Listen to this post

On October 20, 2025, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance on the Presidential Proclamation, Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, which imposed an additional $100,000 payment as a prerequisite for certain new H-1B Petitions filed on or after 12:01AM Eastern on September 21, 2025.

For more details, refer to our September 22, 2025 client alert, H-1B Visas in Flux: Understanding the H-1B Proclamation and Its Impact on Employers and Your H-1B Workforce.

Who Is Subject to the $100,000 Payment?

The guidance confirms that the Proclamation applies to:

  • New H-1B Petitions filed on or after 12:01AM Eastern on September 21, 2025 on behalf of beneficiaries who are outside of the United States and do not have a valid H-1B visa;
     
  • New H-1B Petitions filed on or after 12:01AM Eastern on September 21, 2025 that request consular notification, port of entry notification, or pre-flight inspection for a foreign national in the United States; and
     

H-1B Petitions filed on or after 12:01AM Eastern on September 21, 2025 that request an amendment, change of status, or extension of stay for a foreign national inside the United States where USCIS determines that the foreign national is ineligible for the request or if the foreign national leaves the United States prior to adjudication of a change of status.

Click here to continue reading.

Listen to this post

The diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) landscape in the United States has undergone major shifts this year, driven by new executive actions, heightened regulatory scrutiny, deepening cultural and political divisions and emerging litigation trends. For legal practitioners advising employers, the past nine months have been marked by uncertainty, risk recalibration, and strategic decision-making.

This blog will bring you up-to-date on material developments and outline key takeaways for federal contractors and private companies from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s July 29 memorandum titled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination.”

Level Set: The Executive Orders and Federal Retrenchment

In January 2025, President Trump signed a series of executive orders (EOs) aimed at unlawful DEI programs, revoking race, ethnicity and gender-based affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, and directing public and private entities to end policies that constitute “illegal DEI discrimination.”

The EOs do not change existing federal discrimination laws, such as the bedrock prohibitions on discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The EOs do not categorically ban any private employer DEI programs. Rather, the EOs direct federal agencies and deputize private citizens to root out (through investigations, enforcement actions, or False Claims Act (FCA) litigation) “illegal discrimination and preferences” and, for government agencies, to take particular actions. They reflect the policy view that many DEI policies violate federal anti-discrimination laws because these laws prohibit employment decisions based on certain demographic characteristics, while DEI may promote employment decisions on this basis. For more on the specific details of the EOs, read our blog, A Roadmap to Trump’s DEI Executive Orders for US Employers.

Catching Up: Legal Challenges to the Orders and Their Current Status

The EOs have faced multiple legal challenges, with various organizations and entities suing the Trump administration. In one of the most significant cases, a federal district court in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of three key provisions from Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 in February. Then, in March, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction, allowing the Trump administration to enforce the executive orders while litigation continues. This week, oral arguments are being heard before a panel of Fourth Circuit judges.

As of September 22, 2025, several courts have issued contradictory rulings on the constitutionality of the EOs. The Supreme Court also determined that federal courts generally lack authority to issue nationwide injunctions, in its June 27, 2025 decision in the Trump v. CASA. Accordingly, the path for the Trump administration to enforce the EOs remains open. Federal agencies’ main enforcement mechanism under the EOs is terminating federal contracts and requiring federal contractors to certify that they do not operate any DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination law.

Following the Timeline: Breaking Down the Guidance from Federal Agencies and Recent Enforcement Activity

Over the last several months, federal agencies have been taking action to combat illegal DEI practices. Several agencies have sent companies requests to certify that they are not in violation of federal anti-discrimination law, and that this is material to the government’s funding decision, per the EO’s certification requirement.

Federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have also issued requests for information to certain companies (usually based on publicly available information) expressing concerns about their DEI practices. Requests have asked for information about various DEI-related topics, including hiring and promotion processes, diversity goals, application and selection criteria for fellowship programs, and participation in diversity internship programs.

In March, the FCC Chairman stated that the agency would use its “public interest” review of mergers and acquisitions to target companies with certain DEI programs. In response, several large telecommunications and media companies with pending mergers scaled back their DEI initiatives.

Also in March, the EEOC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued published a joint one-page technical assistance document entitled “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” which provides examples of potential DEI-related discrimination under Title VII and directs employees who suspect they have experienced DEI-related discrimination to promptly notify the EEOC. Simultaneously, the EEOC also published a longer technical assistance document (“What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work”) with eleven questions and answers addressing the process for asserting a discrimination claim and the scope of protections under Title VII as they relate to DEI programs.

