Trump Administration Announces Major Restrictions on Legal Immigration

On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services quietly posted a memo that upended one of the most basic pathways to permanent residency in the United States. From now on, most people living in the country on temporary visas who want green cards must leave and apply from abroad [1][3]. The policy affects more than 500,000 people who apply for green cards each year while already living and working in the U.S. [2].

But the green card directive is only the latest in a series of actions that, taken together, amount to the most significant reduction in legal immigration since the Immigration Act of 1924. Experts now estimate the administration's combined policies will cut legal immigration in half this year [1], with net immigration projected to fall from roughly 1 million per year in the late 2010s to just 200,000 in 2026 [5].

Source: Migration Policy Institute / CBO

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

What's Being Cut, and How

The scope of the restrictions is broad. Nearly every major visa category has been targeted through some combination of executive orders, agency memos, fee increases, and legislation.

Green Card Processing: The May 2026 USCIS memo instructs officers to deny adjustment-of-status applications — the process by which people already in the U.S. transition from temporary to permanent residency — except in "extraordinary circumstances" [3]. The administration argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act's adjustment-of-status provision was never meant to replace consular processing abroad [14]. Immigration attorneys counter that Congress has repeatedly expanded the categories eligible for in-country adjustment, signaling its intent for the process to be widely available [14].

Diversity Visa Program: The diversity visa lottery, which provides 55,000 annual slots to nationals from underrepresented countries, has been paused [4]. Proposed legislation would eliminate the program entirely, shifting those slots to a points-based merit system [4][10].

Family-Based Immigration: Visas for family-sponsored immigrants beyond immediate relatives fell by 30 percent in the first year of the administration [4]. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025, further restricts family-based pathways [10][11].

H-1B Work Visas: A September 2025 restriction limits H-1B entry except for petitions accompanied by a $100,000 payment [4]. The random H-1B lottery is set to be replaced by a wage-weighted system for the 2027 season. Social media vetting is now required for all applicants [4].

Refugee Admissions: Refugee resettlement has been cut dramatically, with just over 6,000 admitted so far in fiscal year 2026 — a fraction of the 100,000 ceiling set by the previous administration [1].

Country-Level Suspensions: The State Department suspended permanent visa issuance for 75 countries in January 2026, accounting for 46 percent of immigrant visas issued in FY 2024 [4].

Source: U.S. State Department / MPI

Data as of Oct 1, 2025CSV

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The legislative centerpiece of these changes is H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Trump signed on July 4, 2025. The law allocates $170.7 billion for immigration and border enforcement, including $45 billion for detention — more than quadrupling ICE's annual detention budget [10][11].

On the legal immigration side, the law imposes significant new costs on immigrants. Asylum applicants face a $100 fee plus $550 for an initial work authorization application, with $275 renewal fees [10]. All nonimmigrant visa holders must pay a new $250 "visa bond," refundable only after proving compliance upon departure [11].

The law also strips benefits from legal immigrants already in the country. Refugees and asylees lose Medicaid and CHIP eligibility on October 1, 2026, ACA marketplace access on January 1, 2027, and Medicare access on January 27, 2027 [11]. SNAP food assistance eligibility is narrowed to green card holders and a few specific categories [11].

The Green Card Backlog Problem

The new restrictions land on top of an already strained system. The employment-based green card backlog has surpassed 500,000 cases and has more than doubled since 2016 [7]. Per-country caps — set at 7 percent of total annual issuances, or about 25,620 this fiscal year — create extreme bottlenecks for nationals of high-demand countries [7].

An Indian professional filing for an EB-2 green card today faces an estimated 12-year wait. For EB-3, the backlog stretches to 13 years or more. Chinese nationals face roughly a five-year queue [7]. The EB-2 National Interest Waiver category alone saw its pending caseload grow by 31 percent in FY 2025, reaching 74,392 cases — a backlog that has expanded more than 7,300 percent since FY 2022 [7].

The new consular processing requirement adds a layer of complication for these applicants. Many have spent years and thousands of dollars in legal fees building their cases from within the U.S. Now they may have to leave — and potentially wait months or years at overburdened consulates abroad — to complete a process they expected to finish domestically [3][2].

No legislation to reform the per-country cap system has passed Congress as of May 2026, despite multiple proposals [7].

Labor Market Effects

The administration's immigration restrictions are measurably reshaping the U.S. labor market. From January to July 2025, more than 1.2 million immigrants left the workforce, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data [6]. Goldman Sachs reported an 80 percent plunge in immigrant employment in early 2026 [6]. A National Foundation for American Policy study projects the U.S. workforce will shrink by 6.8 million by 2028 and 15.7 million by 2035 if current policies hold [8][9].

Source: FRED / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

The unemployment rate stood at 4.3 percent in April 2026, up from 3.5 percent in mid-2023. Average hourly earnings reached $37.41, up 3.6 percent year-over-year — a pace that has not accelerated despite tighter labor supply [15].

Source: BLS / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

Sector-specific impacts are stark. About 34 percent of construction workers are immigrants, a figure that reaches 60 percent for trades like drywall installation [6]. In agriculture, the situation is acute enough that a Trump administration attorney conceded in a federal court hearing in Fresno that "there aren't enough Americans to take these jobs" [12]. Despite this acknowledgment, the administration issued a rule splitting H-2A farmworkers into two wage tiers, with the Economic Policy Institute estimating the minimum wage for 92 percent of farmworkers — now categorized as "unskilled" — would fall to $13.70 an hour from an average of $17.43 [12].

