Department of Homeland Security: Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents

B-337900

December 4, 2025

The Honorable Chuck Grassley
Chairman
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

The Honorable Jim Jordan
Chairman
The Honorable Jamie Raskin
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives

Subject: Department of Homeland Security: Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents

Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this is our report on a major rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entitled “Removal of the Automatic Extension of Employment Authorization Documents” (RIN: 1615-AD05). We received the rule on October 30, 2025. It was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 48799. The effective date of the rule is October 30, 2025.

According to DHS, this rule amends DHS regulations to end the practice of automatically extending the validity of employment authorization documents (EADs) for aliens who have timely filed an application to renew their EAD in certain employment authorization categories. DHS stated that the purpose of this change is to prioritize the proper vetting and screening of aliens before granting a new period of employment authorization and/or a new EAD.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires a 60-day delay in the effective date of a major rule from the date of publication in the Federal Register or receipt of the rule by Congress, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3)(A). The 60-day delay in effective date does not apply, however, if the agency finds for good cause that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates the finding and a brief statement of its reasons in the rule. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553(b)(B), 808(2). Here, DHS determined that it had good cause for forgoing notice-and-comment procedures because those procedures are impracticable and moving expeditiously is in the best interest of the public. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 48812–14. Specifically, DHS stated that automatically extending EADs poses a security vulnerability that could allow bad actors to continue to work and generate income to potentially finance nefarious activities that pose an imminent threat to the American public. Id. at 48813. DHS further stated that announcing the rulemaking would lead to a rush to file renewal EAD applications to obtain automatic extensions before the rule took effect, and notice-and-comment procedures would therefore defeat the purpose of the rule and harm the public interest. Id.

Enclosed is our assessment of DHS's compliance with the procedural steps required by section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with respect to the rule. If you have any questions about this report or wish to contact GAO officials responsible for the evaluation work relating to the subject matter of the rule, please contact Will Shakely, Acting Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 512-3363.

Shirley A. Jones
Managing Associate General Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Samantha Deshommes
Chief Regulatory Officer
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Agency
Department of Homeland Security

ENCLOSURE

REPORT UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR RULE
ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
ENTITLED
“REMOVAL OF THE AUTOMATIC EXTENSION
OF EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION DOCUMENTS”
(RIN: 1615-AD05)

(i) Cost-benefit analysis

In its submission to us, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicated that it prepared an analysis of costs and benefits with respect to this rule. DHS stated that the rule reverses some of the impacts of the prior automatic extension rules, which could result in cost and transfer impacts such as lost compensation to workers, transfers between workers losing their work authorizations to replacement workers, and lost productivity. See 90 Fed. Reg. 48799, 48817 (Oct. 30, 2025). According to DHS, the benefits of the rule include an improved security posture. Id. at 48819.

(ii) Agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 603–605, 607, and 609

Because DHS did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule, the agency determined that it was not required to either certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 48818. Nonetheless, DHS prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for the rule. Id.

(iii) Agency actions relevant to sections 202–205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1532–1535

DHS stated that this rule does not contain a federal mandate as the term is defined in the Act and thus, DHS did not prepare a statement under the Act. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 48818.

(iv) Other relevant information or requirements under acts and executive orders

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

The Act provides that notice and comment requirements do not apply when an agency, for good cause, finds that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). DHS determined that it had good cause to bypass ordinary notice and comment procedures because following them would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 48813. DHS did not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Id. at 48818.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3520

DHS determined that this rule does not propose new or revised information collection requirements subject to PRA. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 48819.

Statutory authorization for the rule

DHS promulgated this rule pursuant to sections 1103, 1158, 1184, 1254a, and 1324a of title 8, United States Code.

Executive Order No. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

DHS stated that this rule is significant under the Order and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 48816.

Executive Order No. 13132 (Federalism)

DHS determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 48818.