Beltway Buzz, March 21, 2025
The Beltway Buzz™ is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.
DEI EOs “Unblocked.” T. Scott Kelly and Zachary V. Zagger have the details on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that will allow the federal government to enforce its DEI-related executive orders (EO) (EO 14151 and EO 14173) while a decision on the merits awaits appeal. This means that the federal government can once again, for example, require federal contractors to certify that they do not operate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs that violate federal antidiscrimination laws. It also means that the U.S. attorney general can pursue legal challenges to private-sector DEI programs “that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.” Other legal challenges to the DEI executive orders are still pending.
EEOC Issues Technical Assistance on DEI. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) this week issued two technical assistance documents, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination At Work” and “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related To DEI At Work.” The first document, in particular, cautions employers that an “initiative, policy, program, or practice may be unlawful if it involves an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” The document then provides examples of DEI-related workplace policies and practices that the EEOC believes may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to discrimination in hiring, firing, and compensation, the document notes that job duties, access to training, mentorship programs, and employee resource groups should also not be motivated in whole or in part on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Nonnie L. Shivers has the specifics.
Secretary of State Asserts Control Over Immigration Rulemaking Process. On March 14, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio published a notice in the Federal Register that will likely have a significant impact on the Trump administration’s immigration-related rulemaking protocols. In the notice, Secretary Rubio states that his primary foreign affairs duty is “to protect the people of the United States from any threats originating from foreign actors or from foreign soil” which includes policies related to the “protection and travel of U.S. citizens overseas, visa operations and visa issuance.” Rubio concludes with the following:
I hereby determine that all efforts, conducted by any agency of the federal government, to control the status, entry, and exit of people, and the transfer of goods, services, data, technology, and other items across the borders of the United States, constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, 554. (Emphasis added.)
The “foreign affairs” exemption in the Administrative Procedure Act allows the federal government to avoid the normal notice and comment requirements of the rulemaking process. The U.S. Department of State has claimed this exemption regularly over the years, usually when going through the standard rulemaking process would result in some undesirable international consequence. Moreover, during Donald Trump’s first presidency, the administration also claimed this exemption relating to certain policy changes but was rejected by at least two federal courts. Secretary Rubio’s notice, at least on its face, would try to expand the use of this exemption beyond the State Department and extend it to other agencies involved in immigration rulemaking processes, such as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Democratic FTC Commissioners Fired. This week, President Trump fired Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the two remaining Democratic commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson and fellow Republican Melissa Holyoak remain on the Commission, which can still bring cases, even with three vacant commissioner seats. Like the firings of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and EEOC commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels, the removal of Bedoya and Slaughter is a further example of the administration’s efforts to assert executive branch authority over federal agency commissions and boards.
Trump Rescinds More Biden-Era EOs. On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” which rescinds eighteen executive orders, memoranda, and determinations issued by President Joe Biden. The rescinded EOs relating to employment policy are as follows:
“Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors” (EO 14026, April 27, 2021). This EO set the minimum wage applicable to covered federal contractor employees at $17.75 per hour as of the beginning of this year (pursuant to a provision that provides for annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index). However, President Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13658, which also increases the minimum wage for covered contractors, remains in place. While still unclear at this time, federal minimum wage requirements could be $7.25 per hour or $13.30 per hour, depending on whether the contract was covered under the Biden or Obama EO. Clarification from the DOL on this would be helpful.
“Advancing Worker Empowerment, Rights, and High Labor Standards Globally” (Presidential Memorandum, November 16, 2023). This memorandum encouraged the promotion of workers’ rights (e.g., collective bargaining, safe workplaces, wage and hour protections, and prohibiting forced labor ) as they related to the United States’ “foreign, international development, trade, climate, and global economic policy priorities.”
“Scaling and Expanding the Use of Registered Apprenticeships in Industries and the Federal Government and Promoting Labor-Management Forums” (EO 14119, March 6, 2024 ). This EO directed federal agencies to promote opportunities to contract with employers that participated in union-supported registered apprenticeship programs.
“Investing in America and Investing in American Workers” (EO 14126, September 6, 2024). This EO encouraged federal agencies to include certain labor and employment standards in federal grants and contracts. This came to be known colloquially as the “Good Jobs” executive order.
FMCS on the Brink. Also, on March 14, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order entitled, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” that “continues the reduction in the elements of the Federal bureaucracy that the President has determined are unnecessary.” The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) is one of seven agencies ordered to eliminate its “non-statutory components and functions … to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” Pursuant to the EO, the FMCS (as well as the other agencies listed) must “submit a report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget confirming full compliance with this order and explaining which components or functions of the governmental entity, if any, are statutorily required and to what extent” by March 21, 2025. The FMCS homepage currently displays the following message: “We are reviewing recent Executive Orders for immediate implementation. The requirements outlined in these orders may affect some services or information currently provided on this website.”
