Fact check: What are the current US immigration laws and regulations?

1. Why enforcement is headline news — a pulled surge and lingering clampdown

Multiple accounts report a pattern of stepped‑up enforcement actions announced in 2025, followed by tactical adjustments such as a called‑off enforcement surge in San Francisco, signaling both aggressive intent and selective implementation from the executive branch. News summaries state the administration increased enforcement activity and rolled out measures intended to restrict access to immigration benefits, yet operational decisions sometimes reversed or paused specific actions ^{[1] [6]}. This contrast indicates a policy approach marked by administrative determinations on where to deploy resources and political calculations shaping execution timelines, not simply a uniform, uninterrupted crackdown.

2. Legal flashpoints: the $100,000 H‑1B fee lawsuit and corporate pushback

A prominent, actionable dispute revolves around a newly announced $100,000 H‑1B fee that the US Chamber of Commerce has sued to block, arguing the charge is unlawful and would price employers out of hiring skilled foreign workers ^[3]. Coverage from legal observers and business groups frames the fee as a potentially transformative hurdle for employers and a catalyst for litigation, which may delay or alter the administration’s stated objectives. The lawsuit underscores how administrative rule changes can meet immediate judicial resistance, turning policy aims into protracted court fights.

3. Administrative rulemaking and programmatic changes across agencies

Analyses emphasize that several administrative agencies — notably USCIS and the Department of Labor — have implemented or signaled changes to vetting, eligibility, and enforcement protocols, including greater scrutiny of applicants’ social media and political views and a DOL initiative dubbed “Project Firewall” to strengthen H‑1B compliance ^{[2] [7]}. These agency‑level actions represent a multi‑front strategy combining adjudicative, investigative, and fee‑based tools to influence legal immigration flows without requiring new statutes. The resulting mosaic of policy shifts increases adjudication complexity and potential processing delays for employers and applicants.

4. Congressional activity: bipartisan bills and narrow reform windows

Legislative sources note simultaneous, sometimes conflicting, congressional efforts: a Senate‑passed bipartisan bill promising pathways for some undocumented immigrants and high‑skilled worker accommodations contrasts with House bills like H.R.4393 and bipartisan proposals from Senators Grassley and Durbin targeting H‑1B and L‑1 program reforms ^{[4] [8] [5]}. These initiatives reflect a divided Congress where reform momentum exists but faces competing priorities and procedural hurdles, meaning statutory change remains possible but uncertain. The divergence between executive administrative action and congressional proposals signals a likely prolonged policy tug‑of‑war.

5. Practical impacts on visas, green cards, and processing timelines

The reporting notes tangible program impacts: the Visa Bulletin shows minor family‑based shifts and stable employment‑based categories, while EB‑1A approval rates have fallen to 67 percent, marking a recent low; USCIS guidance during a federal shutdown advised continued processing but warned of delays ^{[3] [7]}. These operational measures and statistics reflect real consequences for applicants — slower adjudications, altered approval rates, and calendar unpredictability — driven by both administrative policy and external disruptions like funding lapses.

6. Differing narratives and possible agendas in coverage

Sources frame the developments through distinct lenses: media and advocacy outlets emphasize a sweeping crackdown and expanded vetting ^[2], business groups and legal analysts stress economic harms from fee hikes ^[3], and some political proponents present bipartisan reform as a constructive compromise ^[4]. Each actor has evident stakes: administration narratives highlight enforcement and control, industry warns of talent loss, and lawmakers pursue both security and labor market objectives. Recognizing these agendas clarifies why coverage varies and why factual claims are emphasized differently.

7. Where facts converge and what remains unsettled

Across the analyses, facts that converge include active administrative changes in 2025, litigation over significant H‑1B fee increases, agency initiatives to tighten compliance and vetting, and simultaneous congressional reform efforts with uncertain outcomes ^{[1] [3] [2] [5]}. What remains unsettled are the long‑term legal outcomes of lawsuits, Congress’s ability to enact comprehensive statutes, and how operational pauses or enforcement reversals will be implemented locally. Expect continued legal challenges, agency rulemaking, and congressional maneuvering to define immigration policy in the near term ^{[7] [8]}.