Thousands of Indians in the US Face Job Loss as Trump Administration Ends Automatic Work Permit Extensions

October 30, 2025

Introduction

A major shift in the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy is set to affect thousands of Indian professionals and their dependents living and working in the US. The decision to end the automatic extension of Employment Authorisation Documents (EADs) marks one of the most significant changes to the work authorization framework in recent years.

This policy, taking effect from October 30, 2025, will particularly impact Indian nationals—many of whom rely on timely EAD renewals to continue employment while awaiting green card approvals or visa transitions.

What the New Rule Says

According to the DHS rule, individuals filing for renewal of their EADs on or after October 30, 2025, will no longer be eligible for automatic extensions. The Employment Authorisation Document is the legal work permit that allows non-US citizens to be employed within the country.

Previously, applicants whose EADs had expired could continue to work legally for up to 540 days while their renewal applications were pending. The revised rule now removes that protection.

The DHS stated:

“Aliens who file to renew their EAD on or after Oct. 30, 2025, will no longer receive an automatic extension. Ending automatic extensions results in more frequent vetting of aliens applying for employment authorization.”

In short, anyone whose renewal application remains unapproved by the expiry date of their current EAD must immediately stop working.

Impact on Indian Professionals

The policy change is expected to disproportionately affect Indian nationals, who constitute a significant portion of the H-1B visa workforce and related visa categories. The groups most likely to experience disruption include:

H-1B visa holders waiting for permanent residency;
H-4 dependent spouses, primarily Indian women who hold EADs;
STEM OPT (Optional Practical Training) students; and
Green card applicants with pending Adjustment of Status petitions.

With USCIS processing times ranging from three to twelve months depending on case type, thousands could face temporary job loss and legal uncertainty despite timely filings.

Legal Framework Governing Employment Authorization

The Employment Authorisation Document (EAD) system in the United States is governed under:

8 CFR §274a.12 – which enumerates categories of aliens authorized for employment;
8 CFR §274a.13(d) – which previously provided for automatic extensions of expiring EADs pending renewal.

The recent DHS rule amends this regulation, removing automatic extensions except for limited exceptions (such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders).

Furthermore, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) under 8 U.S.C. §1324a empowers DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to regulate employment authorization and to vet individuals seeking work permits.

Constitutional Context

The United States Constitution does not confer an explicit right to work for non-citizens. Employment authorization for foreign nationals is treated as a statutory privilege rather than a constitutional guarantee.

However, under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, courts have held that the federal government must ensure procedural fairness in immigration-related decisions that affect livelihood. Any arbitrary or discriminatory denial of EAD renewals could, therefore, be subject to judicial scrutiny on due process grounds.

In Mathews v. Diaz (1976) 426 U.S. 67, the Supreme Court held that Congress and the Executive possess broad discretion over immigration matters but must maintain rational basis standards when distinguishing between classes of non-citizens.

DHS Justification: National Security and Vetting

Defending the move, DHS and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow stated that the rule was necessary to strengthen national security and prevent unauthorized employment.

“Working in the United States is a privilege, not a right. This policy enhances screening and vetting procedures for all aliens seeking employment authorization.”

The Department also cited a June 2025 case in Boulder, Colorado, involving an asylum applicant whose automatically extended EAD allegedly raised vetting concerns.

Exceptions and Exemptions

The DHS has clarified that certain categories remain unaffected, including:

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders;
Applicants whose EADs were automatically extended prior to October 30, 2025; and
Extensions explicitly provided under statutory or Federal Register provisions.

However, for all other categories—including H-4, OPT, and Adjustment of Status applicants—no grace period exists beyond the EAD expiration date.

Broader Implications for Indian Workers

Indian professionals are among the hardest hit by U.S. immigration backlogs. The per-country green card limits (set under 8 U.S.C. §1152(a)) have created queues exceeding 10–20 years for many Indians awaiting permanent residency.

As a result, thousands rely on temporary EADs renewed every one to two years. The removal of automatic extensions could now lead to:

Mass job disruptions,
Loss of income, and
Potential visa violations due to the inability to maintain continuous employment authorization.

Immigration attorneys warn that even a single day of lapse could jeopardize both status and employer sponsorships, triggering a chain of legal consequences.

Precedents and Legal Challenges Ahead

While there is no direct judicial precedent addressing the revocation of automatic EAD extensions, previous challenges to restrictive immigration policies suggest potential litigation ahead.

In Washington v. Trump (2017), federal courts held that immigration-related executive actions are reviewable for arbitrariness and violation of due process. Similarly, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Homeland Security (2020) saw courts question the broad discretion exercised in restricting visa categories.

Should this new rule face legal challenge, arguments may likely center around procedural fairness, equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, and the economic harm to long-term legal immigrants.

Conclusion: The Uncertainty Ahead

This DHS rule represents a critical inflection point for skilled Indian professionals in the U.S. labor market. While the Trump administration frames it as a national security measure, its real-world impact threatens the stability of families who have built their lives within America’s legal immigration system.

The underlying question remains — can national vetting be balanced with procedural fairness and economic continuity?
For thousands of Indian families, that answer could determine not just their livelihoods, but their very legal standing in the country they now call home.