NPRM Comment: Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants; DHS Docket No. USCIS–2025–0370

April 24, 2026

Samantha Deshommes
Acting Chief
Office of Policy and Strategy
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
5900 Capitol Gateway Drive
Camp Springs, MD 20746

Re: Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants CIS No. 2799–25; DHS Docket No. USCIS–2025–0370; RIN 1615–AC97

Dear Chief Deshommes:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business organization representing employers of every size and in every sector, submits the following comment in response to the above‑captioned Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Employment Authorization Reform for Asylum Applicants, 91 Fed. Reg. 8616 (Feb. 23, 2026) (Proposed Rule).

The Chamber supports USCIS’s objectives to protect national security and promote integrity in the immigration system. The Chamber also appreciates USCIS’s concerns about fraud in the employment authorization document (EAD) system. But for the reasons stated below, the proposed rule would harm the Chamber’s members and the broader economy. It would remove valuable employees from the lawful workforce while failing to address the government’s underlying concerns.

The Chamber respectfully requests that USCIS withdraw the above‑captioned regulatory proposal and work with stakeholders and subject‑matter experts in the business and law enforcement communities to address national security and immigration compliance concerns without causing irreparable harm to the U.S. economy.

Discussion

Asylum seekers provide valuable contributions to American businesses and the national economy

Asylum‑seeking workers contribute significantly to the U.S. economy. A 2024 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that refugees and asylees contributed $581 billion in tax revenue to federal, state, and local governments between 2005 and 2019, resulting in a net fiscal benefit of $123.8 billion over that period.[^1] The Immigration Research Initiative projects that for every 1,000 newly arrived immigrant workers, annual wages total $22 million and state and local tax revenues increase by $2.5 million in the first year, rising to $3.6 million after five years, assuming work authorization is granted.[^2] The IRI further emphasizes that “work authorization makes a big difference” in enabling these contributions.

Conversely, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that immigrants who arrived during the recent surge paid $10.1 billion in state and local taxes in 2023, but that the costs of providing services exceeded revenues by $9.2 billion that year.[^3] This short‑term local cost, however, must be weighed against the long‑term federal fiscal benefits of immigration, which the CBO has previously projected to be positive over a 10‑year horizon. The Migration Policy Institute has also documented how long waits for work authorization increase financial burdens on cities and states, as asylum seekers are unable to support themselves and must rely on public services.[^4]

Many industries employ hundreds of thousands of EAD‑authorized immigrants, including leisure and hospitality (360,000); professional and business services, including building maintenance (343,000); wholesale and retail (296,000); transportation and warehousing (206,000); manufacturing (218,000); and health services (109,000).[^5]

Tax contributions from asylum seekers are also greater than the proposed rule estimates. State and local tax revenues generally increase as immigrants settle in an area because their tax contributions typically offset state and local public‑service costs.[^6] The proposed rule estimates that asylum seekers’ federal employment tax payments may be as high as $7.43 billion. Proposed Rule at 8692. Outside experts have estimated total federal, state, and local tax payments by asylum seekers at $33 billion.[^7] In Florida alone, $2 of every $100 in residents’ income is earned by asylum applicants.[^8]

Ending new EAD processing for decades or more would harm American businesses and the national economy—especially the construction industry

The proposed rule estimates that about 503,000 asylum seekers submitting new EAD applications would be unable to work because of the proposed processing pause. Proposed Rule at 8624–25. The NPRM acknowledges uncertainty about whether other eligible workers would be able to fill the jobs otherwise performed by these asylum seekers. Id. at 8621.

USCIS acknowledges that businesses unable to fill vacancies would incur lost productivity and potential profits. Proposed Rule at 8692, 8620–21. USCIS also does not know what the “next best alternative” would be for employers that cannot immediately find replacement labor. Id. at 8692. Given that uncertainty, the proposed rule estimates business costs associated with sourcing alternative labor. If companies cannot find replacement workers “for the position the alien would have filled,” the estimated cost is $70.44 billion. Id. If companies immediately replace half the affected workers, the cost would be roughly $35.22 billion. Id. at 8693.

These estimates are likely low. Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a longstanding program that similarly authorizes employment, is ending for a majority of beneficiaries.[^9] Many TPS workers may qualify for asylum instead and could submit new EAD applications despite being long‑established members of the U.S. workforce. The proposed rule itself acknowledges that many TPS beneficiaries have worked “for an extended period of time” in the United States. Proposed Rule at 8653. If such workers are unable to continue working because their EAD applications are swept up in a processing pause, employers would lose productive employees who have served them for years.

