training, 
and interact with law enforcement. Commenters remarked that lack of a 
driver's license could interfere with critical daily activities for 
nonimmigrants, such as taking children to school, commuting to work, or 
attending doctors' appointments or immigration hearings. A few 
commenters shared that in many cases, nonimmigrants require driver's 
licenses to perform their job duties and that, without a valid driver's 
license, nonimmigrants may be pushed to drive without a license, 
compromising road safety.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that EADs are commonly used by aliens as 
identity and, in some contexts, status documents for State-issued 
driver's licenses and identification cards, financial services, and 
other purposes. Under the prior automatic extension framework, an EAD 
that was facially expired could be treated as unexpired for certain 
purposes if accompanied by a Form I-797C receipt notice, including 
obtaining a driver's license. As explained in the IFR, DHS determined 
that continuing that practice and the use of automatically extended 
EADs is no longer appropriate.
    This rule does not change State authority to determine which 
documents are acceptable for issuance of driver's licenses or other 
State identification, nor does it amend the Department's REAL ID 
regulations for issuance of driver's licenses or identification cards 
acceptable for federal official purposes defined in the REAL ID Act. It 
does, however, make clear that, for renewal applications filed on or 
after October 30, 2025, a pending Form I-765 and associated receipt 
notice will no longer operate to automatically extend EAD validity 
under DHS regulations. An EAD that is facially expired will not be 
treated as unexpired for employment or immigration purposes unless it 
qualifies for an automatic extension under 8 CFR 274a.13(d) based on a 
renewal application filed before October 30, 2025, or is otherwise 
extended by law or an applicable Federal Register notice (for example, 
certain TPS-related documents).
    The rule does not prevent eligible aliens from seeking or renewing 
EADs, nor does it prohibit States or other entities from accepting 
alternative forms of identification or documentation where permitted by 
law.
    DHS also expects that, as overall EAD filing volumes decline and 
renewal processing times improve, the risk and duration of lapses will 
be reduced. USCIS has already seen a decline in filing rates for the 
main EAD categories that were eligible for automatic extensions. See 
Table 1 in Section IV.C.2.i.d. of this preamble.
    DHS concludes that the security and benefit integrity gains from 
ensuring that EADs used as evidence of identity and work authorization 
reflect a recent adjudication and completed vetting outweigh the 
potential risks associated with discontinuing automatic extensions.
ii. Employment, Employers, and Economic Impacts
a. Employer Burdens, Business Continuity, and Sector Specific Concerns
    Comment: Multiple commenters argued that loss of automatic 
extensions will increase Form I-9 compliance complexity, cause turnover 
and productivity losses, exacerbate existing shortages in health care, 
education, agriculture, manufacturing, etc., and impose particular 
burdens on small employers.
    Commenters expressed opposition to removing automatic extensions, 
stating that such a change would cause significant disruption to 
employers, including operational inefficiencies (loss of productivity 
and delays), administrative burdens, staffing gaps, human capital costs 
and retention, civil penalties, and compliance burdens as employees 
await renewal decisions without work authorization. A few commenters 
stated that employers could violate Form I-9 compliance rules due to 
unclear authorization statuses.
    Multiple commenters asserted that the IFR would exacerbate existing 
labor shortages and projected a continued decrease in labor force 
participation rates through at least 2030, cautioning that the IFR 
could worsen such shortages by preventing asylum seekers from working 
during EAD processing and removing vetted workers. One commenter stated 
that labor shortages would negatively impact the U.S. economy, hinder 
growth and contribute to inflationary pressures. Another commenter 
stated that a decline of 2 million immigrant workers between 2019 and 
2021 contributed to labor

