Foreign workers on H-1B visas could lose the safety net that gives them 60 days to find a new job after a layoff, under a sweeping immigration proposal the Trump administration published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2025.
The plan, tucked inside a broader regulatory package titled "Modernizing the Immigration System for America's Future," would eliminate the 60-day grace period that currently allows H-1B holders who lose their jobs to remain in the United States while they search for a new employer sponsor. If finalized, laid-off foreign workers would need to leave the country immediately or risk falling out of legal status.
The grace period has been in place since 2017, when the Obama administration codified it as part of a final rule. Before that, H-1B holders who were terminated had no formal window to arrange their departure or secure alternative sponsorship. The Trump administration now argues the provision should be scrapped as part of a larger effort to tighten the temporary worker visa system and prioritize American labor.
The 60-day grace period applies to workers holding H-1B, L-1, O-1, and several other nonimmigrant visa classifications. Newsweek reported that the proposed rule would strip this protection entirely, forcing foreign nationals to depart the U.S. promptly after their employment ends. The grace period currently gives workers time to transfer their visa to a new employer, change to a different visa category, or make arrangements to leave the country in an orderly fashion.
Under the current system, an H-1B holder who is laid off can stay in the U.S. for up to 60 days or until the end of their authorized validity period, whichever comes first. During that window, the worker can seek a new sponsoring employer willing to file a transfer petition. Without it, workers would face the prospect of packing up households, pulling children from schools, and booking international travel on virtually no notice.
The proposal is part of a 535-page regulatory package that also includes changes to how the H-1B lottery is conducted, new restrictions on specialty occupation definitions, and tighter standards for employer-employee relationships. The grace period elimination is one piece of a much larger restructuring effort.
An estimated 600,000 to 700,000 H-1B visa holders currently work in the United States, concentrated heavily in the technology, healthcare, and financial services sectors. Many have lived in the country for years, own homes, and have children enrolled in American schools. The Trump administration's push to eliminate the grace period would affect every one of them in the event of a job loss.
Immigration attorneys have warned that removing the grace period could create chaos in the visa system. Without a transition window, a laid-off worker's dependent family members, typically on H-4 visas, would also lose their legal status simultaneously. Children could be pulled from school mid-semester. Families could be forced to liquidate property at fire-sale prices.
Supporters of the change argue that the grace period was never required by statute and that the Obama administration created it through executive action without congressional authorization. They contend that temporary work visas are tied to specific employment, and that once that employment ends, so should the worker's authorization to remain in the country.
The proposal arrives during a period of significant layoffs across the technology sector. Major companies including Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have conducted large-scale workforce reductions over the past two years, affecting thousands of H-1B holders. The 60-day window has served as a critical buffer for those workers, giving them time to land at another company willing to sponsor their visa.
Without that buffer, tech companies could face complications of their own. Employers sometimes rehire laid-off workers or help place them with partner firms. A zero-day grace period would eliminate the flexibility that makes those transitions possible. It would also raise the stakes for any company considering layoffs that affect visa-sponsored employees, potentially creating legal exposure if workers fall out of status before departure logistics can be arranged.
The broader immigration enforcement posture of the Trump administration has already reshaped how companies approach foreign worker hiring. A federal agency recently accused a California data firm of bypassing qualified American workers in favor of foreign hires, signaling that scrutiny extends well beyond the visa application process to the hiring decisions themselves.
For many conservatives, the grace period elimination fits squarely within the "America First" framework that has defined Trump-era immigration policy. The argument is straightforward: temporary visas are temporary. They exist to fill specific jobs, and when those jobs disappear, the visa holder's reason for being in the country disappears with it.
Proponents also point to what they describe as systemic abuse of the H-1B program, in which some employers use foreign workers to undercut wages for American employees. Eliminating the grace period, they argue, would reduce the incentive for workers to treat an H-1B visa as a stepping stone to permanent residency rather than a genuinely temporary work arrangement.
The administration's approach to immigration enforcement has extended far beyond H-1B policy. The State Department has revoked more than 175,000 visas under Trump, with DUI offenses driving a significant portion of the enforcement surge. The grace period proposal fits within that broader pattern of tightening rules that prior administrations left loose.
The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from immigration advocacy groups, business coalitions, and some bipartisan voices in Congress. Critics argue that eliminating the grace period would punish workers for economic forces beyond their control and would make the United States a less attractive destination for top global talent.
Several legal challenges are expected if the rule is finalized. Opponents will likely argue that the elimination is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly given that the 60-day period has been in effect for eight years and that hundreds of thousands of workers have structured their lives around it.
The H-1B program has already been a flashpoint for litigation during the current administration. A federal judge struck down Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee earlier this year, calling it an unauthorized tax. That ruling demonstrated the judiciary's willingness to check executive overreach on visa policy, and it provides a template for future challenges to the grace period rule.
The proposed rule is currently in a public comment period. Federal law requires agencies to consider substantive comments before issuing a final rule, and the volume of comments on this provision is expected to be substantial. Immigration law firms have already begun organizing comment campaigns on behalf of affected workers and employers.
The public comment period will determine the timeline for any final rule. Typically, major immigration regulations take months to finalize after the comment period closes, and legal challenges can delay implementation further. Workers currently holding H-1B visas are not immediately affected, but the uncertainty itself has already begun to influence behavior.
Some immigration attorneys have advised H-1B holders to begin exploring backup plans, including applying for other visa categories or accelerating green card applications where possible. Others have counseled workers to negotiate stronger severance protections with their employers that would account for the possibility of an immediate departure requirement.
The internal conservative debate over immigration policy continues to shape these proposals. Some within the movement have pushed back against what they see as insufficient enforcement from DHS leadership, while others worry that overly aggressive moves on legal immigration could harm American businesses and alienate skilled workers the economy needs.
Investigators and regulators will need to determine whether the elimination can survive legal scrutiny and whether the administration can demonstrate a rational basis for reversing a policy that has been in place for nearly a decade. The courts will ultimately decide whether the executive branch has the authority to remove a protection that hundreds of thousands of legal workers currently rely on.
When the government can erase your right to stay in the country with no notice and no transition, "legal immigration" starts to feel like a phrase without a promise behind it. That question cuts to the bone of what the rule of law means for people who followed every rule.