The joint guidance makes clear that any employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic, is unlawful discrimination, and the law does not distinguish between “reverse” discrimination against historically privileged groups and discrimination against minority or historically disadvantaged groups.[1] This guidance, while not binding, sets forth the agencies’ interpretation of the law, and as a result has influenced employer risk assessments and prompted internal reviews of hiring and promotion practices. (More here in our blog, EEOC and DOJ Issue Joint Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination.)

In April, President Trump issued Executive Order 14281 directing federal agencies like the EEOC and the DOJ to deprioritize enforcement of anti-discrimination laws using the “disparate impact” theory of legal liability. Disparate impact is legal doctrine in US anti-discrimination law that allows plaintiffs to bring discrimination claims with respect to facially neutral practices that have a disproportionately adverse effect on members of protected groups—such as racial minorities or women—even if there is no intent to discriminate. It was recently reported that the EEOC plans to close by the end of month all pending worker charges based solely on unintentional discrimination claims and issue “right to sue” notices allowing plaintiffs to pursue those claims in court. This would mark another significant enforcement shift for the agency in recent months. The EEOC has already curtailed litigating and processing claims of discrimination based on transgender status under Title VII.

In May, the DOJ launched the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which uses the FCA to target entities that misrepresent compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws to receive federal funds. The FCA’s qui tam mechanism allows private citizens (relators) to sue on behalf of the federal government and share in any recovery. The DOJ has encouraged whistleblowers to come forward, and in recent weeks the DOJ has issued civil investigative demands (CIDs) to federal contractors and grantees seeking documents and information related to their DEI practices.

Most recently, on July 29, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum to federal agencies entitled “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination” (DOJ Memo). The memo signals a substantial shift in how the DOJ intends to interpret and enforce federal anti-discrimination laws—particularly in relation to DEI initiatives. The memo itself does not have the force of law, instead it reflects how the DOJ interprets and intends to apply federal anti-discrimination law. While the memo is directed at educational institutions and private entities receiving federal funding, its examples of unlawful discrimination are relevant to all employers.

Continue Reading An Employer’s Back-to-School Guide on Recent Developments in Workplace DEI
Listen to this post

On Friday, September 19, President Trump issued a proclamation announcing the Gold Card program to facilitate the entry of people who have demonstrated their ability and desire to advance the interests of the United States by voluntarily providing a significant financial gift to the United States (The Gold Card – The White House). The proclamation instructs the Secretary of Commerce to implement the program in 90 days.

Key highlights announced as part of the program include:

  • The requisite gift amount for an individual donating on his or her own behalf is $1 million, whereas the gift amount for a corporation or similar entity donating on behalf of an individual is $2 million.
  • It appears that the gift would establish eligibility for an immigrant petition or visa on the basis of exceptional ability (EB-1A) and national interest (EB-2).
  • The Commerce Secretary will establish a process for application, payment, and adjudication of gold card petitions. This will include “visa” issuance and ultimately adjustment of status to permanent residence. The timeline on when these details will be shared has not been announced.
  • Gold card recipients will be subject to normal public safety and national security screening.
  • The proclamation itself does not make any reference to preferential or unique tax status for gold card recipients, though the Gold Card website provides additional information regarding a “platinum” option that would provide tax benefits.

Separately, the Trump Administration’s website explains that there are two types of gold cards: (i) the $1M or $2M gold card which provides “residency’; and (ii) a $5M platinum card that provides residency and the ability to spend up to 270 days in the United States without being subject to U.S. taxes on non-U.S. income.

The website also notes than an employer can “transfer” access from one employee and grant it to another with the cost of a transfer fee, in addition to a “small” annual maintenance fee. This additional information is not included in the proclamation, and it is therefore unclear whether this aspect will ultimately be incorporated as part of the program.

The short and long term impacts of the Gold Card Program are uncertain. The proclamation will likely face legal challenges, as the program ostensibly creates another green card category outside of the legislative process. As of now, the Administration has provided information and guidance to those seeking to apply on the Trump Card website available at trumpcard.gov/.
 
Baker McKenzie’s Global Immigration & Mobility team will provide additional information regarding the gold card as it is released.  

Listen to this post

On Friday, September 19, President Trump issued a proclamation imposing a new $100,000 fee on certain H-1B employers and beneficiaries. See Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers – The White House. The proclamation became effective 12:01 a.m. EDT Sunday, September 21, 2025 and expires after twelve months but may be extended.
 
