Policy Update: 9/23/26
New restrictions and scrutiny for H-1B workers
What is happening
On September 18, the administration renewed for another year a presidential proclamation requiring a $100,000 payment for certain new H-1B workers entering the United States, extending it through September 21, 2027.A federal district court has ruled that the payment functions as an unlawful tax, so its enforceability remains contested.
A separate executive order directs the Departments of Labor, State, and Homeland Security to increase scrutiny of H-1B employers, especially businesses that recently laid off workers.
Additional proposed changes include higher prevailing wages, a $103,265 fee for cap-subject petitions, ending work authorization for some H-1B spouses, and eliminating the 60-day grace period after job loss.
Why it matters
The measures could make hiring international professionals prohibitively expensive and increase denials, investigations, and Requests for Evidence. Only about 700 employers paid the earlier $100,000 charge, while consular processing requests reportedly fell by nearly 97%, suggesting that the fee operated largely as a barrier rather than a revenue source.
What we need to know
The renewed $100,000 payment primarily concerns certain new H-1B petitions involving entry from abroad.
The fee is subject to ongoing litigation and has been blocked by a federal judge.
Increased scrutiny may also affect extensions for workers already in the country, although the administration’s authority to apply an entry-related statute to domestic extensions could be challenged.
Several additional H-1B restrictions remain proposed rather than final.
Impact
H-1B workers may experience fewer job opportunities, longer processing times, more requests for documentation, and increased dependence on their current employers.
Workers facing layoffs could have fewer opportunities to transfer to another employer, while spouses could lose employment authorization if the proposed changes are finalized.
Sources: Trump Enacts New Immigration Policies Against H-1B Visa Holders
ICE removes people with final removal orders from its detainee locator.
What is happening
On September 15, ICE reportedly stopped displaying the locations of people with final removal orders in its public Online Detainee Locator System.
The change was not announced in advance and affects potentially thousands of detainees.
Lawyers reported that clients disappeared from the system even though they remained in federal custody.
Why it matters
The locator is the main tool families and attorneys use to find people after an ICE arrest or transfer. Removing information can make it much harder to communicate with counsel or bring an emergency motion before a person is transferred or deported.
What we need to know
The change concerns people with final removal orders, not everyone in ICE custody.
Nearly 16,000 people booked into ICE detention in July had final orders—more than one-third of that month’s bookings.
Some covered individuals may still have legal options, including motions to reopen, habeas petitions, bond claims, or protection from return to a country where they could face persecution or torture.
The reported policy does not apply in several facilities where courts have specifically ordered prompt locator disclosure, including certain facilities in California, Minnesota, New York, and the Chicago area.
A final order does not necessarily mean that every legal remedy has been exhausted.
Impact
Families may mistakenly believe a loved one has already been deported.
Attorneys may lose crucial time needed to stop removal, particularly when ICE transfers people frequently or plans deportation to a third country.
The change can also interfere with attorney-client communication and meaningful access to the courts.
Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/sep/21/ice-hides-detainee-locations
Broader “public charge” standard takes effect.
What is happening
Effective September 18, DHS cancelled the narrower 2022 public-charge regulations.
USCIS officers now have broader discretion to consider an applicant’s application for, approval to receive, or use of any means-tested public benefit on or after that date.
Potentially relevant programs include Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, housing assistance, income-maintenance programs, and other means-tested benefits.
Why it matters
A public-charge finding can prevent an otherwise eligible person from obtaining admission or lawful permanent residence. The new framework gives individual officers more discretion and covers a much wider range of benefits than the 2022 rule.
What we need to know
The rule applies to adjustment-of-status applications filed on or after September 18 and to covered applications for admission made on or after that date.
Benefit use is one part of a totality-of-the-circumstances test and does not automatically result in denial.
Officers must consider statutory factors such as age, health, family status, financial resources, education, and skills.
For benefits received before September 18, USCIS generally will consider only public cash assistance for income maintenance and government-funded long-term institutionalization.
Benefits used on or after September 18 may be considered even if the person began receiving them earlier.
Many humanitarian categories are exempt, and benefits received by family members generally are not treated as benefits received by the applicant.
Because the rule is complex and application-specific, families should obtain qualified legal advice before stopping essential benefits.
Impact
The greatest immediate risk may be a chilling effect: eligible immigrant families may withdraw from healthcare, nutrition, or housing programs because they fear immigration consequences.
Applicants subject to the rule may also face more extensive documentation requirements and less predictable adjudications.
Sources:
The Trump Administration Rightly Revives the ‘Public Charge’ Debate | National Review
USCIS Issues Guidance on Making Public Charge Inadmissibility Determination
Federal Register : Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility
Appeals court rules against third-country deportation procedures
What is happening
The administration has agreements with approximately 35 countries to accept migrants and asylum seekers who are not citizens of those countries and may have no connection to them.
More than 25,000 people reportedly have been sent to third countries, including approximately 20,000 transferred by bus to Mexico.
A unanimous federal appellate panel ruled that the administration’s procedures were unlawful because people were not given adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to challenge removal to the designated country. DHS says the policy continues while the government considers an appeal.
Why it matters
U.S. law generally prohibits sending a person to a place where they are likely to be persecuted or tortured. Removing someone to an unfamiliar third country may expose the person to new dangers or to onward deportation to the country they originally fled.
What we need to know
The United States has reportedly pledged at least $410 million to secure third-country arrangements.
Some receiving countries will not accept people with violent criminal records, despite administration statements emphasizing removals of individuals with criminal histories.
Reports include people without criminal records and individuals whom immigration judges previously found had credible fears of harm in their home countries.
The appellate ruling centers on due process—notice and an opportunity to contest the destination—not a blanket prohibition on every third-country removal.
The legal status remains unsettled because further appeals are expected.
Impact
People may be deported to countries where they lack family, language access, legal status, or community support.
They may also have difficulty accessing asylum procedures and challenging detention or onward deportation.
The risk is especially serious when removal occurs quickly and the individual’s location is not disclosed.
Source:
Federal judge permanently blocks restrictions on Head Start and other services
What is happening
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy made permanent an injunction against a July 2025 administration directive that sought to classify Head Start, community health clinics, adult education, and other federally supported services as restricted “federal public benefits.”
The directive would have excluded undocumented adults and children, certain visa holders, TPS recipients, and DACA recipients.
Because the court had previously imposed a temporary injunction, the directive never took effect.
Why it matters
The policy could have restricted early-childhood education, preventive healthcare, and adult education for immigrant families. States also argued that verifying immigration status would impose costs and administrative burdens that could force under-resourced Head Start programs to close.
What we need to know
Twenty states and the District of Columbia challenged the directive.
The judge found it “procedurally invalid” because the administration did not follow the required process for rewriting the rules.
The decision addresses the legality of this particular directive; it does not make every immigrant eligible for every federal benefit.
Further appellate proceedings remain possible.
Impact
For now, covered programs cannot use the blocked directive to exclude families based on the expanded immigration classifications.
The ruling preserves access to early education, health screenings, community clinics, and adult learning programs that many mixed-status families rely upon.
Source: Judge strikes down a Trump policy barring some immigrants from Head Start preschools – WTOP News
Note: These developments are changing quickly and several remain in litigation. People facing detention, removal, public-charge questions, or benefit decisions should consult a qualified immigration attorney or DOJ-accredited representative before acting.
