As part of President Donald Trump’s illegal immigration crackdown, the federal government is seeking to expand the use of E-Verify, an online system that checks whether newly hired employees are authorized to work in the United States. Similar efforts at the state level have met with resistance from companies, which are dependent on immigration for a large supply of immigrant labor.
The program is already mandatory for many employers performing certain federal contracts valued at more than $150,000. Under proposed changes to federal grant requirements, the Trump administration would extend the use of E-Verify to all recipients and subrecipients of federal financial assistance.
The federal proposal mirrors efforts in a number of Republican-led states to introduce stricter employment verification requirements aimed at businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
However, the plans have received pushback from what has traditionally been one of the key Republican constituencies – the industry.
Business leaders in Republican states and across the country have warned that a heavy crackdown will harm the economy, while it is understood that business lobby groups are attempting to build a relationship with the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS oversees both US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers E-Verify, and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Federal E-Verify Mandate
E-Verify is intended to allow employers to electronically confirm a worker’s employment eligibility by comparing information entered by the employer with the government’s own records. It has long been mandatory for certain federal contractors and subcontractors, dating back to a 2009 rule.
However, a sweeping revision of America’s federal grants rules proposed by the Trump administration has sought to expand the use of the program significantly, effectively applying it to all recipients of federal funding. It is also anticipated that employers will face even broader scrutiny of their electronic immigration compliance records.
The move is part of the Republican president's efforts to crack down on the estimated 8 million undocumented migrants in the US workforce and follows similar initiatives in largely Republican-led states to introduce or expand legislation requiring all employers to use the E-Verify program.
As of 2024, 11 states already mandated its use for almost all employers, while several more require it for publicly funded and government-contracted businesses. At present, 13 states are advancing E-Verify legislation, with a clear trend toward making use of the program mandatory for all private employers.
Business Community Pushes Back
These efforts have met with significant resistance from employers and industry groups in several states. In Idaho, for example, an industry-backed report warned that a sharp decline in unauthorized workers resulting from deportations could cost the state economy billions of dollars, particularly in sectors such as agriculture.
At the same time, an E-Verify mandate in Kansas failed to advance following opposition from business organizations, including the Kansas Chamber and the League of Kansas Municipalities, which argued that the bill would create an “aggressive, invasive and costly system of employment verification”.
Republican lawmakers have also been divided over the issue. In Idaho, Republican state Sen. Mark Harris, a rancher, argued that states should not turn private businesses into “enforcement agencies”. By contrast, fellow Republican state Sen. Brian Lenney criticized business leaders who lobbied against a broader E-Verify mandate, accusing them of protecting a system that “keeps human beings cheap, compliant and silent”.
The divide between business interests and Republicans advocating mass deportations and stricter immigration enforcement is not confined to the state level. It is also increasingly evident in Washington, where the Trump administration is seeking to expand E-Verify nationwide.
Clash Between Industry and Immigration Enforcement
Last year, following pleas from agriculture and tourism industry groups, the Trump administration announced that it would pause raids on farms, restaurants and hotels. Both sectors are heavily dependent on illegal immigration for labor and the policy appears to remain largely intact a year later.
Although immigration arrests have ramped up over the past two months, there are signs that Trump is moving to ameliorate the concerns of industry groups at the same time.
For instance, earlier this month, Trump announced a new guest worker program for the dairy industry. His administration also delayed the termination of work permits for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Haiti and six other countries after the Supreme Court allowed it to revoke certain humanitarian protections.
Following the ruling, business groups reportedly flooded the administration with warnings that ending the work permits could trigger severe labor shortages in nursing homes and hospitals.
DHS Courts Business Groups
Meanwhile, according to The Washington Post, the DHS, under its new leader, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, is seeking to build relationships with business groups that are concerned about losing employees to Trump’s ramped-up immigration enforcement.
In July, DHS officials met with the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, which represents the US Chamber of Commerce and major trade associations that depend on immigrant labor.
It was the first such meeting reported during President Donald Trump’s second term, which has been marked by a significant uptick in immigration arrests and deportations and follows the sacking of Kristi Noem as DHS secretary.
DHS officials did not agree the meeting marked a shift in approach, saying they continued to balance the needs of industry partners with their “mission to protect the homeland”, the Post reported.
Protecting National Security
A DHS spokesperson said worksite enforcement remains a “cornerstone” of the Trump administration’s efforts to protect public safety, national security and economic stability, while “rescuing individuals who may be victims of labor trafficking and exploitation”.
The administration’s renewed engagement with business groups has also drawn criticism. Conservative commentator Brianna Lyman argued there should be no “mending” of relationships with businesses or organizations “seeking government protection for their illegal labor force”.
She called for Mullin’s removal and urged the Trump administration to hold businesses that knowingly employ illegal workers accountable .
The differing priorities of business groups and Trump’s political base suggest the administration will continue to face a difficult balancing act. Recent policy decisions suggest the administration is attempting to accommodate some of the concerns of both constituencies without abandoning its broader immigration agenda.