House Committee Gets Its Start. On March 21, 1867, the U.S. House of Representatives did something that is near and dear to our hearts here at the Buzz: it established the Committee on Education and Labor. Following the Civil War, Congress created the committee to address issues arising from the country’s rapid industrial growth. In 1883, the committee was divided into two separate committees, the Committee on Education and the Committee on Labor. After several decades, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 joined the two committees together again as the Committee on Education and Labor. The committee has existed in that form ever since, though beginning in 1995, the name has been tweaked depending on the party in the majority. When Democrats are in the House majority, it is called the “Committee on Education and Labor.” When Republicans are in the House majority, the committee is referred to as the “Committee on Education and the Workforce.”
Pennsylvania’s Proposed Ban on Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants: What It Means for the Commonwealth
Pennsylvania is once again at the center of a heated political debate—this time over a proposed constitutional amendment that could ban undocumented immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. The proposal, which has sparked polarized responses, is expected to stir discussions in the state legislature and beyond. In this post, we’ll explore the background of the amendment, the political arguments on both sides, and the potential economic, legal, and societal impacts if the amendment is enacted.
Background: Understanding the Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment seeks to change Pennsylvania’s constitution to prohibit undocumented immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. This amendment would mark a shift in state policy, as some states currently allow undocumented residents to obtain licenses as part of efforts to enhance road safety and improve identification records. The push for the amendment has largely been driven by Republican lawmakers who argue that the change is necessary to uphold immigration laws and protect public resources. By elevating the issue to the level of a constitutional amendment, proponents aim to make it more difficult for future legislatures to reverse the policy.
The Political Debate: Pros and Cons
As with many immigration-related issues, the debate over driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants has divided opinions along political lines.
Arguments in Favor of the Amendment
Upholding Immigration Laws: Supporters argue that granting licenses to undocumented immigrants undermines federal immigration laws and could incentivize illegal immigration.
Preventing Voter Fraud: Some proponents claim that driver’s licenses could be used to improperly access voting systems, despite existing safeguards.
Resource Allocation: Advocates contend that public resources should prioritize legal residents and citizens.
Arguments Against the Amendment
Enhancing Road Safety: Opponents point out that allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses can improve road safety by ensuring that all drivers are tested, insured, and educated about traffic laws.
Economic Impact: Undocumented immigrants play a vital role in Pennsylvania’s economy, particularly in industries like agriculture and construction. Restricting access to driver’s licenses could limit their ability to work and contribute to local economies.
Humanitarian Concerns: Critics argue that the amendment could create unnecessary hardships for immigrant families who rely on driving to access essential services, including healthcare, education, and employment.
Potential Economic and Societal Impacts
The implications of the proposed amendment could be far-reaching, affecting various aspects of life in Pennsylvania.
Workforce Participation: Limiting access to driver’s licenses could reduce the mobility of undocumented workers, making it harder for employers to fill essential jobs. This, in turn, could impact productivity and economic growth.
Public Safety: Studies from other states have shown that providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants can lead to fewer hit-and-run accidents and lower overall crash rates. Without access to licenses, some immigrants may drive without proper training or insurance, potentially increasing safety risks.
Social Integration: Driver’s licenses are often a key tool for social integration, allowing individuals to participate more fully in their communities. The amendment could deepen divides and contribute to a sense of marginalization among immigrant populations.
Legal Implications: The Road Ahead
For the proposed amendment to become law, it must go through a multi-step process. First, it needs to be approved in two consecutive sessions of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Then, it must be presented to voters in a statewide referendum. This process could take several years, providing ample opportunity for public debate and advocacy on both sides.
If the amendment is ultimately approved, Pennsylvania would join a growing number of states that have implemented restrictions on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. However, legal challenges could arise, particularly if the amendment is seen as conflicting with federal policies or constitutional protections.
So…What’s at Stake for Pennsylvania?
The debate over driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants touches on complex issues of law, economics, and social justice. As the legislative process unfolds, Pennsylvanians will need to weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of the proposed amendment and consider its broader implications for the state’s future.
Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear: this issue is not just about driver’s licenses—it’s about who we are as a society and how we choose to balance the principles of law enforcement, economic prosperity, and human dignity.
SCOTUS to Consider Emergency Applications to Lift Nationwide Injunctions on EO Ending Birthright Citizenship?
The Trump Administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of the executive order (EO) to end birthright citizenship.
Following his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an EO directing federal agencies to refuse recognition of U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States to mothers who are in the country without authorization or on nonimmigrant visas, if the father is not a U.S. citizen or green card holder.
Judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state have issued nationwide injunctions barring the government from implementing the EO.
President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court to limit these nationwide injunctions, arguing that they disrupt the judicial process and overreach into executive branch operations. The administration’s March 13 emergency applications asked that the court orders be limited to the specific individuals and organizations involved in the lawsuits. They contend that there is no justification for the injunctions to apply nationwide, particularly to the 18 states that support the EO.
The Supreme Court’s decision could potentially lead to a ruling that restricts district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions. The administration also argues that the injunctions improperly interfere with the executive branch’s ability to develop guidance for implementing the EO. If the justices do not agree to limit the injunctions to individuals and organizations, the administration has requested that they be restricted to the plaintiff states.
Oh No! Prince Harry’s U.S. Immigration Records Released!