These labor shocks would fall disproportionately on industries that already face acute worker shortages. Construction is a prime example. The industry reported 202,000 job openings in February 2026, and nearly 90% of construction employers report current vacancies, many of which are harder to fill than a year ago.[^10] About 40% of companies report rejecting applicants most often due to missing credentials, such as a work permit or driver’s license.[^10]

Experts have concluded that low immigration rates are a central contributor to construction labor shortages.[^11] As the U.S. workforce becomes more credentialed, attracting U.S.‑born workers into construction jobs will likely become more difficult, while current immigration policy remains misaligned with labor‑market needs.[^12] These shortages exacerbate the housing supply crisis, driving higher prices. As a December 2025 Fox News report explained, labor shortages are constraining the housing pipeline, delaying projects, increasing costs, and pricing first‑time buyers out of the market.[^13]

The proposed rule would compound labor shortages across the economy, which has experienced workforce shortfalls since the pandemic. Even with full labor‑force participation, an estimated 3.2 million jobs would remain unfilled.[^14] Some state and local governments have responded by creating programs to connect asylum seekers with high‑need industries.[^15]

Chamber members have expressed grave concern about the disruption that would result from an abrupt end to work authorization for even a portion of their workforce. In construction, loss of work authorization can immediately invalidate site credentials, safety certifications, or licenses, forcing employers to remove skilled laborers from payroll and disrupting coordinated crews. In health care—particularly long‑term care settings—similar disruptions threaten patient care and compliance with mandated staffing ratios. Across industries, the proposed rule would undermine workforce stability, erase investments in training and credentialing, and cause acute and irreparable harm.

A 2020 DHS rulemaking raised similar concerns by eliminating the 30‑day EAD adjudication timeline. In Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Wolf, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland held that DHS could not eliminate that timeline. 475 F. Supp. 3d 928, 963 (D. Md. 2020). The proposed rule here would go further by imposing a complete freeze on new EAD adjudications for a century or longer. Proposed Rule at 8650.

The proposed rule is also unlikely to shift employment to American‑born workers. Economic and legal experts have explained that asylum seekers generally do not displace native‑born workers; instead, employment and wages often rise for incumbents.[^16] The NPRM’s sole contrary example relies on speculative data from more than 50 years ago. Proposed Rule at 8641. That history does not justify ignoring modern, robust economic evidence.

Finally, the proposed rule would push asylum seekers into exploitative underground employment, harming legitimate businesses, workers, and the broader economy.

Renewal restrictions would harm businesses with long‑standing EAD‑authorized employees

Although the processing pause would not affect current EAD holders, the proposed rule imposes new requirements on EAD renewals. Proposed Rule at 8619, 8624–25, 8699–700. These include mandatory biometrics and immediate employment termination upon asylum denial. Id. USCIS recently reduced the maximum EAD validity period from five years to 18 months, further increasing renewal frequency. Id. at 8665 n.294.[^17]

Between 2020 and 2024, approximately 1.45 million EAD renewals were approved. Id. at 8695. That number will rise as validity periods shorten. Employers will bear substantial costs when renewals are delayed or denied.

Biometrics appointments require significant travel and time away from work, and historically have extended processing times by weeks or months. Proposed Rule at 8632–34. The proposed rule acknowledges that such delays may interrupt employment authorization. Id. at 8633, 8695.

The rule would also eliminate the current 60‑day grace period following asylum denial, requiring immediate termination of work authorization. Id. at 8662. These abrupt terminations would force unplanned hiring and operational disruption.

Layered onto these burdens, the proposed rule grants USCIS near‑absolute discretion over EAD approvals. Id. at 8661–63. Even USCIS concedes it cannot predict how many applicants would be denied under new discretionary standards. Id. at 8678. That uncertainty makes workforce planning extraordinarily difficult for employers.

USCIS should prioritize efficiency rather than adopt an indefinite pause

The proposed rule seeks to deter “meritless claims” by reducing EAD availability. Proposed Rule at 8665. But the record does not support the claim that work authorization drives frivolous asylum filings. Historical declines in filings following prior EAD restrictions coincided with the end of civil wars in Central America—not with reduced work authorization incentives.[^19]

Rather than penalizing employers and lawful workers for agency backlogs, USCIS should focus on improving processing efficiency. Faster adjudication would remove incentives for frivolous claims while preserving lawful employment. USCIS has demonstrated the ability to accelerate processing when required to do so. Proposed Rule at 8648.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Department of Homeland Security should rescind the proposed rule. The Department can instead address its concerns by working collaboratively with public‑ and private‑sector stakeholders to pursue reasonable, effective solutions that do not unnecessarily burden American businesses or harm the economy.

Respectfully submitted,

Patrick Shen
Vice President, Immigration Policy
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

About the author

Patrick Shen

Patrick Shen is vice president for Immigration Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Read more