New Government Proposal Would Force Laid-Off Foreign Workers to Leave Immediately
Washington, Saturday, 12 September 2026.
A proposed rule would eliminate the 60-day grace period for laid-off foreign workers, forcing thousands to leave the United States immediately and disrupting corporate talent acquisition.
Regulatory Shift and Immediate Implications
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) formally introduced a regulatory proposal on 2026-09-03 to eliminate the 60-day grace period for H-1B visa holders following job loss [1][5]. This proposed rule, scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on 2026-09-11, marks a significant departure from existing immigration protocols under the Trump administration [1][5]. If implemented, high-skilled foreign professionals would face immediate departure from the United States unless they secure alternative legal immigration status instantly [1][3]. The policy change presents significant operational and compliance challenges for corporate leaders, particularly across the technology and financial sectors that rely heavily on specialized foreign talent [1].
Regulatory Shift and Immediate Implications
Under the proposed rule, laid-off workers would be considered immediately removable from the U.S. upon losing their position, effectively reducing the window to find new sponsorship to zero days [2][3]. This shift would require affected individuals to leave the U.S. immediately and seek processing at an American embassy or consulate to change employers [1]. The proposal triggers a 60-day public comment period following the notice published on 2026-09-11 [2][5]. During this time, stakeholders can submit feedback before the administration finalizes the regulation [2].
Historical Precedent and Utilization Data
The 60-day grace period was originally established under Obama-era regulations finalized on 2016-11-18 and took effect on 2017-01-17 [1][3]. It was implemented due to lobbying from business groups aiming to facilitate easier hiring of foreign talent and applies to H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN, and E visa holders [1][3]. Between October 1, 2017, and May 20, 2026, USCIS processed approximately 1.9 million petitions or applications requiring assessment of whether the 60-day grace period applied [2][5]. DHS data indicates a yearly average of 65,752 workers utilized the grace period between 2021 and 2025 [1].
Historical Precedent and Utilization Data
Of the yearly average cohort identified by DHS, approximately 3945.12 secured new employer sponsorship within the window [1]. Conversely, other DHS estimates suggest approximately 3,795 workers per year utilize this grace period to find new employment, change status, or pursue permanent residency [5]. The proposal could also impact over 208,000 spouses and children whose immigration status is tied to affected primary visa holders [5]. Removing this window would trigger mandatory financial obligations for employers to cover transportation costs for terminated foreign employees returning to their home countries [1].
Industry and Legal Perspectives
The DHS justifies the policy shift by citing reduced administrative burdens and the need to restore a direct relationship between a worker’s status and their specific employment [1][3]. The agency argues that the harm of the up to 60-day discretionary grace period outweighs the potential benefit it provides to the impacted aliens and employers [2]. However, Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, noted that finding the right talent cannot happen in zero days [1]. He further stated that the proposal shifts responsibilities to the State Department, which is already overburdened with demand for visa appointments [1][5].
Industry and Legal Perspectives
The US Chamber of Commerce encouraged the administration to carefully weigh the proposal’s impact on workforce flexibility and talent retention [1]. Adam Klein, a former DHS official, warned that making one USCIS adjudication simpler does not necessarily make the immigration system more efficient [5]. He suggested the change could replace a domestic issue with a complex international process involving workers leaving the country and potentially returning [5]. The proposal remains subject to public comment and administrative review before any final implementation [2][5].