The mystery around Prince Harry’s U.S. immigration status has gripped the public’s attention. A legal fight for transparency pushed for the release of these documents. What secrets do they hold? Will Prince Harry be deported from the United States? Did he lie to immigration authorities in the United States? The United States Government just released Prince Harry’s immigration records. Well, some of them. . . .
What’s the Buzz About Prince Harry’s Immigration Records? One Word: Spare.
Prince Harry’s memoir Spare (2023) documents salacious accusations about the Royal Family and describes, in detail, his past and continued use of marijuana, cocaine, psychedelic mushrooms, and other drugs. The author admits to his prior and ongoing addictions to drugs, as well as his possession and continued use. Prince Harry writes that his past use was necessary for him to handle his then-royal duties, ongoing rifts within the Royal Family, and public scrutiny of his life. He writes that more recently, psychedelic mushrooms were critical in helping him find peace in his life – opening his eyes to a world that is not as he first imagined it.”
In a 2023 article, Prince Harry: Can He Spare His Visa, it noted that Prince Harry’s words “may seriously impact his immigration status in the United States. . . . [H]he is in the United States under a non-immigrant visa. When someone seeks a non-immigrant visa, attempts to enter the United States with a non-immigrant visa, or seeks to become a lawful permanent resident, questions about prior and current drug use, addictions, and for that matter, prior simple possession of drugs, are fair game. Prince Harry’s admissions in Spare could bar him from renewing visas or entering the United States, and quite possibly prevent the approval of any future applications for lawful permanent resident status.”
When applying for a non-immigrant visa to the United States, all applicants are asked not once, not two, but three times about prior drug use or drug abuse. If Prince Harry admitted to drug use when asked, theUnited States Department of State would have denied Prince Harry’s visa request. On the otherhand, if Prince Harry never disclosed his prior drug use to the United States Government, such a failure would be deemed a material misrepresentation and would lead to Prince Harry’s deportation from the United States. The mere admission to drug use can have serious implications for non-citizens, regardless of an arrest or conviction.
In the aftermath of the release of Spare, many questioned whether or not Prince Harry lied to the United States Government to secure a non-immigrant visa approval. And, so, the record searches began.
The Legal Battle: Unsealing the Records
A lawsuit demanded the release of Prince Harry’s immigration records. Why? The organization filing the suit believed the public has a right to know. They argued for openness in immigration matters, especially for public figures.
The Heritage Foundation spearheaded the legal efforts. This group wanted to see the records released. Their rationale? They felt the public deserved to know if Prince Harry had been honest about his past. Specifically, they wondered about any past drug use and how it might affect his visa. The government pushed back, redacting parts of the documents.
Why hide information? They cited privacy concerns, and also potential national security considerations. They needed to shield sensitive details from public view.
Key Revelations from the Redacted Records
Even with redactions, some information emerged. We can look at what was revealed, but avoid guessing beyond what the documents actually say. Let’s get into these details.
The type of visa Prince Harry used became public. It was an O-1 visa, typically for individuals with extraordinary ability. This visa has rules and demands. Did Prince Harry meet those requirements? It’s a valid question. The documents touch on Prince Harry’s past drug use. He acknowledged prior use in his memoir, and this connects to potential legal issues. U.S. immigration law takes drug use seriously. Any false statements could cause problems.
Redactions: What’s Hidden and Why It Matters
Large portions of the records were blacked out, but why? These redactions conceal specific details. We should ask if the government’s reasons hold up. The redactions cover entire pages and specific phrases. Why hide so much? It may protect privacy or conceal sensitive government methods. The extent of these redactions is quite noteworthy.
Are the redactions truly justified? Does the public’s right to know outweigh privacy in this case? It’s a tricky balance. The government must show a real need for secrecy.
Implications for Prince Harry’s U.S. Residency
What could happen because of the records’ contents? Let’s consider the legal and political results. Discrepancies could trigger big problems.
Could Prince Harry’s visa be challenged? If he wasn’t fully honest, he could face trouble. His visa might even be revoked. Also, how does this affect public opinion? The release and redaction of these records impacts the Royal Family’s image. Public trust is crucial. Secrecy can breed suspicion.
The Broader Impact on Immigration Policy and Transparency
This case goes beyond Prince Harry. It raises questions about broader immigration rules. It gets into government transparency. This is a bigger picture issue.
Does this set a precedent? Will future requests for immigration records of famous people be treated the same? This case could shape how these requests are handled.
We face a constant debate. How do we balance privacy with the public’s need to know? This case brings this tension to the surface. It calls for a careful approach.
Conclusion
The redacted immigration records of Prince Harry leave us with questions. The balance between individual privacy and public interest remains a key issue. This case underscores the complexities of immigration policy.
Forward Movement Seen in April 2025 Visa Bulletin
The Visa Bulletin for April 2025 shows continued forward movement in the final action dates for all EB-2 and EB-3 categories. The bulletin also remains consistent in the EB-1 categories with slight forward movement for EB-1 India.
Quick Hits
The April 2025 final action dates in the EB-1 categories are unchanged for all countries except India, which has moved ahead by two weeks.
The April 2025 final action dates in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for all countries have moved forward.