When first released, the proclamation’s broad wording implied that it could potentially impact the travel and reentry of all existing H-1B visa holders, rather than only first-time H-1B beneficiaries. This led to widespread concern and a rush for H-1B visa holders to return to the United States. On Saturday evening, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a memorandum limiting the impact of the proclamation. Additionally, on Sunday, September 20, the White House published an H-1B FAQ confirming that the $100,000 fee applies to H-1B Petitions submitted for the 2026 lottery and any other new H-1B Petitions filed after the effective date. Due to conflicting language in guidance issued since the original proclamation, questions remain regarding which “new” H-1B Petitions are impacted.
 
The wide media coverage of and speculation about the new fee and related travel restrictions have heightened the already high anxiety among foreign national employees on H-1B visas and led to uncertainty for employers guiding their H-1B workers on the proclamation’s impact.

While key details have yet to be announced and legal challenges could delay implementation, here is what we know so far:

The Proclamation

  • Only applies prospectively to H-1B petitions that have not yet been filed. It does not apply to beneficiaries of petitions filed prior to the effective date to the proclamation, beneficiaries of currently approved petitions, or beneficiaries in possession of validly issued H-1B non-immigrant visas.
  • Impacted H-1B beneficiaries are restricted from entry to the United States unless they have paid the $100,000 fee.
  • Prohibits adjudication of “new” H-1B Petitions without proof of payment of the $100,000 fee for H-1B.
  • Directs the Secretary of State to issue guidance to prevent the misuse of B visas by H-1B beneficiaries with employment start dates prior to October 1, 2026.
  • Provides a national interest exception to the $100,000 fee for those workers, companies, or industries for which the Secretary of Homeland Security determines the H-1B workers’ employment is in the national interest and does not pose a security threat.
  • Requires employers to obtain proof of payment of the $100,000 fee before filing an H-1B Petition for a worker outside the United States as a condition of approval.
  • Requires that within 30 days of the next H-1B lottery in March of 2026 the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Secretary shall jointly submit a recommendation on whether an extension of the restriction on reentry is in the best interest of the United States.
  • Directs the Secretary of Labor to initiate rulemaking to revise prevailing wage levels.
  • Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize admission of high-skilled and high paid foreign nationals.

Click here to read more, including our FAQs and how employers can prepare employees.

Baker McKenzie’s Global Immigration & Mobility team will provide further developments as they become available. 

Listen to this post

The Employment Rights Bill is close to being finalized. This article is an updated version of our August article, reflecting the most recent developments. In short, and as predicted, the House of Commons has rejected non-government amendments that the House of Lords made to the Bill in July, thereby restoring the government’s stated policy intentions.

As well as the Bill’s formal completion, we are expecting imminent consultations on: trade union balloting, rights of access and recognition/derecognition; fire and rehire; day-one rights against unfair dismissal (including rules on statutory probationary periods); guaranteed hours offers and shift notices; rights for pregnant workers; and bereavement leave.

This article summarises the Bill’s key provisions and timelines, as well as what organisations could or should be doing now to prepare.

To read the full article, click here.

Listen to this post

We are pleased to share with you The Global Employer – Global Immigration & Mobility Quarterly Update, a collection of key updates from Colombia, Italy, Philippines, Singapore, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Vietnam.

Click here to view.

Listen to this post

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has withdrawn its notices of appeal in cases before the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits that involved challenges to its proposed rule to ban most employee non-compete agreements. That FTC rule, issued under former FTC Chair Lina Khan in April 2024, was struck down by federal district courts in Texas and Florida before ever taking effect. Withdrawing its appeals leaves those adverse district court decisions in force and returns US antitrust scrutiny of employee non-compete agreements to the pre-existing case-by-case review.

Notably, on the very same day that it withdrew its appeals, the FTC filed a complaint challenging a large US employer’s restrictive non-compete agreements with nearly 1,800 employees. Those non-compete agreements allegedly prohibited the employees from working in the same industry nationwide for one year after they left the company’s employ. Under the proposed consent order, the company must cease enforcing its existing employee non-compete agreements, notify employees they are no longer bound by the agreement, and avoid imposing such restrictions in the future, with narrow exceptions. The FTC leadership stressed that the action illustrates the agency’s ongoing focus on anticompetitive labor practices.

Separately, on the previous day, the FTC announced a new public inquiry into the prevalence and effects of employee non-compete agreements.

Takeaway

The FTC’s new public inquiry into employee non-compete agreements and its announced challenge indicate that the withdrawal of its appeals does not mean that the FTC is abandoning scrutiny of employee non-compete agreements. Companies should continue to monitor enforcement of terms in their existing employee non-compete agreements and carefully consider the scope of any new restrictions they intend to impose. Labor issues remain an enforcement priority for the FTC—meaning the scope and parameters of employee non-compete agreements remain an important part of any antitrust compliance reviews.

To read the full article, click here.

