The Trump administration unveiled significant changes this week that will compel most individuals applying for green cards in the United States to leave the country and submit their applications through consulates overseas.
This policy adds considerable complexity to the journey of the hundreds of thousands who seek permanent residency in the U.S. annually and has ignited criticism from immigration advocates.
In a memo dated May 21, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) indicated that green cards will typically only be granted in the U.S. under “special circumstances,” mandating immigration officials to evaluate cases individually.
Daniel Kunstroom, a professor at Boston University School of Law as well as the founder of its Immigration and Asylum Clinic, noted in an interview that the primary aim of this memo appears to be decreasing the number of approved green cards.
He asserted that the administration is positioning itself to make it increasingly difficult for individuals to secure permanent residency, particularly focusing on those with the strongest claims, such as spouses and family members of U.S. citizens or lawful residents.
How authorities will delineate who is eligible to apply for a green card domestically versus those who must do so abroad remains unspecified. However, this new directive is expected to impact over 500,000 individuals annually who apply for green cards while in the U.S. on temporary visas.
Traditionally, individuals seeking permanent U.S. residency can choose between two paths: applying for an immigrant visa at a U.S. consulate abroad or petitioning for a green card while already in the U.S., usually under a temporary visa. Immigration experts warn that many applicants may face deportation for extended periods, even if anchored in the country by jobs, families, and established lives.
Zach Kahler, a USCIS spokesman, defended the policy by arguing that it aligns the immigration system with its intended design, minimizing the need for interventions in cases where individuals who have been denied residency opt to remain illegally in the U.S.
While Kahler characterizes the adjustment procedure as a loophole, it’s essential to note that Congress has permitted the adjustment of immigration status under Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Specific work visas, like the H-1B, explicitly facilitate “dual purpose,” allowing workers to pursue green cards without risking their current status.
This change will affect half of green card applicants
According to the Migration Policy Institute, of the 783,000 individuals who acquired green cards in the U.S. from October 2023 to September 2024, 53% were U.S. citizens or the immediate family of green card holders. Meanwhile, 28% transitioned from refugee or asylum status, and 15% secured their green cards through employment categories.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, pointed out that nearly half of all green cards are granted to individuals who apply for “adjustment of status” within the U.S., emphasizing the challenges posed by the new policy.
Reichlin-Melnick expressed concern that this policy could forcibly separate individuals from their jobs, homes, and families for extensive durations, greatly amplifying existing backlogs in green card applications and rendering consular decisions “virtually unchallenged.”
Kunstroom asserted that this lack of overseas options suggests that many attorneys will advise their clients to pursue adjustment of status domestically rather than risking international applications.
He stated that the administration’s message seems to be, “If you have any doubts, leave the consulate and take your chances,” but lawyers can be expected to advise against such risks, as it could leave clients in a precarious position for prolonged periods.
David Beer, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, described the changes as an extension of the Trump administration’s subtle approach to legal immigration, highlighting that the Department of Homeland Security had previously halved the rate of green card approvals.
Beer further elaborated that this decline is primarily attributable to halted application processing. He reported that USCIS has transitioned from merely “quietly quitting” to actively denying 1.2 million green card applications.
The memo instructs immigration officials to “consider all relevant factors and information on a case-by-case basis” for those seeking unusual relief for domestic applications, yet skilled workers in the U.S. on employment-based visas may be particularly vulnerable.
Entrepreneurs and business leaders have voiced concerns that this policy could obstruct the careers of their employees and hinder their ability to recruit new skilled talent.
Andrew Ng, co-founder of Coursera, criticized the policy as a detrimental assault on legal immigration, asserting that it would harm families and diminish America’s prowess in technology and science.
Michael Clemens, an economist and professor at Johns Hopkins University, lamented that the new policy may lead highly skilled Indian workers seeking EB-2/3 visas to endure multi-year waits for consular processing. He warned that many may abandon their applications entirely, resulting in a permanent loss of talent for the U.S.
In the aftermath of this policy announcement, USCIS spokesperson Kahler reassured that those submitting applications demonstrating economic benefit or national interest are likely to maintain their current trajectory, while others might still need to apply through overseas consulates depending on individual circumstances.
Kunstroom speculated that the government’s intent might be to limit the number of non-citizens obtaining employment-based green cards to preserve job opportunities for U.S. citizens. However, he noted that this approach is rather convoluted.
How will spousal and family visas be affected?
Adjusting status is the most common path for spouses and family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents currently living in the U.S., including individuals on K-1 visas for fiancés and fiancées of U.S. citizens.
World Relief, a humanitarian organization offering immigration legal services in the U.S., condemned the policy, calling it “anti-family” and asserting that it forces husbands away from their wives and children apart during an extensive consular process that can span months or even years.
Mial Green, President and CEO of World Relief, expressed hope that this “cruel and anti-family policy change” will be reversed through administrative review, congressional actions, or litigation.
Families from nations previously affected by travel bans under the Trump administration may also find it increasingly challenging to return to the United States.
According to Reichlin-Melnick, if these families leave, they might face decades before they can return.
This situation is particularly dire for nationals from the 39 countries that currently face restrictions on entering the United States, which were expanded under the travel bans initiated in December 2025.
Notably, USCIS previously announced plans to review the status of lawful permanent residents and green card holders from 19 restricted countries during June 2025 and noted significant cutbacks in visa processing for individuals from 75 nations.
Students may also experience consequences
USCIS indicated that nonimmigrant residents, including students, are in the U.S. for specific purposes and must leave immediately when their status changes.
Bier from the Cato Institute argued that this policy overlooks the complexities of real life.
He remarked that individuals come to the U.S. as students, receive job offers, or form relationships, all while being compelled to leave their current situations due to policy changes.
Kunstroom noted that students who have overstayed their visas will face the most significant repercussions as they could encounter multi-year bans from re-entering the U.S. once they depart.