USCIS has confirmed it will accept adjustment of status applications based on the final action dates chart in April 2025.
Source: US Department of State, April 2025 Visa Bulletin
The final action dates chart in the April 2025 Visa Bulletin continues to move forward for most employment-based categories.
EB-1
EB-1 China remains at November 8, 2022.
EB-1 India has advanced two weeks from February 1, 2022, to February 15, 2022.
All other countries remain “current,” meaning adjustments of status for all priority dates in this category will be accepted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
EB-2
EB-2 China will advance by almost five months from May 8, 2020, to October 1, 2020.
EB-2 India will advance by one month from December 1, 2012, to January 1, 2013.
All other countries will advance by more than five weeks from May 15, 2023, to June 22, 2023.
EB-3
EB-3 China will advance by three months from August 1, 2020, to November 1, 2020.
EB-3 India will advance by two months from February 1, 2013, to April 1, 2013.
All other countries will advance by one month from December 1, 2022, to January 1, 2023.
Next Steps
Starting April 1, 2025, individuals whose priority dates are earlier than the listed final action dates can file Form I-485, “Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.”
UK Home Office Announces New Visa and Sponsorship Fees Effective April 2025
On 19 March, the UK Home Office announced increases to visa and sponsorship fees to take effect from 9 April. There are increases for most fees listed which will impact almost everyone including Skilled Worker visa holders, sponsors, and those applying for settlement and citizenship. The increases range from as little as £8.50 (which leads one to wonder why bother, frankly? – the admin attached to that change must surely swallow all or most of the increased revenues) to a staggering £286. We have summarised the key changes in this post.
Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) fees for Skilled Workers, Global Business Mobility – Senior or Specialist Workers, Ministers of Religion and International Sportsperson (over 12 months) will see the biggest increase with costs rising from £239 to £525.
Skilled Worker applications for up to three years (outside the UK):
Previously: £719
New fee: £769
Skilled Worker applications for up to five years (outside the UK):
Previously: £1,420
New fee: £1,519
Skilled Worker applications for up to three years (inside the UK):
Previously: £827
New fee: £885
Skilled Worker applications for up to five years (inside the UK):
Previously: £1,636
New fee: £1,751
Skilled Worker roles on the Immigration Salary List (formerly Shortage Occupation List) will see increases of £39-£76 depending on the length of the visa.
Sponsor Licence fees for medium or large sponsors will increase by £103 from £1,476 to £1,579
Indefinite Leave to Remain (Settlement) will increase from £2,885 to £3,029
Naturalisation (British Citizenship) will jump from £1,500 to £1,605.
The smallest increase of £8.50, which doesn’t relate specifically to sponsorship, will be applied to a Convention Travel Document for a child, increasing the cost from £53 to £61.50.
Interestingly, premium services such as priority processing fees will largely remain unchanged even though one might have thought that that would be an easier sell.
These increases mean higher costs for businesses sponsoring workers and greater financial burdens for migrants settling in the UK. Employers should factor these changes into their recruitment budgets, particularly as the government continues to tighten immigration rules and intensify scrutiny on sponsor compliance.
For full details on the new fee structure, visit the official Home Office website: UK Visa and Immigration Fees – April 2025.
Trump 2.0, First Two Months in Review: A Summary of Immigration-Related Actions
The first two months of the Trump administration introduced significant immigration-related executive orders and agency directives. These directives will have broad impacts on employers and foreign nationals living and working in the United States. The far-reaching executive orders direct and authorize federal agencies to take various subsequent administrative actions. Here is a review of the key provisions and the potential impacts of the federal actions that have been issued since the new administration took office.
Quick Hits
Multiple executive orders and other presidential directives call for reports to assess current policy, agreements, and related guidance. Following the submission of these reports, subsequent actions could be seen, such as travel bans or restrictions, changes to eligibility for certain employment-based visa categories, or heightened scrutiny at U.S. consulates and ports of entry.
DHS has reviewed and made important changes to temporary protected status (TPS) designations for Venezuela and Haiti. As country conditions and U.S. national interest are reviewed, more changes to existing TPS programs may follow.
DHS has rescinded existing and long-standing policy related to prohibiting Immigration enforcement actions in sensitive locations.
January 20, 2025Executive Order 14159: ‘Protecting the American People Against Invasion’
Executive Order (EO) 14159, titled, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” focuses on efforts to address the illegal entry and unlawful presence of foreign nationals inside the United States. The order authorizes the establishment of the Homeland Security Taskforces (HSTF). The HSTF is charged with addressing a broad spectrum of issues, including criminal cartels, foreign gangs and transnational criminal organizations, and cross-border human smuggling and trafficking networks, with a particular focus on offenses involving children. The HSTF is charged with ensuring the use of all available law enforcement tools to faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States.
This order also authorizes the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to limit humanitarian parole and to evaluate existing temporary protected status (TPS) programs to determine whether TPS designations for foreign nationals remain necessary to fulfill the intended purpose. The order also directs DHS to announce and ensure that all previously unregistered noncitizens who meet certain criteria to register their status and to provide law enforcement with the information necessary to fulfill immigration status verification.