Listen to this post

In 2025, multinational giants across industries are redefining the scale and scope of global workforce reductions—with some cutting tens of thousands of jobs at a time in particular divisions, shuttering certain factories worldwide, moving to different countries, or otherwise undertaking large-scale restructuring—and this trend is likely to press on. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s Chief People Officers Outlook – September 2025 shows 42% expect continued turbulence in the year ahead. These sweeping moves, driven by AI disruption, economic recalibration, and strategic realignment, underscore the urgent need for legally sound, jurisdiction-sensitive approaches to reductions in force.  

Headcount reductions can be achieved using a variety of different mechanisms ranging from performance-based terminations, redundancy-based layoffs, location-based closures or other indirect strategies like attrition management, voluntary separation programs, and early retirement incentives. No matter the approach or structure for implementing a global reduction in headcount, executing a major business change while mitigating legal exposure requires a nuanced understanding of local employment laws, cultural expectations, justification requirements, local regulations impacting the treatment of equity awards, as well as potential immigration and visa implications. Missteps during the planning or execution stage can trigger material employment claims, unexpected and substantial financial and operational costs, regulatory fines, operational disruption and reputational damage.

Fortunately, there are tried and true methods to avoid most unintended effects and unwanted outcomes. Here we provide 10 practical planning tips for building your strategy when the company seeks to reduce its headcount through a global reduction in force (RIF).

The Economic Backdrop: A Mixed Outlook

Even with the uptick in layoffs, the global economy in 2025 is showing signs of resilience, with the International Monetary Fund projecting 3.0% growth this year and 3.1% in 2026. However, this modest optimism is tempered by persistent inflation, geopolitical tensions, and a surge in protectionist trade policies. According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, slower growth is expected to displace 1.6 million jobs globally by 2030, with automation and digital transformation accelerating the shift.

In this climate, in-house legal counsel must be proactive in managing employment risks associated with cost-cutting, restructuring, and reductions in force.

Strategic Planning Tips for Your Global RIF Playbook

1. Level-set with key business stakeholders—communicate the jurisdictional complexity of a RIF involving multiple jurisdictions.

Employment protections vary widely around the world. While at-will employment in the United States allows for relatively straightforward terminations (barring union involvement or statutory notice requirements), most jurisdictions around the world (including the majority of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and Japan) provide mandatory protections against dismissal, which often include articulating a legally justified reason for the RIF as well as taking additional procedural steps before employees are impacted. When constructing plans for a global RIF, it’s helpful to be clear with business leaders who are not employment counsel that it’s essential to build alternate timelines and costs based on jurisdiction-specific requirements.

Along these lines, engaging with local counsel early to navigate procedural nuances is key. This helps mitigate the risk of unforeseen complications, such as delays due to mandatory consultation periods, unexpected severance obligations, or exposure to legal claims arising from non-compliance with jurisdiction-specific requirements. Timescales and costs for RIFs are likely to increase as a result of legislative changes in 2026, underscoring the importance of checking local requirements early on.

2. Pressure-test the business justification for the RIF.

The starting point for analyzing reductions-in-force is understanding the legal threshold for a justified reduction (e.g., in Japan, there must be a strong economic justification for redundancies). Only very few international jurisdictions (e.g., Singapore and Switzerland) do not require employers to show specific grounds or justification for termination.

Continue Reading Cutting Costs Without Cutting Corners: 10 Practical Tips for Managing Legal Risk in Global Reductions in Force
Listen to this post

CPPA Adopts Expanded Regulations

Please join us for our next virtual session to discuss the newly adopted CCPA regulations—on September 30 from 12 to 1pm Pacific. In this session, our interdisciplinary team will discuss what the new regulations cover and what companies can do now to comply.

Click here to register.

CLE will be offered.

Listen to this post

The employment landscape across Latin America is undergoing significant transformation as we approach the end of 2025 and prepare for 2026. Key legislative proposals are reshaping workplace standards across the region. For example:

  • Brazil, Chile, and Mexico have introduced stronger laws around equal pay, workplace harassment, and gender-focused labor inspections;
  • Mexico and Chile are formalizing teleworking rights and obligations, reflecting broader digital shifts in the workplace; and
  • Many Latin America countries are expanding statutory employment protections, including enhanced leave entitlements and new health and safety requirements.

Join our Latin America Employment team on September 4th for a complimentary webinar designed to equip employers with the insights needed to navigate evolving labor landscapes as they manage or expand operations across the region.

Register now to secure your spot and stay ahead of the curve and for more information on the latest developments for employers across the Americas, see our recent recap here.

*Trench Rossi Watanabe and Baker McKenzie have executed a strategic cooperation agreement for consulting on foreign law.