The Trump administration is moving forward with a regulatory proposal that would eliminate the 60-day grace period currently allowed for H-1B visa holders who lose their employment, a change that immigration experts say will heavily impact Indian technology workers — the largest demographic group holding these visas.
Under the proposed rule, announced by the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, any H-1B worker whose employment is terminated would be required to either secure a new sponsoring employer or begin departure proceedings from the United States within a dramatically shortened window. The current 60-day period, introduced in 2017 under the previous administration, gives workers a brief cushion to find a new job without immediately falling out of legal status.
Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups have criticized the move, calling it punitive and likely to drive qualified foreign workers into the shadows rather than protect the integrity of the visa system. "This isn't about enforcement — it's about creating fear and dependency," said one senior immigration lawyer who spoke on background. "When people lose their jobs, they need time to find another one. Removing that time doesn't stop overstays; it just makes workers more vulnerable to exploitation."
Indian nationals account for roughly three-quarters of all active H-1B visas, a reality that has drawn sharp attention from industry leaders and policymakers in both countries. Major U.S. tech firms, including firms headquartered in Silicon Valley and across the country, have long argued that the H-1B program is essential for filling skill gaps in engineering, data science, and other specialized fields. The new proposal could further complicate their hiring strategies and increase pressure on companies to either sponsor workers for permanent residency more quickly or invest in domestic talent pipelines.
The proposal is still in the public comment phase and faces likely legal challenges before it can take effect. Legal scholars note that规则的making process allows for significant input and that courts have previously blocked similar restrictive measures. Critics of the rule argue it also runs counter to the stated goal of attracting top global talent, a theme frequently emphasized in recent administration statements about American competitiveness.