Since the issuance of EO 14159, there have been several immigration-related waterfall actions from DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These include:
On February 5, 2025, DHS formally ended the 2023 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela. TPS and its related benefits, including work authorization, will end on April 7, 2025, for Venezuelans under the 2023 designation. Importantly, the employment authorization documents (EADs) issued under this designation will expire April 2, 2025. Venezuela has two TPS designations: one from 2021 and a second from 2023. Immigration and work authorization benefits for persons from the 2021 designation will end on September 10, 2025. The DHS must decide by July 12, 2025, whether to extend or end the 2021 designation.
On February 20, 2025, DHS partially vacated the 2024 TPS designation for Haiti. TPS for Haiti was previously extended for eighteen months, through February 3, 2026, under the Biden administration. The February 20, 2025, DHS action now limits the TPS designation for Haiti to twelve months. TPS and its related benefits, including work authorization, will end on August 3, 2025, for individuals under the Haiti designation. TPS holders under this designation may already EAD cards with a validity date of February 3, 2026. The DHS directs employers to update their records to note that the validity of the EAD is valid through August 3, 2025.
On February 25, 2025, USCIS issued guidance that all foreign nationals fourteen years of age or older who were not fingerprinted or registered when applying for a U.S. visa and who remain in the United States for thirty days or longer, must comply with registration and fingerprinting requirements. The guidance directs those who are required to register to create a USCIS online account to prepare for next steps and ensure they are registered. Failure to comply will result in civil fines and potentially criminal misdemeanor charges. DHS plans to announce the process of registration in the coming weeks, but once an individual has been registered, they will be expected to always carry evidence of registration, if eighteen years of age or older.
January 20, 2025Executive Order 14160: ‘Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship’
Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” calls for the end of birthright citizenship for certain infants born in the United States. Specifically, the order applies to children born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, where at least one of a child’s parents was not a lawful permanent resident (i.e., green card holder) or a U.S. citizen. The executive order presented a departure from the longstanding interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and more than one hundred years of Supreme Court of the United States precedent that individuals born in the United States are citizens at birth. The executive order was immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional. On February 5, 2025, a federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction of the order while the lawsuit proceeds. The injunction currently remains in place.
January 20, 2025Executive Order 14161: ‘Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats’
This executive order calls for enhanced screening and vetting of noncitizens. The order calls for a review and assessment of countries of concern to the security of the United States and a review of visa programs for additional security measures or possible entry bans. The order calls for a detailed report to identify specific countries deemed deficient in vetting to warrant suspension of admission of those nationals and increased enforcement action for those nationals in the United States. The report is due to the administration on March 21, 2025. A partial or full travel ban could be ordered for nationals of countries identified as having deficient screening. Foreign nationals are likely to experience increased administrative visa processing and higher levels of scrutiny at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad and ports of entry.
January 20, 2025Presidential Memorandum: ‘America First Trade Policy’
The “America First Trade Policy” memorandum focuses on “establishing a robust and reinvigorated trade policy that promotes investment and productivity, enhances our Nation’s industrial and technological advantages, defends our economic and national security, and—above all—benefits American workers, manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs, and businesses.” The memorandum calls for a review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and other existing trade agreements, which could lead to potential impacts or changes to treaty-based nonimmigrant work authorizations falling under existing trade agreements, including the TN, H-1B1, and E-3 visas.
January 20, 2025Presidential Proclamation 10886: ‘Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States’
Proclamation 10886 declares a national emergency at the southern border and directs the U.S. military to assist DHS in securing the border. DHS will submit reports on the conditions of the southern border which may result in redirecting funds, border barrier construction, and increased U.S. military presence at the southern border. The enhanced enforcement at the southern border may cause potential delays and heightened scrutiny for foreign nationals entering the United States from Mexico.
January 20, 2025Executive Order 14169: Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid
This executive order mandated a ninety-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of U.S. foreign development assistance to allow for a comprehensive review of these programs, to ensure that the foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are aligned with U.S. interests. On February 25, 2025, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release millions of dollars of funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2025. Due to USAID’s collaboration with U.S. embassies in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, the issuance of H-2 visas in those countries could be delayed.
January 20, 2025DHS Directive Rescinding of ‘Sensitive Locations’ Policy
On January 20, 2025, DHS rescinded the Biden administration’s “protected areas” policy. The “protected areas” policy previously prohibited immigration enforcement action in sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, and places of worship. In rescinding this policy, the DHS memo stated that “bright line rules” will not be followed in terms of where immigration enforcement can take place. Instead, DHS may issue new guidance to officers regarding “exercising appropriate enforcement discretion.” As a result, organizations and previously protected sensitive locations may want to consider their protocols in the event of worksite enforcement actions.
January 22, 2025DHS Directive: COVID-19 Vaccine Waived for AOS Applications
Effective January 22, 2025, USCIS is waiving the COVID-19 vaccination as a required vaccine on green card applicants’ medical exams. The medical exam form, Form I-693, still lists the COVID-19 vaccine. A new form edition may be released to capture this change. The U.S. Department of State for consular processing abroad has not yet changed its vaccine requirements for immigrant visa processing.
