The latest reversal by the Trump administration on employment authorisation rules marks yet another chapter in the shifting sands of America’s immigration and labour policy. By ending the automatic extension of Employment Authorisation Documents (EADs) for certain categories of foreign non-immigrant workers, the United States has reintroduced a layer of scrutiny that will inevitably slow down processing times and create uncertainty for thousands of workers — particularly Indians — who form a significant segment of the skilled foreign workforce in America.
The move reverses the Biden-era policy of 2022 that had temporarily allowed a 540-day automatic extension of work permits for eligible foreign workers whose renewal applications were pending. That measure was born out of necessity. At the time, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was grappling with nearly 1.5 million backlogged work permit requests, threatening the livelihoods of thousands of workers who risked losing legal employment status simply because the system could not process their paperwork in time. The automatic extension ensured continuity of employment, kept supply chains intact, and prevented large-scale disruptions across industries reliant on immigrant labour.
By contrast, the new rules under the Trump administration reinstate mandatory re-vetting and verification for all applicants seeking renewal of their EADs. Effective immediately, there will no longer be automatic extensions for those filing renewal applications. The Department of Homeland Security has justified this shift as a matter of national security, asserting that all non-immigrant foreign workers must undergo renewed background checks and eligibility reviews before the validity of their work authorisation can be extended. While this sounds reasonable in principle, the implications for the labour market and the administrative apparatus are far from simple.
Re-vetting every applicant means revisiting the same bureaucratic bottlenecks that the earlier policy sought to mitigate. Applicants will now need to await formal approval before resuming work, creating potential gaps in employment and income. For companies employing thousands of H-1B, L-1, or F-1 visa holders — particularly in technology, research, and higher education — this translates into operational uncertainty. Many Indian professionals in the U.S. already face long visa renewal cycles, protracted green card backlogs, and limited flexibility in job mobility. This additional requirement could further complicate their status, particularly for those whose work permits expire during the waiting period.
It is important to note that this decision does not affect EADs that were automatically extended before October 30. However, for new applicants, the absence of a safety net will mean more stress and unpredictability. Typically, EADs are valid for one to two years, though certain categories, such as dependents of diplomatic staff or individuals under humanitarian programs, may have longer validity. A sudden disruption to these authorisations could lead to temporary layoffs, compliance issues for employers, and mental strain for affected workers and their families.
For Indian nationals, the impact will be particularly visible. The United States remains home to nearly 4.8 million Indian Americans, two-thirds of whom are immigrants. Among them, a large share are professionals in STEM fields employed through H-1B or L-1 visa categories. Many of their spouses work under dependent visa programs that require EADs. The re-vetting mandate means that these dependents will now have to wait longer for employment continuity — a scenario that could lead to financial insecurity and career stagnation, especially for women who form a major proportion of H-4 EAD holders.
This development also comes close on the heels of another controversial decision: a massive fee increase for H-1B visas, now reportedly pegged at $100,000 annually. Together, the two measures point to a broader recalibration of America’s immigration priorities — one that tilts toward restrictionism under the guise of security and self-reliance. While it is the prerogative of any sovereign state to safeguard its borders and ensure proper vetting, it is equally crucial to acknowledge the economic interdependence that skilled immigration fosters. The U.S. economy has long benefited from the contributions of foreign-born professionals who power sectors from information technology to healthcare. Policy swings that create instability in this ecosystem risk undermining America’s own competitiveness.
The rationale that convenience should not come at the cost of security may resonate politically, but administratively, it revives a problem that had been temporarily solved. The 2022 Biden measure was not a relaxation of standards; it was a response to a bureaucratic emergency that threatened economic fallout. The reintroduction of mandatory re-vetting, without commensurate increases in processing capacity or staff, risks re-creating that same emergency. The system that once had a 1.5 million application backlog could easily find itself overwhelmed again, this time without the cushion of automatic extensions.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: can a balance be struck between rigorous vetting and operational efficiency? Immigration and employment authorisation processes need to inspire both public confidence and administrative competence. Security screening is important, but when it becomes synonymous with red tape, it fails both objectives. The United States has always prided itself on being a magnet for global talent — a place where skill, not nationality, determines opportunity. If that narrative is to endure, its policies must reflect a nuanced understanding of both labour realities and human lives caught in bureaucratic cycles.
For Indian professionals and their families, these recurring policy oscillations have become part of the migration experience — a pendulum swinging between openness and suspicion. The new re-vetting mandate is likely to lengthen waiting times, heighten anxieties, and strain the already complex relationship between the world’s two largest democracies in the area of talent mobility. India’s pool of highly skilled workers has been integral to America’s innovation story. Creating additional hurdles in their path does little to advance mutual growth or trust.
Ultimately, immigration policy must be both secure and humane. Administrative vigilance should not translate into human inconvenience. The decision to withdraw automatic extensions may satisfy the rhetoric of security, but it risks eroding the efficiency and predictability that modern economies demand. For now, foreign workers, particularly Indians, must once again prepare to navigate an uncertain landscape — one where every extension is a fresh examination, and every renewal a renewed test of patience.