[[Page 65330]]

shortages across sectors, including a labor shortage in the 
construction industry valued at $10.8 billion, reasoning that the IFR 
would replicate such labor shortages across every industry. A commenter 
stated that until public and private sector efforts could fully meet 
industry demand, the United States would need additional workers to 
fill jobs left vacant by the domestic workforce, expressing concern 
that ending the EAD extension could further disrupt workforce stability 
and business continuity for manufacturers. Many commenters stated that 
the removal of automatic extensions would negatively impact critical 
industries and sectors of the U.S. economy that rely on foreign 
workers, including agriculture, technology, energy, manufacturing, 
logistics, transportation, hospitality, education, and construction. 
Several commenters expressed concern about the impact on healthcare and 
healthcare workers, noting that even a brief lapse in employment 
authorization disrupts patient care, clinic operations, and community 
health access. One commenter remarked about how the IFR will adversely 
affect teaching hospitals and academic health systems that employ EAD 
workers.
    Other commenters expressed concerns that the IFR would undermine 
labor unions, collective bargaining, and workforce stability by 
disrupting bargaining units that include immigrant workers with EADs, 
stating that increased risk of sudden job loss among workers would 
strain unions' ability to enforce workplace standards, forcing them to 
devote more resources to protecting vulnerable workers and addressing 
instability caused by the IFR.
    Multiple commenters expressed the importance of automatic 
extensions for business continuity amid persistent government 
processing delays and stated that the IFR would impose unnecessary 
burdens and costs, especially on smaller companies without in-house 
legal departments. Some commenters stated that the rule would force 
employers to conduct extensive contingency planning and workforce 
audits to prepare for potential lapses in work authorization. 
Specifically, a commenter stated that groups such as asylees, who are 
authorized to work incident to status, may still be asked to show an 
EAD to their employer, and further reasoned that the IFR could still 
cause employer confusion and job loss among these groups. Other 
commenters stated that eliminating automatic EAD extensions would cause 
businesses to lose workers and cited to a USCIS analysis establishing 
that EAD extensions previously saved U.S. employers an estimated $3.5 
billion by avoiding labor turnover.
    Numerous commenters expressed concern that employers would be 
forced to terminate employees due to administrative delays in 
processing EAD renewals. Commenters stated that previous sudden 
reversals of work permit rules have created confusion for employers and 
caused them to make rash decisions based on misinformation about 
changing Federal regulations, leading to erroneous layoffs where 
workers with valid EADs were dismissed because employers did not 
understand how to comply with current rules. A commenter said that such 
impacts would exacerbate the ongoing teacher shortage crisis.
    Response: DHS recognizes that some sectors, including healthcare, 
education, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality, and technology, and 
unionized workplaces may be particularly sensitive to interruptions in 
workforce continuity.
    This rule does not change employers' underlying obligations under 
section 274A of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, and 8 CFR part 274a to hire 
only individuals who are authorized to work in the United States, to 
verify employment eligibility, and to reverify employment authorization 
when existing documentation expires.
    By ending automatic extensions for renewal applications filed on or 
after October 30, 2025, this rule ensures that employment authorization 
will be evidenced by a secure, unexpired document issued following 
adjudication. This reduces the risk that employers will rely on 
outdated or invalid documentation, and it aligns with DHS's 
responsibility to ensure that employment authorization and/or an EAD is 
provided only after USCIS has completed appropriate vetting and 
determined continued eligibility.
    To ensure that workplaces and businesses have a clear understanding 
of the requirements of the IFR, DHS has updated the Handbook for 
Employers (M-274) and related guidance to assist employers in 
understanding these changes and properly completing Form I-9. Employers 
are responsible for ensuring I-9 compliance for all of their employees, 
including updates to the I-9 verification process.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See DHS, USCIS, Handbook for Employers M-274, 5.0 Automatic 
Extensions of Employment Authorization and/or Employment 
Authorization Documents (EADs) in Certain Circumstances (last 
updated Oct. 30, 2025), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/i-9">https://www.uscis.gov/i-9</a>-central/form-i-9-
resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/50-automatic-extensions-of-
employment-authorization-andor-employment-authorization-documents-
eads-in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    DHS has determined that these operational burdens are outweighed by 
the national security, public safety, and benefit integrity concerns 
associated with automatic EAD extensions. Automatic EAD extensions 
allow employment authorization and/or EAD validity to continue for up 
to 540 days

[…truncated; see source link]