Healthcare, education, and food processing also face significant shortfalls. A Center for American Progress analysis of the February 2026 employment report found that the administration's promises of new jobs for native-born workers had not materialized [13].

The Wage Debate

Whether immigration suppresses wages for native-born workers is the central economic question driving these policies, and economists remain divided.

Harvard economist George Borjas, the most prominent academic advocate for restriction, has found a wage elasticity of immigration between -0.3 and -0.4, meaning a 10 percent increase in immigration-driven labor supply would reduce wages for competing workers by 3 to 4 percent [16]. His research shows the effects concentrated among native-born workers without a high school diploma, whose wages declined by a relative 1.7 percent [16].

Other economists reach different conclusions. Giovanni Peri of UC Davis and others have found that immigrants and native-born workers tend to complement rather than substitute for each other, with immigrants filling roles that enable native-born workers to move into higher-productivity positions [16]. A 2025 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Labor Economics found that the overall wage impact of immigration is small and context-dependent [16].

The administration's restrictionist position draws support from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that reduced immigration gives domestic workers more bargaining power [16]. But critics point to early data from 2025-2026 showing that tighter immigration has not translated into wage gains for native-born workers — and has instead reduced overall employment in sectors that depend on immigrant labor [13][6].

Fiscal Consequences

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2024 that the immigration surge of 2021-2026 would lower federal deficits by $0.9 trillion over the 2024-2034 period, adding $1.2 trillion in federal revenues while increasing mandatory spending by only $0.3 trillion [17][18]. Immigration-driven payroll taxes were projected to boost Social Security revenues by $348 billion over that decade, while immigrants would collect roughly $1 billion in benefits [17].

Reversing these flows carries fiscal risk. Social Security's chief actuary has found that higher immigration levels modestly improve the solvency of its trust funds [17]. With the U.S. population aging rapidly, fewer working-age immigrants means a shrinking tax base supporting a growing number of retirees.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act itself adds $170.7 billion in enforcement spending over four years [10], costs that are not offset by the fee increases on immigrants. Independent budget analysts have not yet published comprehensive 10-year projections incorporating all of the administration's combined legal immigration restrictions — a significant gap in the available evidence.

Legal Challenges

The administration's actions face litigation on multiple fronts, though most legal challenges to date have focused on enforcement and asylum policy rather than legal immigration cuts specifically.

The administration cites the president's authority under INA Section 212(f), which grants broad power to suspend entry of any class of aliens deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States," and INA Section 245, which governs adjustment of status [14]. Immigration attorneys argue that USCIS is exceeding its discretion by effectively nullifying a statutory right Congress created [14].

On enforcement-related policies, three federal appeals courts have struck down the administration's policy denying bond to immigrants who crossed the border illegally, while two other circuits have upheld it — a split that is expected to reach the Supreme Court [19]. A Massachusetts district court in March 2026 vacated DHS's mass termination of humanitarian parole for CBP One appointees [19]. And a $100 annual asylum fee imposed on pending applicants is being challenged as an unlawful retroactive application in the Central District of California [19].

The green card consular processing directive, announced only days ago, has not yet been formally challenged, but immigration law firms have signaled that suits are forthcoming [14]. Given the policy's reliance on an agency memo rather than formal rulemaking, challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act are likely. Cases could be filed in multiple circuits, with the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit considered the most probable venues.

Historical Context

The closest historical parallel is the Immigration Act of 1924, which established national-origin quotas that cut annual immigration from over 800,000 to roughly 150,000 and excluded virtually all Asian immigrants. Those quotas remained in place for 41 years, until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 replaced them with the preference system that still forms the backbone of U.S. immigration law [5].

During Trump's first term, executive orders in 2017 and 2020 restricted travel from several majority-Muslim countries and temporarily suspended most immigration during the COVID-19 pandemic. Net immigration fell to 477,000 in 2020 [5]. But those measures were framed as temporary. The current approach is more structural — combining legislation, administrative reinterpretation of existing statutes, and fee increases designed to make legal immigration prohibitively expensive for many applicants.

The Reagan era, often cited as a reference point, actually expanded legal immigration. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to roughly 3 million undocumented immigrants, and the Immigration Act of 1990 raised the annual cap on legal immigration and created the diversity visa program — the same program now being dismantled.

Who Bears the Cost

The immediate human impact falls on immigrants who have built lives, careers, and families in the United States while following legal processes that are now being altered midstream. An H-1B holder who has worked in the U.S. for years, paid taxes, and waited in the green card backlog may now be told to leave the country to complete the process — with no guarantee of a timely consular appointment abroad [3][2].

The policy also affects U.S. citizens. American spouses of immigrants may see their partners forced to leave the country. Employers lose workers they have spent years sponsoring. Communities lose tax-paying residents.

Supporters of the restrictions argue that these short-term disruptions serve a long-term national interest: a labor market that favors American workers, a more selective immigration system, and reduced strain on public services [10][16]. The administration has framed its approach as a return to the original intent of immigration law — not a radical departure from it [14].

Whether that framing holds up — in the courts, in the labor market data, and in the lived experience of millions of affected families — will be the defining question of U.S. immigration policy for years to come.