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.

Listen to this post

Driven by strategic, economic, and geopolitical factors, multinational companies are increasingly viewing expansion opportunities in the Middle East.

As one of the world’s most open and rapidly expanding economies, the region is a vital hub for global business, trade, and finance. Diversifying beyond oil and gas exports, the Middle East is now thriving across sectors such as construction and infrastructure, tourism, financial services, and technology.

While the region presents opportunities for growth, entering the market requires a nuanced understanding of its complex legal and regulatory frameworks. Companies new to the region must make critical decisions early on—such as selecting the optimal corporate structure, choosing between onshore and offshore entities, and evaluating the benefits and limitations of operating in one of the many free zones.

A solid understanding of things like the corporate tax frameworks, the factors at play when determining how to structure local presence, physical presence obligations, local national hiring requirements, workweek norms, local laws and regulations related to employee equity and benefit plans, and more will help companies to succeed in the Middle East. 

Join us for a webinar on September 9th as Baker McKenzie lawyers from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates provide practical tips from a corporate, tax, employment, and compensation perspective to navigate the evolving legal and business landscape in the Middle East.

Topics will include:

  • Corporate considerations: best practices and key points for establishing an entity in the region.
  • The corporate tax landscape: pointers for understanding the tax and regulatory environment to develop a strategy for long-term tax efficiency.
  • Engaging talent: engagement options for hiring local talent, as well as significant recent developments in local labor and employment regulations.
  • Compensation matters: tax, compliance and regulatory issues related to structuring incentive compensation programs for employees.

DATE:
September 9, 2025

TIME:
9 – 10 am PST
11 am – 12 pm CST
12 – 1 pm EST
3 – 4 pm BST
For all other time zones, click here.

Click here to register.

CONTINUING EDUCATION*: 
Approved for 1.0 general CLE credit in California and Illinois, and 1.0 credit in the Areas of Professional Practice category in New York for live attendees.
Participants seeking credit in other jurisdictions will receive a uniform certificate of attendance.


Listen to this post

On July 31, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group, published Exposure Drafts of the amended set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (Draft Revised ESRS), and launched a public consultation seeking further feedback from stakeholders by September 29, 2025. The revision of the ESRS is one of the key simplification goals of the Omnibus proposal. EFRAG’s efforts revolved around the following levers:

  1. Simplification and streamlining of the Double Materiality Assessment (DMA).
  2. Enhanced readability/conciseness of the sustainability statements and better integration with corporate reporting as a whole.
  3. Modification of the relationship between minimum disclosure requirements (MDRs) and topical standards, resulting in a substantial reduction of datapoints (mainly in topical standards).
  4. Improved understandability, clarity and accessibility of the ESRS.
  5. Introduction of other suggested burden-reduction reliefs.
  6. Enhanced interoperability with other disclosure standards.

EFRAG explained that the simplification levers above were a result of careful consideration of stakeholder feedback, but it also noted that some of the stakeholder suggestions would go beyond EFRAG’s mandate, hence have not been addressed in the Exposure Draft.

Following the consultation, EFRAG must deliver the final technical advice on the revised ESRS to the EU Commission by November 30, 2025.

Recommendation on voluntary sustainability reporting standards for non-listed small and medium sized companies

On July 30, 2025, the EU Commission adopted a recommendation for non-listed SMEs and micro-companies that wish to voluntarily report sustainability information to do so in accordance with voluntary sustainability reporting standards for small and medium-sized companies (VSME) developed by EFRAG. In parallel, the EU Commission called on companies subject to CSRD to limit any information requests to SMEs in their value chains to information set out in the VSME.

Continue Reading European Sustainability Reporting Standards: Summer Update