January 23, 2025Executive Order 14179: ‘Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence’
The “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” executive order directs the review of all policies, directives, regulations, orders, and other actions taken pursuant to President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14110 regarding the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) (issued on October 30, 2023; revoked on January 20, 2025). Executive Order 14110 included provisions to streamline the processing of visa petitions for noncitizens working in AI or other critical and emerging technologies. EO 14179 requests an action plan to enhance America’s “global AI dominance.” The directives in this order may result in changes to USCIS policy for employees working in AI and applying for O-1, EB-1, or EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW) classifications and USCIS policy as it relates to entrepreneur parole.
February 12, 2025Executive Order 14211: One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations
Executive Order 14211 reasserts the secretary of state’s authority over foreign services, including personnel-related areas, implementation of policy, and revision of the Foreign Affairs Manual and any other procedural documents that guide the operations of the foreign service. The order directs the secretary of state to identify necessary reforms for the implementation of the President’s agenda. As a result, visa processing may be affected by the potential changes to personnel procedures of the foreign services, as well as any changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual, which currently serves as the primary authority for procedures and guidance on consular and visa processing.
February 18, 2025State Department Update: Interview Waiver Eligibility
On February 18, 2025, the State Department updated the eligibility criteria for the interview waiver program to applicants who are seeking a visa renewal at a U.S. embassy or consulate outside of the United States. Under the updated criteria, interview waiver is now only available for persons seeking a visa renewal in the same category and only if the most recent visa expired less than twelve months (previously forty-eight months) preceding the new application. The updated criteria also removes interview waiver eligibility for first time H-2 visa applicants; but extends eligibility to applicants applying for an A-1, A-2, C-3 (except attendants, servants, or personal employees of accredited officials), G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-6, or E-1 visas; and applicants for diplomatic or official type visas. This change to interview waiver eligibility will potentially increase visa application wait times worldwide, as many more applicants will be required to attend in-person interviews.
Anticipated Changes on the Horizon
The detailed report summarizing potential security risks and areas of deficient vetting mandated by EO 14161, “Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats,” is due to the administration on March 21, 2025. Additional further travel restrictions or bans may follow the review of this report.
The “America First Trade Policy” executive order could result in changes or limitations to treaty-based visa options, including the TN, H-1B1, and E visas.
The “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” executive order may lead to rollbacks or ending additional TPS country designations.
Given recent changes to the State Department drop box and interview waiver policy, it is likely that there will be increased wait times and scrutiny for visa processing at U.S. consulates abroad.
Increased enforcement actions are likely given the administration’s objectives and recent policy shifts. Employers may want to consider their preparedness for increased worksite enforcement actions.
Florida Legislature Introduces Three New Bills Aimed at Strengthening Florida’s E-Verify Law
Several bills introduced by Florida legislators aim to strengthen Florida’s E-Verify law—particularly by eliminating the twenty-five–employee minimum for use of the database—and include increased penalties for noncompliance. They also add independent contractors to the definition of “employee.” These changes are part of the state’s and the federal government’s continued initiative to combat illegal immigration.
Quick Hits
Florida legislation proposes eliminating the twenty-five–employee minimum threshold requiring private employers to use E-Verify, effectively requiring all private employers to use E-Verify for their workforces, regardless of size.
The legislation proposes to include independent contractors within the definition of “employee” for E-Verify purposes, breaking from federal law, which does not require an I-9 for such individuals.
The legislation proposes significant business license and financial penalties for noncompliance as well as if an unauthorized alien worker causes injury or death to another.
Following the change of presidential administration in late January 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis came under pressure by Republican lawmakers for his office’s perceived failure to enforce the state’s current E-Verify statute. This pressure aligns with the Trump administration’s initiative of combating illegal immigration. Shortly after, Governor DeSantis signed immigration legislation into law with respect to penalties for undocumented immigrants and a new State Board of Immigration Enforcement.
The Florida Legislature is now taking steps to strengthen the existing E-Verify laws for private employers. On February 17, 2025, Florida state Senator Jason Pizzo (D–District 37) filed Senate Bill (SB) 782: Immigration, and on February 25, 2025, Florida state Representative Allison Tant (D–District 9) filed House Bill (HB) 1033: Immigration Status and Employment Eligibility. These bills are identical and contain four main proposals:
revising the duties of the Office of Economic Accountability and Transparency within the Department of Commerce;
revising penalties for employment of unauthorized aliens;
revising the definition of “employee”; and
requiring all Florida employers to use E-Verify regardless of size.
Regarding the first point, the legislation would move the administration and enforcement of the E-Verify system from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to the Office of Economic Accountability and Transparency, a division of the Department of Commerce.
Regarding the second point, the proposal is to increase the penalties to suspension or revocation of a business license for one year and a fine not to exceed $10,000 for a first-time offender. For a second-time offender, the penalty would be increased to a five-year suspension or revocation of business licenses and a fine not to exceed $50,000. For a third-time offender, the penalty would be increased to a permanent revocation of all business licenses and a fine not to exceed $250,000.
