The White House has cleared a proposal that would eliminate the 60-day window foreign workers currently get to remain in the country after losing a job, a move that could leave hundreds of thousands of visa holders one layoff away from losing their legal status overnight.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs completed its review of the Department of Homeland Security rule on August 27, recording the outcome as "consistent with change", regulatory language meaning the proposal passed muster after revisions and now advances toward publication in the Federal Register. DHS submitted the proposed rule, tracked as RIN 1615-AD22, for White House review on August 6, Newsweek reported.
If finalized, the regulation would undo an Obama-era protection that has been in place since early 2017. Under current rules, workers on H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN, and several other employment-based visa categories receive a discretionary grace period of up to 60 days after their employment ends, whether they quit or get fired. That window gives them time to find a new sponsor, apply for a change of status, or arrange an orderly departure.
Strip that buffer, and a foreign worker whose company downsizes on a Friday could fall out of lawful status by the following Monday.
The proposal covers E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, and TN visa holders, along with qualifying dependents. The grace period was established by federal regulations enacted in 2016 and took effect in early 2017, giving workers a single 60-day window per authorized petition-validity period. Before that rule existed, losing a job meant an immediate obligation to leave, or risk falling out of status.
The Trump administration has framed the proposal as part of a broader effort to tighten the H-1B system. And it is not the only measure moving through the pipeline. Bloomberg Law reported that the grace-period rule is advancing alongside a separate proposal that would impose a $103,265 charge connected to new H-1B hires, a fee so steep that a federal judge has already blocked a related version of it, calling it an unauthorized tax.
Taken together, the two proposals would raise the cost of hiring foreign workers and shorten the timeline for those workers to find new employment if their positions disappear. For American workers competing in the same labor markets, that amounts to a structural advantage they have not had in nearly a decade.
Immigration law firm Fragomen, which published a client advisory on the proposal, noted that losing lawful nonimmigrant status does not automatically trigger removal proceedings. A worker who falls out of status is not immediately deported. But the distinction is cold comfort: without valid status, a foreign national has no legal authorization to work, no access to employer-sponsored benefits, and sharply increased exposure to immigration enforcement.
Fragomen also noted that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may retain separate discretion to forgive a status lapse and permit an eligible worker to change employers or immigration status without first leaving the country. Whether USCIS will formally codify that discretion, or exercise it generously, remains an open question. The administration's broader posture on immigration enforcement suggests leniency is not the default setting.
The Trump administration has pursued a parallel overhaul of F-1 student visa rules aimed at curbing fraud and overstays, signaling that the tightening extends well beyond employment-based categories.
OIRA clearance is a significant milestone, but it is not the finish line. DHS must still publish the full proposed rule text in the Federal Register, open a public comment period of 30 or 60 days, review every submission, and issue a final regulation. Fragomen estimated the finalization process typically takes several months. The current 60-day grace period remains in effect, and no new employer compliance requirements arise from the OIRA clearance alone.
That timeline gives affected workers, employers, and industry groups a window to weigh in. It also gives opponents time to mount legal challenges. The administration's immigration agenda has already drawn heavy fire in the courts, with federal judges vacating Trump immigration policies and ordering USCIS to resume processing in dozens of countries.
No publication date for the proposed rule has been listed. The regulatory filing does not specify which, if any, visa categories or worker circumstances might receive exemptions. And the specific revisions OIRA required before clearing the proposal, the changes behind the "consistent with change" outcome, have not been disclosed.
The administration has also faced institutional resistance on other fronts. The Justice Department recently refused a judge's demand for a sworn declaration on a separate policy matter, underscoring the friction between the executive branch and the judiciary over the scope of presidential authority.
For years, the 60-day grace period functioned as a cushion that softened the consequences of job loss for foreign workers, and, by extension, made it easier for employers to cycle through visa-sponsored hires without worrying about the human cost of layoffs. Remove the cushion, and the calculus changes. Employers who rely heavily on H-1B labor face new risks: a laid-off worker who cannot find a sponsor in time becomes a compliance liability, not just a personnel decision.
American workers, meanwhile, benefit from any policy that raises the cost and complexity of replacing them with cheaper foreign labor. The H-1B program was designed to fill genuine skill gaps, not to undercut domestic wages. When the system makes it easy to hire foreign workers and painless to discard them, it is American workers who absorb the consequences.
The proposal does not solve every problem with the H-1B system. But it restores a basic principle: if you are in this country on a work visa, your right to stay is tied to your job. When the job ends, the clock starts, and it should not run for two months on the taxpayer's patience.