The proposal also includes suspension or revocation of business licenses if an unauthorized alien worker causes injuries or death to another person—five years and up to a $100,000 fine for injuries and permanent revocation and up to a $500,000 fine for death. Any fines collected would be deposited into the Florida Highway Patrol Safety Operating Trust Fund, the creation and operation of which is not publicly available at the time of publication. The current penalties are far less extreme in terms of business license suspension or revocations and do not include monetary fines.
Regarding the third point, the legislation would eliminate the twenty-five-employee minimum threshold for private employers to use E-Verify. It also modifies the definition of “employee” to include individuals who work on an “occasional, incidental, or irregular” basis, as well as independent contractors. The inclusion of independent contractors in this proposal is problematic, considering federal law does not require employers to prepare I-9s for independent contractors; however, an I-9 is required to complete an E-Verify. Regarding the fourth point, the twin bills would allow federal immigration authorities to use the E-Verify system to investigate a detained person’s immigration status.
On February 24, 2025, Representative Berny Jacques (R–District 59) filed HB 955: Employment Eligibility, which proposes to eliminate the required minimum number of employees needed to trigger private employers’ requirement to use E-Verify. The current statute, 448.095, only requires private employers’ use of E-Verify if they employ twenty-five or more employees. HB 995 would eliminate this twenty-five-employee threshold, effectively requiring use of E-Verify for all Florida private employers.
SB 782, HB 995, and HB 1033 all propose to go into effect on July 1, 2025. At the time of publication, all three bills remain in the committee review stage and have each had one of the required three readings. In the Florida Legislature, following three readings, a bill will be put on the floor for a full chamber vote. If it passes in the chamber, either Senate or House, it then goes to the other chamber for an additional vote. If that second vote passes, the bill will go to the governor to sign or veto. The last day of Florida’s regular session is May 2, 2025, effectively making this the deadline for the bill (in its current or modified version) to pass or fail.
Next Steps
The landscape for how private employers engage in employment authorization would change significantly if any of this legislation comes to fruition. Moreover, such legislation would significantly increase the consequences for a purported failure to comply with Florida’s E-Verify laws. Employers may want to review existing E-Verify policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the current statute in preparation for these potential changes.
Closures and Budget Cuts Planned for U.S. Consulates and Embassies Abroad
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has turned its attention to U.S. consulates and embassies abroad, resulting in a pared-down Visa Appointment Wait Times website and plans to close at least a dozen, mostly Western European, consulates by this summer.
Quick Hits
The updated Visa Appointment Wait Times search function has been replaced by a static table of wait times, last updated on January 7, 2025.
Senior officials from the State Department are planning to shutter consulates and embassies in Italy, France, Germany, Portugal, and Brazil and slash consular budgets.
The State Department’s operations budget may be cut by up to 20 percent.
The U.S. Department of State has removed the previous search function for determining consular visa appointment wait times from its website. The current site link ends with the word “DEACTIVATED,” and the site itself features a simple chart with estimated visa appointment wait times, last updated on January 7, 2025. These website updates are emblematic of the proposed budget cuts to consular services overall, with the State Department expected to cut up to 20 percent of its operations budget.
State Department officials have also provided a list to the U.S. Congress containing consulates and embassies it plans to close in the coming months. The list mentions missions in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal and proposes to consolidate consular resources on a regional basis with larger embassies and consulates. Specifically, missions in Bordeaux, Lyon, Rennes, and Strasbourg in France; Dusseldorf, Hamburg, and Leipzig in Germany; Florence in Italy; Ponta Delgada in Portugal; and Belo Horizonte in Brazil are potentially on the chopping block.
In addition to the closure of certain missions abroad, the State Department is planning for significant layoffs of mission staff. The State Department employs approximately 80,000 people, including approximately 64,000 employees abroad (50,000 local hires and 14,000 trained diplomats), and 13,000 civil service members working domestically in the United States. The chiefs of mission abroad have already been asked by the State Department to begin making plans to pare down staffing to the bare minimum required.
Next Steps
Individuals planning to receive visa stamping abroad should continue to anticipate significant delays in visa issuance as consulates and embassies are closed, restructured, and reorganized. Staffing cuts are likely to further exacerbate visa delays well into the future.
New Trump 2.0 Travel Ban Expected to Target 40+ Countries: What You Need to Know
The Trump Administration is reportedly finalizing a new travel ban that will prohibit or severely limit the citizens of more than 40 countries from entering the United States.
On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO) aimed at enhancing vetting procedures. This EO directed the secretary of state, the attorney general, the secretary of homeland security, and the director of national intelligence to jointly submit a recommendation to the president for suspending entry of migrants from “countries of particular concern” within 60 days. The recommendation is expected to be submitted to President Trump soon.
President Trump reportedly is considering implementing a new travel ban that could affect citizens from up to 43 countries. This proposed ban, often referred to as “Trump 2.0 Travel Ban,” is an expansion of the original travel ban from 2017, which primarily targeted seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
Historical Context
Trump’s 2017 travel ban (Executive Order 13769) targeted Muslim-majority nations and faced significant legal challenges before being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018.
Current Developments
An internal administration memo reportedly suggests the inclusion of more countries in the new travel ban. The new ban appears to be a continuation of Trump’s immigration policies aimed at protecting national security and public safety.
While the White House has yet to publicly comment on the reported memo, the proposed new travel ban is expected to have significant implications for global mobility, international collaboration, and U.S. companies. Here are some of the main points:
Affected Countries
The proposed ban includes a tiered system with three categories: Red, Orange, and Yellow.
Citizens of countries listed in the “RED” category would be completely barred from entering the United States: Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.
Citizens of countries listed in the “ORANGE” category would face higher scrutiny and would be subjected to “Mandatory in-person interviews” in order to receive a visa: Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Myanmar, and South Sudan.
Countries listed in the “YELLOW” category would be given 60 days to address concerns from the administration or risk being moved to the other categories: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Turkmenistan, and Vanuatu.
Impact on Employers and Employees
The ban is expected to affect many employers and their employees’ global mobility. Nationals of the restricted or banned countries who are outside the United States when the ban is announced may be unable to return, even with a valid visa stamp. Employees or business visitors from highly restricted countries will face rigorous visa application processes. Additionally, U.S. companies may need to restructure their global workforce, potentially losing international talent and facing higher business costs.
Legal and Implementation Challenges
The proposed ban includes different levels of restrictions, which appear to be calculated to deal with expected legal challenges or implementation challenges, including those related to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, due process, and discrimination, as seen with the 2017 travel ban.
As the administration finalizes the details, it is crucial to stay informed about the potential impacts and legal challenges that may arise.
ICE Enforcement Actions on Campus
Among the many changes imposed by the new Trump administration, colleges and universities can add one more possible scenario to their list; federal agents appearing on campus to conduct immigration enforcement activities. On January 21, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) rescinded Biden-era guidance designating colleges and universities as “protected areas” for purposes of immigration enforcement and have conducted at least one arrest on university property.
Immigration enforcement is generally governmental agency activity conducted by the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and their actions may include surveillance, interviews, searches, unexpected visits, identify and arrest actions, and arrests. While immigration activities were limited on or near colleges campuses and other protected areas – such as schools, medical centers, and social services centers – by the previous administration, they are no longer constrained to avoid enforcement in certain areas[1] under the current administration. Thus, university counsel and campus law enforcement should be prepared for these activities to occur on campus.
University counsel and campus law enforcement must know – and advise their campus communities – that federal law prohibits interfering with ICE campus related activity and operations. Universities and officers must comply with requests and inquiries related to criminal matters and certain legally authorized court issued process and warrants, and individuals and/or institutions cannot delay, obstruct, impede, or otherwise actively interfere with federal immigration enforcement operations. Any conduct that negatively impacts ICE operations that amounts to obstruction is illegal, and could expose college and university staff and employees, including faculty and students to federal legal liability.
However, state law also applies to the aforementioned government activity. In Massachusetts, for example, campus law enforcement are prohibited from detaining an individual based on civil immigration process or solely on ICE or a designee’s request. Other states may have other laws that apply to campus law enforcement’s interaction with ICE: for advice specific to your state, contact your Hunton lawyer.
University counsel and campus law enforcement may be exposed to DHS and ICE’s enforcement actions on campus in various circumstances. ICE agents may appear with a court-issued judicial search warrant, administrative warrant, or in an investigative capacity with or without a warrant or advance notice. Immigration officers may also continue to be present on campus for regulatory enforcement site visits or to attempt to meet students who are on F-1, J-1, or other similar visas. In addition, many universities and colleges sponsor employees for H-1B visas and permanent residence. Because USCIS still conducts site visits to H-1B sponsors, school officials need to be aware that these may increase and they should be prepared for such visits.
Hunton labor and immigration attorneys offer advice, counsel and training to campus law enforcement, staff and counsel to know their rights and obligations, and help prepare them for the possibility of government action. Please call your Hunton lawyer to learn more.
[1] Enforcement at or near houses of worship is still limited by court order.
Big Law Redefined: Immigration Insights Episode 11 | Immigration Executive Actions and What This Means for Employers [Podcast]
Hosts Kate Kalmykov and Faraz Qaisrani delve into immigration directives, including increased visa scrutiny, changes to processing times, and new measures affecting business immigration. They address shifts in H-1B interpretation, treaty-based visa reforms, and the potential elimination of H-4 EADs. They also cover adjustments to consular visa operations that may disrupt employee travel, along with policies affecting TPS and humanitarian parole programs for specific countries like Ukraine, Venezuela, and Haiti.
The episode emphasizes the importance of employer preparedness, with recommendations such as conducting internal audits, training staff for compliance, and proactively planning for visa delays. Kate and Faraz also examine enforcement trends, including DHS site visits, I-9 audits, and possible workplace raids, outlining how businesses can mitigate risks and maintain good-faith compliance.
Additionally, strategies to address long-standing visa administrative processing delays, such as filing mandamus lawsuits, are discussed. As immigration policies remain fluid, Kate and Faraz note that employers should consider closely monitoring developments and seeking guidance from immigration counsel to anticipate challenges and ensure business continuity.